Society Is Rotting w/ Kyla Scanlon

Summary

In Good Faith With Philip DeFranco

“Society Is Rotting” w/ Kyla Scanlon

Date: December 16, 2025
Guest: Kyla Scanlon (NYT bestselling author, financial educator, content creator)

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Philip DeFranco sits down with Kyla Scanlon to unpack why American society—and the economy—feels increasingly fraught with greed, corruption, and a sense that “the casino” has overtaken both markets and public life. Kyla breaks down the latest dramatic Federal Reserve decisions, the pervasive reach of gambling and speculation, the fragile hopes pinned on AI, and why sentiment among Americans—especially youth—is so bleak. The two discuss how policy, technology, and culture are failing ordinary people, but also consider where hope might be found.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Federal Reserve, Rate Cuts, and Political Drama

[00:33–07:43]

• Fed Cuts Rates: The Fed recently cut interest rates amid a weakening labor market and rising inflation. The decision was split, with dissenting voices revealing internal turmoil.

  • Kyla: “You’re just seeing more and more turmoil start to bowl up in the Fed.” [01:33]

• Trump’s Influence: Trump appointees are favoring aggressive rate cuts, reflecting his business background and desire to keep money cheap and flowing.

• Signal vs. Substance: The real significance of a 25 basis point cut is its signal to the markets and businesses rather than any immediate day-to-day effect for ordinary people.

• Fed Independence at Risk: Trump’s potential to appoint a more loyalist Fed Chair in 2026 threatens the Fed’s tradition of independence.

  • Kyla: “Trump is going to select a Fed chair who does not subscribe potentially to that mentality of independence.” [06:02]

2. Are We Heading for a Recession or Stagflation?

[07:43–09:01]

• Fear Narratives: Online alarmism about a recession is common after a rate cut, but Kyla says stagflation—low growth plus high inflation plus weak labor market—is the bigger risk.
  • Kyla: “I think it’s stagflation, which is a stagnant economy ... and high inflation in a labor market that’s pretty tough.” [08:34]

3. America as Casino – The Rise of Speculation

[09:01–11:05, 23:35–27:56]

• Casino Metaphor: Gambling and speculation have permeated the American economy deeper than ever because technology puts them “in your pocket.”

  • Kyla: “The problem now is that it’s in your pocket, so your phone... it’s probably going to increase your rate of becoming a problem gambler because it’s so close to you.” [09:32]

• Prediction Markets & Meme Stocks: From crypto meme coins to prediction markets, risk and betting have gone mainstream, reflecting a culture-wide shift.

• Speculation in Policy: Even policy decisions, especially around AI and tariffs, have become high-stakes gambles.

• Loss of Shared Norms: The rise in gambling is symptomatic of a broader breakdown in collective trust and norms.

  • Kyla: “If you don’t believe in the economy, you might as well gamble.” [23:45]

4. AI: Bubble or Real Transformation—or Both?

[11:05–16:44]

• Dilemmas of AI: The economy’s growth is increasingly pegged to AI, but Kyla is skeptical whether the infrastructure (especially energy) can support those ambitions. China is outpacing the US in both openness and price competitiveness.
  • Kyla: “The problem with expanding AI...is not better models, it’s energy.” [12:43]
• Job Market Fears: Even optimistic AI projections suggest many older and less adaptable workers are left behind.
• Culture and Creativity: Kyla laments AI’s incursion into arts and culture, arguing it should be used to improve science instead.

5. Disillusionment, Division, and Polarization

[22:27–24:47]

• Polarized Youth: Young people are especially divided and cynical, with barely 13% believing the economy is headed in the right direction.
• Breakdown in Trust: Disconnection is reflected both in politics and in day-to-day economic behavior.

6. Prediction Markets—Incentives for Bad Behavior

[24:47–29:26]

• Dangerous Incentives: Philip outlines how betting markets can incentivize manipulation, fraud, and even violence (the “assassination market” phenomenon).
• Ethics and Regulation: Lax regulation has created a situation where power and connections allow for bending or breaking the rules.
  • Philip: “There’s no rules. There’s no rules as long as you have enough power or you have enough support.” [28:25]
• Policy Solutions Exist, But Are Blocked: The US knows how to fix things like housing, healthcare, and education, but political polarization stops progress.

7. Is There Hope? What Can People Do?

[46:47–53:10]

• Grounding in Real Life: Kyla remains hopeful because, in her travels, she finds “everybody I meet is very, very nice, and...working on really, really hard problems” [47:28].
• Invest in Skills & Markets (If You Can): Practical advice includes developing versatile skills and, if possible, participating in long-term stock market investment—not as gambling, but as a wealth-building tool.
  • Kyla: “Invest in markets and in yourself, which sounds really cliche, but...that’s kind of the conclusion I’ve come to studying this stuff.” [52:57]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Gambling Mindset:
  Kyla: “If you don’t believe in the economy, you might as well gamble. ... There’s no sense of shared responsibility. So you might start gambling. Why not?” [23:45]

• On AI as Energy Race:
  Kyla: “AI is ultimately an energy race. And the US decided that the sun was DEI or woke or whatever and has rolled back a lot of renewable energy projects...” [12:43]

• On Corruption & Rule-Breaking:
  Philip: “It makes you realize, yeah, we are living in this time where maybe it’s always been the case. And I think it adds to the being disillusioned and there’s no rules. There’s no rules as long as you have enough power or you have enough support.” [28:25]

• On Why She Wrote Her Book:
  Kyla: “We don’t know how to talk about the economy to each other. ... It really matters for the everyday person and we send them out into the world without any real knowledge of how any of this works.” [48:09]

• On Hope:
  Kyla: “I really believe in human...like, I really believe in people. ... Everybody I meet is very, very nice, and everybody I meet is working on really, really hard problems.” [47:10]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Fed Rate Cut & Political Drama: 00:33–07:43
• Recession vs. Stagflation: 07:43–09:01
• Casino Economy & Gambling Spread: 09:01–11:05, 23:35–27:56
• AI Bubble vs. Real Transformation: 11:05–16:44
• Job Market & Technology Shifts: 15:35–16:44
• Prediction Markets & Corruption: 24:47–29:26, 41:35–43:58
• What Gives Kyla Hope: 46:47–48:01
• Advice to the Ordinary Person: 51:43–53:10

---

Tone & Style

Deliberately frank and unsparing, occasionally sardonic but always anchored by Kyla’s gift for demystifying economic complexity. Both host and guest tackle tough, often bleak realities—sometimes with dark humor—but never lose sight of the urgent need for understanding, empathy, and engagement.

---

Key Takeaways

• The US economy and society are more speculative, more divided, and more vulnerable to corruption than ever.
• Meaningful policy and regulatory fixes exist but require overcoming intense polarization and disillusionment.
• Hope resides in local communities, continued civic engagement, and the enduring desire of ordinary people to make things better, even as the system frays.
• Ordinary people can prepare, even in uncertain times, by investing in their own skills and in long-run, nondestructive market participation—if they have the means.

---

For listeners and readers, this episode cuts through the noise and anxiety surrounding markets and politics—making sense of our moment while offering both real warnings and a measure of hope.

Transcript

[A]

Hey, welcome back to the In Good Faith podcast. My name is Philip DeFranco and every week I'm trying to talk to the people that I think are the most important, influential people in the world. And this week I spoke to Kyla Scanlan. And Kyla, she's a New York Times.

[B]

Bestselling author for her book, in this.

[A]

Economy How Money and Markets Really Work.

[B]

She's also a content creator herself and.

[A]

Is known for her quick recaps of.

[B]

What'S going on in the market and.

[A]

For being the only person in all of human history to willingly play Jerome Powell in a skit. And today we talked about, you know.

[B]

Fun and light topics like the corruption.

[A]

Of American society, how gambling has taken over America, and how the economy has really just been turned into a casino. So, Kyle, can you tell me what.

[B]

Are the key takeaways from this most recent Fed meeting?

[C]

Well, I think the most important thing to know is that the Fed did cut rates. And so right now we're in an economy where the labor market is weakening, right? So it's pretty tough to get a job right now and inflation is going up. And so the Fed has a dual mandate of price stability and maximum employment. So they want to make sure that inflation doesn't go up too much and that anybody who wants a job can get a job. But those two things are moving and opposite directions. And so if you're trying to make a decision on the economy, you kind of have to favor one. And so the Federal Reserve is looking at the labor market and saying, okay, we need to provide some support there, loosen up the economy a little bit, make it easier to get a loan, loosen up money, loosen up financial conditions. So we're going to cut rates. But it was a very divided Fed. And so Steve Maran, who is Trump's appointee to the Fed, voted to cut rates by 50 basis points, meaning that he wants the economy to be even looser, to have even more free flowing money. And then two other members of the Fed voted to not cut rates because they were more worried about the inflation side of the mandate. So you're just seeing like more and more turmoil start to bowl up in the Fed. And for Donald Trump, like he wants the Fed to really cut rates. You know, he's a real estate guy. He wants money to be really easy. And so, yeah, the Fed is in a very, very tough spot. And I think that everybody's big takeaway from yesterday.

[B]

Well, I guess that's the question is they do expect the economy to grow next year. Is that along like decent rates. Is it less than we'd like or like, where's that at?

[C]

Yeah, I think so. They have this thing called the summary of economic projections. And that's where they say what they expect the economy to do over the next couple of years and then into the long term, into infinity. And so they think that the economy is going to grow over 2% next year, which is pretty good. And they noted that a lot of that growth is going to come from productivity gains, meaning likely advances in technology, AI So the labor market likely will continue to weaken, but in their eyes, I think technology will be the productive aspect that allows the economy to continue to grow.

[B]

And for a cut of, for like the layman out there, a cut of 25 basis points versus 50 basis points, how meaningful is that? I think for like the everyday person or for a company?

[C]

Yeah, so the fed moves in 25 basis points increments, so it's 0.25%. And so for them, like that's kind of the standard move or you know, not cutting. So they raise or lower rates depending on what's happening with the economy. So if the economy is needing a bit more support, if they feel like rates are too restrictive, if they feel like the labor market is weakening, inflation is in a good spot, they'll cut rates. Right. If they feel like we have a lot of inflation, the labor market is strong, like the economy needs to pull it in a little bit, they'll raise rates. And so this 25 basis point move is pretty standard for the Fed. I think the cutting aspect is what some people are like, maybe they shouldn't have cut. I don't think anybody other than the Trump administration was rooting for 50 basis points. So for the average day person, like this is more of a signal than anything. Like it'll make it, it'll make mortgages a little bit cheaper. You know, the rates on mortgages will go down a little bit. It'll make getting a loan a little bit cheaper. But it doesn't really impact the day to day that much because it is such a small amount. It's more the signaling. Right. So like this is what the Monetary Policy Unit, the Federal Reserve thinks is what's happening to the economy. So a lot of businesses will bas their decisions off of that. It's like, okay, so the Fed is gonna start making things a little bit easier. Like maybe I should think about hiring people. Like, okay, so money is going to be a little bit easier to get. Like there's a bit more support to the economy. Versus if the Fed is raising rates. Like, that's like, okay, I'm gonna pull back a little bit. I'm not gonna maybe invest in a big project or take out a loan for a big project. So it's kind of more the signaling of the direction of the economy that matters with these types of meetings.

[B]

And what we saw with this meeting. I know you made a video and you said, like, there is drama. We, we looked at the dissenting votes. Did you see that as anything? Is it something more than potentially jockeying for Powell's position once he's out? Is there, is there, is there something else going on there?

[C]

Oh, so the. So, yeah, we get another fed chair in 2026. Trump. The president appoints the Fed chair. So Trump will be appointing the next Fed chair. Jerome Powell likely be stepping down, and there's already some front runners for that. So Waller, who is a member of the Fed, is a likely candidate, as well as Hassett, who is the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Trump. This seems to be Trump's number one pick is Kevin Hassett, because, you know, he'll be kind of a man who makes the decisions that Trump wants. That's a bit tricky. Like, the Federal Reserve is independent. So in 1913, they were established underneath this independent gu. They report to Congress and they say, hey, Congress, like, this is what we're seeing in the economy and the decisions that we're making. So they're still involved in the government, but they're meant to be independent. Because if you think about it, you don't want any president setting raise because that president will make a decision about what will be best for that president's administration, which is always going to be rates at like 0%. So that's kind of the situation with the Fed chair is that Trump is going to select a Fed chair and he is going to select a Fed chair who does not subscribe potentially to that mentality of independence. And the drama that showed up yesterday was a sign that even if you do select a Fed chair who doesn't subscribe to independence, the other members, other members of the fomc, the Federal Open Market Committee that votes on these interest rates decisions, will maintain their independence. But Trump has also said that Biden nominated some bad people to the Fed. Some of these Fed presidents should be removed because they're Democrats. So he might start interfering with the Federal Open Market Committee as well. So it's. Yeah, some members of the Fed signaled soft dissents yesterday where they had. I'm trying to think of how to explain this? And like, it's so complicated monetary policy, but essentially, like, these people signaled to the broad public that they don't like what's happening with interest rates, and they think that they're not going to cut next year, that rates are going to move higher, potentially even. And so you have some members of the FOMC soft, dissenting, and then you have some saying, we're not going to cut it all. So does that kind of make sense?

[B]

It does, but I think it is like that gap that I think is very important of talking about these complicated things in a way that people understand. Because even this morning I saw something that was making its rounds on Twitter of people going, look at the historical data based off of this cut. It shows that we're headed towards a recession. I mean, is that, Is that kind of, Is that smoke and just random, like, fear or, like fear baiting? Or is that, is that something that you'd be concerned about?

[C]

So the Fed cuts rates when they're worried about the economy. So you could make an assumption that the Fed is worried that we're headed toward a recession. I don't think the number one risk to the US Economy right. Right now is a recession. I think it's stagflation, which is a stagnant economy. So economic growth pretty much flatlining and high inflation in a labor market that's pretty tough. Unemployment is pretty high. So I think that's more the worry is that we're in this economy, that growth has not totally tanked yet. It's going okay, but inflation is high and you can't get a job. So it's like somewhat of a recession. But I think that's really what the Fed's worried about, is stagflation. Yeah.

[B]

Right. And so jumping away from that, something I did want to get into, it's something that we, we talk a lot about here is, I mean, you've described the American economy as more and more of a casino, where, you know, speculation is a status quo. And I want to say, I want to ask with that, like, do you think that this is necessarily a new development, or is it something that's kind of always existed, but now more people are in on the game?

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

I wrote this piece for the New York Times about the casino economy. And that was the number one comment that people left was like, this has always been a thing, and we've always had a casino economy. But I think the problem now is that it's in your pocket, so your phone. So there was a paper that came out a few weeks ago that said if you live close to a casino, it obviously increases your rate of becoming a problem gambler because it's so close. And so we can extrapolate from that and say, okay, well, if you have a phone in your pocket, it's probably going to increase your rate of becoming a problem gambler because it's so close to you. And so I think with the casino economy, we have a lot more ways to bet on stuff. You have prediction markets, you have elements of crypto like the meme coins, you have options trading, you have the meme stocks like GME and AMC that were so popular a couple of years ago. So I think more and more people are just tapping into that betting super cycle. And I think it's always been a thing. You know, risk is kind of inherent to capitalism and taking big swings is somewhat of a gamble. But I think now it is just like how the economy is moving forward. So if you think about the decisions that we're making around AI, a lot of that's a gamble that the economy can just rely on AI and be okay. A lot of the tariff moves that Trump did were a gamble that other countries will continue to want to play ball with the US as they get kind of dragged around and punched in the face, metaphorically. So, yeah, that's kind of the, the gambling aspect is. It's not only in financial markets, it's also in policy and then the economy broadly.

[B]

Yeah, I want to get back to the gambling aspect in a second. But when you mention AI, is there a future that you fear more of? AI is everything they say that it's going to be. And so there's going to be this transitionary, at the very least, a transitionary period where we see even more massive job loss. And that's the direct impact or I guess the other thing would be it's actually a bubble. And this bet that the American economy has made on AI pops and there's immense pain. Do you fear one more? Do you think one's more likely?

[C]

Do you think we'll have a bubble or are we in a bubble? Is that kind of.

[B]

Well, I mean, that's the thing. I mean, are we in a bubble? Almost feels. That feels a bit like a dumb question. Because it feels like even when Sam Altman saying there's a certain degree of a bubble. No, no, no. I just mean in the sense of like. I think where I get annoyed is when people make a direct comparison to the dot com bubble. Right. Because it kind of, they're like. And then everyone lost. And it's like, well, no, not everyone lost. Amazon was there around that time and they popped. Right. They weren't what, pets.com with like a $400 million valuation. There were some looking back, some very ob going to lose. I don't know how much of that is hindsight versus whatever was agreed in the moment, but I guess how about less of. Is it a bubble? And are you more fearful that it's a bubble or that it is everything? AI is everything they say it's going to be, and we're going to see massive job loss and a government that really doesn't know how to handle that.

[C]

It doesn't seem interested in handling it, to be honest. Yeah, I mean, I think that when we think about AI, it's 40% of GDP growth, 75% of S&P 500 earnings. So we have staked the entire economy on this thing. But the problem that we're running into is the problem with expanding AI and having it potentially take all the jobs is not better models, it's energy. So AI is ultimately an energy race. And the US decided that the sun was DEI or woke or whatever and has rolled back a lot of renewable energy projects that were very important to having AI be successful. And so I think that's what the US is running into right now, is that these huge data centers are straining grids, they're causing electricity prices to go up. And it's like, sure, the models can be great, but I don't know if the grid can maintain it. Like that is the number one risk. And then number two is China. So China has made all of their models open source, so there's a lot more room for innovation. There's a lot less like Sam Altman type figures who are making a ton of money off of this. And companies like Airbnb are choosing to use China's AI models because they're cheaper. So it's always going to be a price war at the end of the game, at the end of the day, and it's always going to be an energy war. And right now, China is winning and both. So in terms of it taking all the jobs, I think that it might. I think that's the end goal that a lot of these companies do have. And I think, you know, Disney just signed a big $1 billion investment deal with OpenAI the morning of Thursday, December 11th. And so there's kind of this broad network of people who really want this to work. But I think all the real world constraints are going to make it more and more difficult because you can have all of these pie in the sky plans, but you have to think about physical infrastructure and the US doesn't ever, ever. And so I think that could be, could pop the bubble that could make it so it doesn't take the jobs. And those are the things I'm really paying attention to.

[B]

Well, even in that world where it. There's. There have been some predictions right, where they say, hey, well with, actually with AI, yes, there's going to be a lot of job loss, but there's also going to be net positive job creation. But I think there, I wonder, I wonder what that does to the future of the country because even in those estimates, I believe they say for 50 year olds and up and right now people are having to work longer and longer just to survive. They're saying those people are probably least likely to be able to be upskilled or adept. And so it does feel like we are headed towards a wall, maybe multiple walls. Do you see that as well?

[C]

Yeah, I mean, if you think about college grads right now, it's pretty tough to get an entry level job. A lot of companies are saying that's because of AI, but I think it's just because the economy is in a bit of a tough spot due to some of the fiscal policy decisions that the Trump administration, administration has made. It's really tough to plan if you don't know what trade policy is going to be. And so I think AI could definitely disrupt some of these jobs that are a bit more automatable. So like clerkships, paralegals, different things like that that are able to be done by somewhat of an improved computer. So I think we will and have already seen some disruption there. I also do worry about what it's potentially going to do to arts and culture. For the life of me, I can't figure out why the first thing that they went after was what if we made videos and what if we made art with this thing? And it's like, I feel like this thing should be improving science, not replacing the one thing that makes us very human, which is creating and sharing. Can a computer make art? It's a big question, right?

[B]

Yeah, I mean that's. Yeah. When I talk to doctors, they're like, hey, it helps me with paperwork. Now there's the advances as far as like, oh, let's do double checks on cancer screenings. And then, yeah, to your point, we have, you know, the Disney SORA deal. So I'm sure we're gonna see Maybe Mickey's Mickey Hitler memes soon, thanks to Sora or some other thing that is going to advance society somehow.

[C]

Have you seen the Thinking Game, Doctor?

[B]

But I do want to go back to, oh, go for it.

[C]

Have you seen the Thinking Game?

[B]

The Thinking Game? No. What is that?

[C]

So it's a documentary about DeepMind, which is Google's AI lab, and the CEO of that company. It's really interesting. It follows him across the past decade or so and dives into how he thinks about the direction that AI is going. And for him, he's like, AI really should be something that improves science, like how it is for the doctors that you're talking to. Not necessarily marketing it as this human destroyer type type tool that's going to like, suck up all the electricity and take everyone's jobs. So I think we're like, I don't know if you've seen it, but like, there's just an immense amount of backlash right now. Like, I actually think the AI companies really overplayed their hand and they said too much, they talked too much, and I think people are like, why? Why? Like, why did we have this happen? There's a very good, like, 500 slide PowerPoint that this guy puts together. I can't remember his name, of course, but it talks about some of the social themes that he's seen over the past year and it goes through the entire year. So it begins on January 1st, and by the end of the presentation, a lot of the social media signaling is toward a more offline world. So the social media, the AI of it all, is making people sick. They're not feeling good. There's a huge desire to embrace the physical again and think AI might be the thing that shot itself in the foot in a way, in terms of people using it, interacting with it. I think it's still a great tool. And a tool is a tool. At the end of the day, a hammer can be used to hammer a nail into the wall or to kill somebody. And I think we should think about AI through that lens. But yeah, I think the backlash is immense and we should just maybe focus on applicability in terms of making life better, rather than marketing it to make people's life worse. Right? Yeah.

[B]

But, yeah, I mean, to your point, when you say it feels like we have an administration that's not really thinking about that, I think right now it is. Remove the guardrails, maybe we can beat China and then maybe we'll pull back after the fact.

[C]

Well, they're selling the chips to China like Like, they just did this big deal. So Nvidia has been lobbying the administration to sell these, you know, more advanced ships to China. And the administration was like, no, we're not selling any chips to China. And China was like, well, we don't even want your chips anyway. But they brokered this deal where the Trump administration gets a 25% kickback and they'll buy some farmer soybeans if China buys these Nvidia chips. And the Department of Justice was like, anybody who controls these chips controls AI technology, and anybody who controls AI technology controls the future. So like the administration, but I mean.

[B]

But counterpoint, if the tariff number go up, then I'm winning.

[C]

But they're rolling back tariffs because of affordability.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, everything drives me crazy. Even when he was like, Trump this last week was like, talking about more about the bailout for the farmers that he completely fucked over because of his tariffs. I was like, but you're still gonna try and tout tariff revenue by itself without talking about all the way that it's ways that you're having to try and move money around and it's damaging other people?

[C]

Yeah, no, it's, it's like so crazy because out of all of the economic tools that he possibly could have latched onto, that is one of the most harmful. Like, if you talk like 100% of economists were like, don't do the terrorist, man. And he did. And it's just like, if you want to make countries mad at you. And the US cracks me up because, like, I don't know, it really thinks it can survive on its own and, you know, it can't. Like, it is really important, as you know, that we maintain these relationships with other countries. Like, we are an export or an import driven nation and, you know, we don't know how to make coffee here. We don't know how to grow bananas, and we can't do it all by ourselves, especially with the rise of China. So I don't know, sometimes I sit back and I'm like, what? Like, it just doesn't make sense. Yeah.

[B]

What's happening with the economy and the tariffs? I really want to know your thoughts here. I was listening to Scott Galloway the other day and he was talking about Scott Besant and he was talking about how I'm going to paraphrase this and it might be poorly. He's like, thankful that he is a professional who believes in what he. Or that he actually believes in. What he's trying to do is like a net positive. But also at the Same time that pretty much all economists are saying that he is wrong. Do you feel like that is an apt description of the man of Scott Bessant?

[C]

Yeah, he worked for George Soros for like 25 years. So, like, Scott. Scott Besant is smart. Scott Besant knows how the economy works. I think for him, like, it's like, okay, I'm just gonna say, like, whatever the boss man wants. And the boss man wants me to tell the tariffs are good. I'll go on Fox News and say that. So. Yeah, but the stuff he says, especially lately, I'm like, what? It can make you feel a little nuts, to be honest.

[B]

It's gotta make you feel like people get bodies snatched once they go into that house.

[C]

Yeah. I mean, something like that. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know. And it's really tough because the way that the US has evolved is like, we've become so polarized and then also values have really diverged. And so the Harvard youth opinion poll came out the other day where it asked like, 18, 20, 18 to 29 year olds how they're feeling about the economy. And like, the partisan split was really intense among young people. And like, you know, all the young people, like 1 in 3, only 1 in 3 young people feel like they. That the other side is doing anything good at all. They don't. There's no trust amongst one another. And so it's really difficult to develop policy. Like, it's really difficult to move a country forward when you're that divided, as we've been talking about for years and years. But, yeah, only like 13% of young people feel like the economy is moving in the right direction. And so when so many people are just tapped out and like, none of this is working for me, like, why would I involve myself? I don't know. I'm rambling a little bit. I apologize. But I think that ties into some of the concerns with the administration.

[A]

No, no, no. Well, absolutely.

[B]

But I. It kind of ties back to what we were talking about earlier. I mean, do you think that sort of mindset is why gambling has been. Has really kind of taken over American society so quickly?

[C]

Yeah. I mean, if you don't believe in the economy, you might as well gamble. I've thought about talk, like talking about it through the lens of open mouth coughing. Like, you know, when you're at the airport and people cough without covering their mouth, it's kind of. It's gross and it's like. Yeah, it's like a sign that people don't Believe in a collective noise. And so I think like the symptoms that we see with like really low economic sentiment with some of the gambling aspect is like we just have this like open mouth coughing problem where people don't believe in a collective norm. They don't want to invest in a collective norm. There's no sense of shared responsibility. So you might start gambling. Why not? Right.

[B]

Well, especially because it's, it's spreading.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So obviously yes, there's retail investment, but I mean do you see like the widespread adoption of like individual level betting, whether it be sports or these prediction markets which I think are gonna be really. People talk about them like they're a tool, I think are gonna bring our society down. Or crypto. Do you think that they are fundamentally different from investing in the stock market these days? Or maybe, maybe it's not even that they are different. Are they seen as any different do you think? For the average consumer?

[C]

Yeah. Why do you think they're gonna bring society down?

[B]

Oh my God, there's so many. So there's a lot of different ways. One, I think it incentivizes people in our positions to manipulate the market and have back end reason to try to push people's minds a certain way outside of us. I think that there's another incentive for people to bot farm and astroturf online to push opinion a certain way if there is an economic incentive that is in addition to like if you are investing with the White House or something. I think when you have situations where Mamdani is a 93% likelihood or at least according to like the Kalshi and poly market markets that he's going to be the next mayor. I think it increases the likelihood of not only an ideological assassination, I think an economic assassination when like half a billion dollars is up for grabs. So I think, I think there's a lot of ways that those markets are going to tear us down or result in several outlier horrific instances. But I'm a self described cynic but, but based off of what I see with human behavior and whenever I look back for history, it is scary when you create more reasons for people to do something nefarious.

[C]

Have you heard of assassination markets?

[B]

Assassination markets? No.

[C]

They're a real thing. Yeah. So that is an actual problem is people will make these bets on sort of public figures. And it was a big problem in the early days of the Internet. So yeah, I think, I don't know. Prediction markets are like everybody was talking about the quote that the Kalshi co CEO said where he's like we're going to financialize everything and everything will be a treatable asset. And like the problem with the United States right now is that we are really reliant on markets to solve all of our problems, like everything from Trump accounts to Trump choosing to invest like 10% in intel rather than a public solution for chips infrastructure. And so we just have this idea, idea that like markets are the final arbiter of truth, which is like very much a very capitalistic way of going about things. It's commodity fetishism. Like, it's just, it's all of that tied up. And so I think with the prediction markets, yeah, they, they do incentivize and economics is ultimately about incentives. They do incentivize like the, the worst of human behavior. Like there was a, I think a Google engineer that got caught making bets on what the Google trend of the year, like number one search thing would be. And he was making these insider trading things and saying that, you know, these things would be true because he knew ultimately what was going to happen. And you could see the same sort of thing happen in politics where, you know, there's bets on if Trump will say certain words during his speeches. There was bets on Brian Johnson saying certain words during his mushroom trip that he did. The don't die guy did a, the one who had longevity brother did a big mushroom trip and there was like a betting market on how many times he would say certain words and he could manipulate that market. I don't think he would. But there's so much opportunity for insider ball.

[B]

Yeah, but that's the thing you say, I don't think he would, but okay, so we have the FBI making a big deal and understandably about player, like professional players and people in that ecosystem like navigate like abusing the system and like we're going to send out the FBI against it. But you have the CEO of Coinbase ending his, what his like call by saying all of the keywords and it's like, oh, that's based. Oh, that's so funny. And real money is up for grabs. It's not like people are navigating in two completely different worlds. And it makes you realize, yeah, we are living in this time where maybe it's always been the case. And I think it adds to the being disillusioned and there's no rules. There's no rules as long as you have enough power or you have enough support.

[C]

Yeah, I know it's. Yeah, it's like we used to have these things called antitrust Laws that really protected consumers. We used to have an sec, the securities Exchange Commission. That would be like, I don't think this guy who has total control over the market should be able to, yeah. Say all of these words like that probably seems like a pretty, pretty bad thing for the everyday person. And it is. Yeah. It's why sentiment is down and it's why trust is low. Like all of these things are a compounding crisis and like luckily there's some element of solution that comes through the lens of policy. But yeah, it's hard not to be cynical. Like you said, you're a number one cynic. It's hard not to be.

[B]

Yeah, well, I was, I was as I was mid rant, I was like, I had Kyla come on early this morning just so I could bum her out. Apparently you're like, I look at the economy all day, I'm already there.

[C]

No, it's more up, uplifting than some of my, my other conversations, which is just, it's just so frustrating because like with a lot of the problems, we do know how to fix them. Like with housing, like we know that we need to address some of the problems with zoning. 95% of LA is zoned single family. Right. So if we zone it so you can build multifamily, it'll help home prices go down. Austin, Texas has seen massive success with this. Like we know how to fix some of these parts of the economy that are making, making people feel bad. We know that antitrust legislation is really important and that, you know, big tech companies, their company is like their primary motive is always going to be money. It's never going to be the human. We know that maybe we shouldn't be prioritizing shareholders over people all of the time. Right. Like do. Should companies exist to serve shareholders? I don't know. So I think what's really exciting about right now is that as horrible and awful as everything is, I think it's bringing a lot of these big questions to the forefront. Like, what is human prosperity? Like, what does it mean to be a part of an economy? Like, how should we think about this all moving forward if we have the opportunity to make some lasting change? So that part is exciting. But yeah, all of it, like real, it really sucks. Yeah.

[B]

When it comes to like the everyday person. And I mean, I know you hit on housing. There are there like several magic bullets that, that could greatly help people. I know, I know you mentioned that. And I feel like earlier this year there was a lot of talk about housing specifically with like Ezra Klein calling out Democrats regarding, you know, affordability and being able to. And I know that there's a lot of thoughts on Ezra Klein and like the thing pieces that came after that, that book and his podcast circuit, but are there several, like magic bullets? You think that it's like, okay, this, this would have the biggest net positive impact for the, the everyday American zoning.

[C]

You know, the abundance book talked about that. Like, it's like we can have all these cool things if we just fix the policy. Le hated on that book because it, it was a very simple, very short book that was meant to be accessible and people were like, I'm, I actually forgot this like really important niche thing as people tend to do. So I think the book is correct. Like there are these little levers that we can pull. I think housing is a big one. Healthcare is something that we really have to spend a bit more time thinking through and not just kicking the can down the road. Like the average premium for a family of four is 27, $7,000. It's expected to go up by 10 to 20% next year just because we have really not figured that out and we have the worst health outcomes in the developed world. So I think like there's like these three things that we can address. It's housing, it's healthcare, and it's education. So with education, I think schools are already figuring out that like, phones in the classroom, probably not a good idea. Tablets in the classroom, probably not a good idea. More focus, focus on essayism, less focus on digital is probably healthy. So I think there's like these things that we know what to do. We've talked a lot about the problems, we know what the issues are. It's just like, how do you convince enough people to move forward? And that's where the polarization issue really comes in, is everybody disagrees on what the best path toward a solution is. And that's the, the tough part about politics.

[B]

Well, yeah, I also imagine that one of the tough things is that people more than ever feels like are willing to dismiss experts. Whereas, I don't know, it just, it does feel like a time where like, oh, so you're like, you're paid to toe a certain line and it's like, no, no, no. But I, no, I'm an expert because I. Well, because you've dedicated your life to this field. Even with little things like you talked about in the classroom, Electronics in the classroom. Like, I understood the argument of like, okay, we don't want phones in the classroom, but even tablets, school issued ones Until I started talking to teachers and hearing out like people in fields and experts of just what a nightmare it's created. I was like, oh, I did not, did not know. And so do you think that I'm asking you to solve all the world's problems? Is there a way that you think people, we can get people to listen to experts more often rather than random TikTok rifters?

[C]

You have to convince Joe Rogan. Like, I think that's the number one thing. If you can. Just joking.

[B]

Just Joe.

[C]

Yeah. If you can convince Joe Rogan of something, he's like a stream. So everything is downstream of Joe Rogan. I don't know if you saw, but he said the AI was Jesus the other day. So maybe he's not such a reliable reader.

[B]

Like, oh no.

[C]

Yeah. But you, you have to, you have to convince. And like the Democrats tried to do this. Like they tried to go to the individual influencers and say, like, here's some talking points. They got in a lot of trouble because it wasn't disclosed. You have to disclose if somebody's paying you a certain amount of money to talk about stuff. But I think like that's how you, you do it is the information market is so fragmented, you have to go to where people are. You have to go to where they are getting the information. For a lot of people that is on social media. So in it with the economy and with these policies, it impacts everybody. It impacts the lifestyle creators, it impacts the food creators, it impacts even the dancing creators. I just think there does have to be cohesive messaging across all of these people if you want to convince the general public that some of this stuff matters. And then I don't really know what to do about the anti intellectualism thing that's going on. I think part of that is like public messaging has deteriorated so much, the algorithms really reward rage bait and so people don't know who to trust. And that's a little bit of a harder problem to wrap your mind around. Yeah, yeah.

[B]

Well, I mean it feels like the maybe. Yeah, maybe the easiest way. Well, easiest air quotes way to do it is. Yeah. I mean it feels like if you can predict one thing that seems unlikely and then it happens, then all of a sudden you kind of always have that thing in your pocket of okay, so what is 2026 going to look like? So I'm going to give you your moment. What is 2026 going to look like? Is Trump going to figure out affordability or is it a Democrat hoax? Just like the Epstein files that was.

[C]

A really interesting transition. Yeah, that was fun. That was nice.

[A]

I know.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

It was almost like a song.

[C]

Yeah, but good. So 2026, I mean, man, what a year that'll be like with the elections and midterms with the new Fed chair as well. So, like, I think 2026, like 2025, the year of the, the word of the year was uncertainty. I think it'll still be the word of the year in 2026 is we just like policy is going to shift a lot. And I'm curious to see Heritage foundation released their Project 2026 the other day, which was a lot of going after education, a lot of going after messaging. So the things that we've been talking about here today, I think I'm a bit nervous just because of the big shifts, but I'm also curious to see what the shifts look like. Like a Democrat won Miami mayor yesterday, December 10th. So politics are shifting. The New York Times had a big piece talking about how a lot of people are very upset about electricity prices and therefore are very upset with Trump. So, you know, who knows how it'll go. But I think we will see, potentially, depending on how the year goes, some pretty big shifts politically.

[B]

I'll get you back to the podcast in just a minute.

[A]

But you ever open your email in the morning and think, huh, weird. Why is Gmail telling me to change my password again? Because, yeah, it turns out 183 million accounts just leaked and millions of Gmail passwords are just floating on the dark web. In security researchers, they confirm that the leak came from a massive third party database, not even Google, proving that you can be doing everything right and just still get exposed because someone else messed up. Also, I mean, are you reusing passwords? A lot of people are. One breach, you can unlock your entire data digital like Gmail, socials, banking, everything. And that's why today's sponsor, NordVPN, it's a must have, right? NordVPN's dark web monitor and password protection alert you if your email or password shows up in a leak before hackers can use it. Through threat protection, it blocks shady links, malware and trackers before they load. And all your traffic, it's fully encrypted, so your data stays yours even if the site you're on doesn't secure it. And you know, I use NORDVPN everywhere, airports, hotels, coffee shops with WI fi that looks like it was installed during the Bush administration. It's fast, it's private, and it lets you browse, stream and Travel without stress. So, hey, get an exclusive discount on a two year plan plus four extra months free at nordvpn.com ingoodfaith that's nordvpn.com ingOODfaith and it's risk free with their 30 day money back guarantee.

[B]

Yeah, I am very interested to see what happens.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Because yeah, you have Trump set to go around the country. Talk about affordability. Our first taste of it was very much like.

[C]

Which is a hoax.

[B]

Yeah, it's a hoax, folks. He's talking about dumb. People care about this. I mean, when you're talking about electricity prices in Georgia here recently we had a special election where there was crazy turnout because there was such a concern over it. And so it does feel like going into 2026, some of the culture war issues might fall to the side. We'll see. No, you're right, they are as far as the Trump administration, they're usually pretty good at like wrapping up some random outlier narrative and making people care about that more than putting food on the table or electricity prices. But we'll see. It might. It's one of the things I've been thinking about for the next three years is it does feel like people are going to have to feel pain for there to be any sort of meaningful change. And so that's where I, with, with you specifically, I'm like, what happens if Trump gets his new Fed chair in and they just go, they just start slicing away at interest rates. Is it something where in the short term it could look like a genius move and then long term it hurts or, or would it be immediately apparent that it was a bad thing or is it actually a good thing that I'm kind of just pooh, poohing, actually a genius idea.

[C]

I think that if we start cutting interest rates crazy. We could get a Weimar Germany type situation where we have a lot of upward pressure on inflation. I think you would see the bond market react really negatively. And that's always kept Trump in line is how markets respond. Like if, like he always backpedals quite a bit if the s and P500 starts selling off. But the bond market will not be so happy with the president if that happens. And when bonds react negatively, that makes it much more difficult for the US to borrow money, the US Government to borrow money. And if they can't borrow money, they can't do all the projects that he wants to do. Other countries won't want to invest in the United States. It will destroy trade relationships. And yeah, it would be really, really Catastrophic and harmful to people. If that did end up happening, I don't know what the safeguards are or the policies that we put into place to kind of rein some of that in. I'm curious what the tipping point is with all of this. Like, you know, the Supreme Court is potentially going to rule that he can now fire the heads of independent agencies, which is pretty unheard of. And so I'm kind of curious, like, what will be the thing where they're like, oh man, that really imperils democracy guy, maybe you shouldn't do that. That's what I'm just watching out for is what is the thing that is too much for a lot of these people that have enabled this objectively pretty corrupt behavior. So that's what I'm thinking about with bonds. Bonds would react really negatively. And then no one's happy.

[B]

Well, I mean, have you thought about maybe we are thinking about this wrong, that actually greed and corruption are the way forward, that we, yeah, we have Trump's golden visas. I mean, when we're recording it today, moving forward on that. So we're going to start getting a million dollars, a pop of quote unquote, high value individuals into the country. The President can keep pardoning fraud and corruption, I guess, in the hopes that they're going to bring more of their fraud and corruption money here, then maybe, maybe that'll keep the country afloat.

[C]

Yeah, the Financial Times had this piece talking about crony capitalism, which is objectively. Sorry, objectively kind of what we have. A lot of people are like, it's not crony. And it's like, I don't know if you can do certain favors for the President. You get a big deal. You get to buy the entire media ecosystem, it turns out maybe. So they were talking about how like other countries do see this. Like other countries are like, okay, it seems like they're really letting corruption flow free in the United States. Like we don't want to buy up their treasuries. And so like the stopping point with a lot of this stuff is economics and it ultimately is how the market does, does react. And so like that is an arbiter of truth and sort of the, I guess fifth branch of government, if you count media, is the fourth that you have to pay attention to. But I thinking about, you know, Trump, if he could fire the chair of the ftc, the Federal Trade Commission, they're the group that approves the Netflix or Paramount deal, whatever ends up going through. And so Trump could theoretically reject both deals. Have Trump Organization Inc. Buy Netflix or buy Warner Brothers. And then Netflix would have to pay the $6.5 billion breakup fee to Trump Organization Inc. Because Trump is both the chair of the FTC and his individual company could buy it up if he rejects it.

[B]

Yeah, I get so nervous hearing that. But also when I say, like, well, if they're going to do that, they might as well. Because I sometimes feel like we're just giving ideas because there are no rules.

[C]

I know. It does seem that way, doesn't it?

[B]

They were like, oh, shit, write that down.

[C]

Write that down.

[B]

That's great. Trump, Inc. Trump.

[C]

Okay, let's do it. No, that's his company name. Yeah. So. So, yeah. And what is it? Jared Kushner is part of the bidding group with Paramount and Saudi Arabia. You know, Jimmy Carter had to sell his peanut farm, as everybody says. This is not the case right now.

[B]

Cause he was low energy. He wasn't a genius like our fuhrer. But on the note of, you know, the corruption that's happening and, yeah, if you want, like, a deal, you give Trump a gold plaque, you donate to his new wing. Do you feel like we are in this place where political leaders and tech moguls, like, if they're kind of seemingly immune from consequences of fraud, are we going to enter this? Or have we already entered this area of just more people not playing by any rules, that we are going to see more corruption? Maybe not necessarily with Trump directly, but just in general.

[C]

Yeah. Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner, formerly at the New York Times. He's a subject now, and he wrote this piece about the Vibe session, which is the disconnect between consumer sentiment and economic data. And he said the three reasons that people feel pretty bad about the economy is economic data. It's also, do they feel like they participate? Do they feel safe? And then do they feel like they're being scammed? And so I think that third question is, like, the question of the moment, because people feel like they're being scammed. You know, healthcare can feel like a scam. A people lot of. Lot of the times, like, why am I paying all this money? Where is it all going? A lot of these companies are really just playing the game on how high they can charge fees. Like Kalshi, the prediction market. The fees are net net higher than FanDuel and Bloomberg found out in an analysis. So I think everybody's, like, just scraping the top off. You know, there is a piece in the Atlantic talking about how college students are saying they have certain disabilities, so they have, like, more time on tax tasks or tests or have certain accommodations. So I think we see just more and more people saying, like, oh, the rules don't apply to me. I'm just going to do whatever I want. And when you're in a society, capitalist society, where the rules feel like they don't matter, that's when you really get an economy that does not grow properly, an economy that's not cohesive, and an economy that can fray very, very quickly because you can scam as much as you want. But, like, you know how Russia found out, like, it doesn't work for that long. Like, there's only so many things that you can extract, and then you have to go, like, declare war on other countries. So. Yeah, yeah, that's a big one.

[B]

Yeah. I mean. Oh, no. Even. Even there with. Based off of how Trump's been moving, it feels like he's been moving it to more of, like, let's think of the world as regional powers. The United States, Russia and China. China. But I do want to. I want to flip it, right, Because I am normally prone to being so negative for you. Are you hopeful? And if so, about what?

[C]

Oh, yeah. I mean, like, I make videos about the economy, and I wrote a book about the economy, and I'm writing another book about the economy. The only way that you can kind of maintain hope while doing that stuff is just convincing yourself. I don't know if it's delusion, but, like, if I'm not hopeful, then it becomes very challenging to work on these problems. So I'm hopeful because I really believe in human. Like, I really believe in people. Like, I've been on the road for 40 weeks this year with my book, and I've been gone a lot. I've been in so many cities, and, like, everybody I meet is very, very nice, and everybody I meet is working on really, really hard problems and trying to make their local communities better off. And so I think for this moment in history, just because power is a vacuum, we do have a guy who. And people who want to extract as much as they can, because that's the type of people power tends to attract. So I'm hopeful because I know that there's a lot of people who are not wanting this and are trying for a different future, and I just have to believe that those are the people who will eventually come out ahead.

[B]

Yeah, no, I connect to that of. I feel most hopeful when I actually meet people in person, because if I look online, it is the worst of.

[C]

The worst, but Internet's bad. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[B]

But I do want to ask, like, for you for your book bestseller in this Economy. What. What motivated you to. To write that?

[C]

I mean, we don't know how to talk about the economy to each other. And like, it's a whole different language. Even when we were talking about the Federal Reserve earlier, like, it's just so confusing and it really matters. Like, the things within the economy really matter for the everyday person and we send them out into the world without any real knowledge of how any of this works. Like, economics is not required in a lot of places. And so for me, I just wanted to write a guide that was fun, that was interesting. It's illustrated with some of my drawings and just give people the tools that they need to understand the world around them a bit more.

[B]

And what, I mean, what even drew you towards that as a career? Was there a specific moment or a thing that you found interesting or frustrated by and you wanted to know more about it? What drew you to it?

[C]

Yeah, I used to sell cars in college and people would come in and not know what interest rate was. And I was like, this seems not good, seems bad. This seems unfair. And I was studying economics at the time and finance and data. And I was like. And then I went to work. I went to work for the buy side and for a company called Capital Group. Graduated essentially during the pandemic and was like, well, what do I want to spend, like this one life we have doing? And for me, it was education and helping people understand interest rates.

[B]

Yeah, I'm glad that you were inspired that way. So my dad was a car salesman. And being around car salesmen and specifically guys in the finance office, the main thing it taught me was don't trust anybody. Don't trust anybody ever. Because, yeah, it is nasty work where it's like people go into that finance office thinking they got something and the thing they got was not good.

[C]

The behind the scenes was brutal.

[B]

You said that is the thing that kind of sparked you to go, okay, people need to understand this more. I need to understand this more.

[C]

I don't know, I just. I was so into economics when I was in college and I was like, why doesn't everybody want to understand this? Like, why don't my friends want to talk to me about economics? And yeah, for me, it's just why I'm so confused.

[B]

Why. Oh, no, I get that when I was in college too, but I wanted to talk about why Rush Limbaugh pissed me off and no one would listen to me. And so I started a YouTube show. So I get that. Yeah.

[C]

I mean, and look at you now.

[B]

Was there a thing that you wanted to do beforehand? I thought I wanted to be a doctor. Did you have a thing before you were like, I'm gonna jump into economics.

[C]

I wanted to be an oncologist. Yeah. My dad had cancer and I was like, this is the thing I want to do. But then I took an econ class. I didn't even know you could major in economics. And. And then I took this econ class and I was like, oh, wait, maybe I can like help even more people doing. Doing this.

[B]

It's probably different now because there's so many young people go like, I want to be whatever this is on TikTok or YouTube. But finding that you can be of service to people in so many different ways is, is really, is really eye opening, especially if it lines up with your interest. So very. I was like, knock on wood. That continued success for both of us going into this next year. I know that, you know, we talked about, like, best case, worst case, if, if people are watching and they're going like, I want to. I'm going to use the term hedge, hedge my bets, but ideally not on a place like Kalshi or Polymarket. If they, if they want to hedge their bets, be prepared for this next year, is there a way that the everyday person can. And I also know that might be a bit of a loaded question since a lot of people don't even have money in their savings account.

[C]

When I started investing, I put aside $10 every month and it was a lot of money at the time. And if you can do something like that and just have some exposure to the stock market, it's going to fluctuate. But it is the number one best way to build wealth in the United States. States. And so I think if you're concerned about that, that's like a good thing to do, not investment advice, but that's like one way to kind of hedge your bets is if you have a little bit extra money, just open up an investment account and invest in what you feel is safe. Compound returns, compound interest really matters over the long run. And then I think the second thing is like, human capital is becoming more and more important. So investing in skill set sets, investing in a broad base of skill sets. So trying not to niche down too much, you know, making sure that you're versatile, that you're trying out a bunch of different things both in career and in life, I think is really important during this time of technological transition. Just so we're all prepared for. You know, if a job does get automated, you know, having some sort of backup plan as best you can is helpful. It sucks that that's the case, but I think those are the two things. It's just like, like investing in markets and investing in yourself, which sounds really cliche, but those. That's kind of the conclusion I've come to studying this stuff.

[B]

Yeah. Fantastic. Kyla, thank you so much for the time.

[C]

Thank you.