Loading summary
Transcript50 lines
- [00:01]
Sponsor Announcer
Support for the show comes from Attio, the CRM for teams who set the pace. You know that rep who closes faster than everyone else. They're not quite who they seem. While they're walking into every call, prepped, writing perfect handoff briefs and follow ups and catching every signal in time, they've actually gotio working for them around the clock. Attio's revenue agents qualify and work every account so they can move at scale with ease. It's how startups including Granola, Modal and Whisper Flow win. You can go to attio.com profg and you'll get 15% off your first year. That's 8. From the Goldman Sachs trading floor in 10 minutes or less. Investors and analysts share timely analysis on the week's market activity. The Markets podcast from Goldman Sachs.
- [00:52]
Ed Elson
Listen now.
- [00:55]
Catherine Ann Edwards
When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed Sponsored Jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit@ Indeed.com podcast. That's Indeed.com podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs.
- [01:30]
Michael Green
Money markets matter.
- [01:31]
Ed Elson
If money is evil, then that building
- [01:33]
Sponsor Announcer
is hel
- [01:36]
Ed Elson
to fight in there at once and sell.
- [01:38]
Michael Green
Sell.
- [01:40]
Ed Elson
Welcome to Prof. G Markets. I'm Ed elson. It is July 7th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices rose as chip makers climbed out of last week's slump. The Dow closed above 53,000 for the first time. Oil was stable as Saudi Arabia cut its prices and OPEC increased its production target. And finally, Dell stock popped as much as 8% of after some comments from the president. More on that later. Okay, what else is happening? It's official. SpaceX is part of the NASDAQ 100. As of this morning, SpaceX's performance will influence the more than $1.4 trillion that is benchmarked to the index. The stock currently has a weight of about 1%, and now tens of millions of Americans invested in the NASDAQ 100 index funds indirectly own it. SpaceX got in under new fast track rules, which cut the required trading history to just 15 days and also got rid of the float requirements altogether. The Nasdaq's rapid inclusion of SpaceX leaves investors with many questions, one of them being has this company proven itself enough to be included in one of the world's most followed stock indices. Here to discuss this question, we're speaking with Michael Green, chief strategist and portfolio portfolio manager for Simplify Asset Management. Michael, it's good to see you again. I think a lot of people were wondering if this company should really be a public company if it was profitable enough and also if the price made any sense. But now there's sort of another question, which is should it be in passive index funds, specifically the NASDAQ 100, which a lot of passive investors own indirectly? What do you make of it?
- [03:40]
Michael Green
Well, I mean, unfortunately, I think this is the logical conclusion of America's shift towards passive index investing. Rather than have a choice being made by an individual or by a portfolio manager, we now have choices that are being made simply by the index, which has an obvious incentive to get companies public, get them listed on the nasdaq, offer NASDAQ inclusion as a component of that in order to get the listing on the NASDAQ index as compared to the New York Stock Exchange or other exchanges they could potentially have listed on. So we understand why this is occurring, or we have a very strong sense for why this is occurring. It is an opportunity to effectively exploit the index position to bring the company public, get it listed, drive the capacity for insiders to sell shares, and ultimately create liquidity for those insiders side investors. As to whether or not that's a good idea, obviously I think it is not. From the tone that I'm using, I think it is candidly quite manipulative. We have allowed index investing to receive special treatment under the law under which it does not have the same requirements that active management has for fiduciary standards or suitability standards. If I run a strategy that says I'm going to do X, when I suddenly unexpectedly change that I'm allowed, my investors are allowed to sue me. We are by and large protected from that in the index world as long as the index methodology has changed rather than simply the inclusion of a new stock. In this case, they published their intent to do this in advance of the listing and it was open for comment, period. My understanding is the comments were almost universally negative. I certainly contributed several of those myself. It was much like Chicago. I voted twice and even after I had died. But, you know, the simple reality is that they were intent on doing this. It's a profitable decision. It draws attention and gets us discussing the NASDAQ 100 or the QQQ ETF, which is part of the objective as well. And now we're confronted with a scenario in which funds can actually be invested in under the idea that they are passive, that they receive special treatment under the law, and yet they've exposed themselves as not at all being passive. It's the. The logical conclusion of what you would expect. Eventually we'll figure out how to manipulate anything to generate profits.
- [06:11]
Ed Elson
It seems as though if we were to just sort of go through the winners and losers here. I think you and I both agree that the loser is the passive investor who doesn't really know what's happening. And the rules are being changed basically for this specific company, for SpaceX, potentially for Elon Musk. Point being, it almost breaks down the whole point of passive investing. As for the winners, clearly it's kind of a win for NASDAQ. It's probably a win for some of the ETFs that track the NASDAQ, like Invesco QQQ being the largest one. Probably a win for SpaceX too, because it means that you're getting all of this passive investment which boosts your share price. Just specifically this index fund, the NASDAQ 100, there was a question as to whether the S and P was going to include them. They were debating it. The S and P decided no. The Nasdaq is smaller than the S and P, but it has included it in the index. Tens of millions of Americans own an index that tracks the NASDAQ $101.4 trillion in capital, as I suggested. What kind of upward pressure will this actually put on the stock? Like, how much of a win is it for SpaceX to be included in the NASDAQ 100?
- [07:34]
Michael Green
Well, when you highlight that it is in the neighborhood of 1.4 trillion, that is tracking it. And it is roughly a 1% weight, although it is receiving additional weight because of the float multiplier that is being used. You are talking several billions, tens of billions of dollars that are ultimately going to flow into these investments. The big winners there are those who are seeking liquidity, the insiders who are actually looking to sell share shares. Whether those are investors who invested during its private period, its extended private period, or whether those are employees who have waited for liquidity, the answer is it's the insiders. And that, unfortunately, I think, contributes to the general perception that the stock markets are really not set up for the average investor at this point. Although we're thrilled to see them move higher, given our participation through things like 401ks, it's a little bit of a slap in the face to see somebody become the world's first trillionaire on the basis of manipulating an index that we were all told we could trust.
- [08:37]
Ed Elson
What do you think this means for passive investing in the future? I mean, if we're getting rid of the float requirements, we're getting rid of the amount of time that you have to be listed before you're included, we're changing all of the rules. It feels like this is kind of just a race to the bottom. I mean, I don't see why you don't just get rid of all the rules.
- [08:56]
Michael Green
I think there's definitely some truth to that. I think what we need to remember is that passive was never passive by its own definition. The definition of a passive investor is somebody who never buys or sells. That makes sense to many individual investors who through their 401k or buy and hold. But that first step, the buy actually is a really critical component because you are contributing cash to the portfolio. That causes the portfolio to need to be rebalanced. That causes trading and influences prices. Over the last five to seven years, we've learned an extraordinary amount about the influence of passive investing. My work suggests that the impact of passive strategies is rising. The S and P increasing the S and p by nearly 18% a year. Now, I know that sounds like an astonishing number given that the S and P was only up 15% last year. So we're actually looking at an index that overall probably would have declined had we not chosen to invest this way. We decided to do this because we thought that it simplified the process. It did simplify the process for average investors. It also simplified the process of taking advantage of those investors, as we have just seen.
- [10:13]
Ed Elson
Do you think that passive investing is something that we should just be reconsidering altogether? Are you not a fan of passive investing in general, or is it only recently that your tune has changed?
- [10:25]
Michael Green
I've been doing research and reporting and writing on this for well over a decade now. Sometime around 2016, the formative literature and the awareness began to grow that there was an impact from passive investing which had always been presented as effectively a not meaningful impact on the market. Even today, you will hear Vanguard and others talk about the small fraction of trading that is involved in passive trading. Those are simply misrepresentations. Unfortunately. What they consider is what's called the organic trading. It excludes all of the flow characteristics that I just walked you through. So when we look at what's happening in the markets today, we have about a trillion dollars that is flowing into index funds. We have somewhere in that neighborhood that is actually leaving the discretionary active community. My lament is not about the active community. It's about the impact that has on the markets. We're destroying the process of price discovery. You asked, is it the right price for SpaceX? The reality is nobody knows and nobody bothered to look at it. And everyone who has has come to the conclusion that it's fantastically overvalued. In fact, it really shouldn't even be called SpaceX, it should be called XAI, because three quarters of the expected value in most of the forecasts are tied to its money losing, non profitable and lagging AI business. Why that justifies such an extraordinary multiple and valuation is somewhat beyond me. But once you declare it into the index at those levels, the index accepts that the last price was right. And that's really the key of passive. It passively accepts the price. And so when you involve them in the process of listing in this manner, you are structurally changing outcomes.
- [12:12]
Ed Elson
It's a tough one because, you know, a lot of the. I like the point that you bring up that there's no such thing really as passive investing. Someone has to buy at some point and someone has to be the one to make that decision. And the thing that seems to hold it all together, at least from my perspective, is trust in the rules and the regulations that sort of govern those passive index funds. I mean, if you trust that there is a framework in place that says we're only going to buy these types of companies that have proven themselves over the long term that only make sense in these conditions, then it sort of makes me feel a little bit more comfortable to close my eyes and say, okay, you guys handle it. You at the nasdaq, you at the S and P, and I'm down and I'll put it in. And to be fair, it's worked for a lot of investors who have just dollar cost averaged into the S and P, and it's all been fine. It does seem that there will come a point though, where if they continue to make these change requirements, that might not work out because SpaceX could implode over the next six to 12 months. We've got all of the lockups expiring over the next few months, which is going to put huge downward pressure on the stock. It could ultimately be a bad decision, which ultimately may lead to outflows. And I wonder if that's the next chapter in the story that people say, you know what? We don't trust these people managing our money anymore. I'm taking matters into my own hands. I. I'm going to choose exactly which stocks I'm going to buy personally. Is that the next chapter in your view?
- [13:46]
Michael Green
I don't think so. I think actually the next chapter is we will see more of this type of manipulation. There are many, many publicly trade or privately held companies that would love to list under these types of conditions and to receive the multiplier. My hunge is, is that we will actually see that exploitation and a repeat of the late 1990s IPO boom before we see anything resembling the outflow type components that you're highlighting.
- [14:13]
Ed Elson
Final question here on SpaceX. I think we both sounds like we Both agree on SpaceX, but many people wouldn't your views on the company, the valuation, the financials and whether or not it is a sound investment.
- [14:28]
Michael Green
Ultimately, I want to be clear for an investor into the NASDAQ 100 or into any index, like the total market indices that have already included SpaceX because of its size in their indexes, ultimately, whether it turns out to be a good investment or a bad investment is not going to be all that material. It is relatively a small fraction of the index. So even if it went to zero, the ultimate impact on the index investor would be largely negligible. The downside is actually what's happening from a societal framework. This is an enrichment tool that allows corporate executives and insiders to dump shares onto an unsuspecting public. And the last thing I would highlight is that I think you're giving people by and large too much credit. I think this audience very well may be aware of what you're discussing. But the really critical changes were made in 2006 when we created what's called the Pension Protection act, rolled people. We switched our retirement system of 401s from what's called an opt in framework in which they had to choose to participate into what's called an opt out framework where they had to choose not to participate. That exploded the number of people who held 401ks. It climbed from around 25% to today it's around 65%. It radically reduced the investment choices that most people are exposed to. And candidly, I would argue that most people are sleepwalking through this process, not really aware of what they're investing in or why they're investing in it. They're simply doing as they are told. That's always that can be a good thing. It can also be a bad thing if everybody starts doing what they're told. As we are seeing, it creates the distortions that we are experiencing as markets become increasingly disassociated from fundamentals. So should this be happening? No. But we made a choice to do it this way. And this is I said at the very beginning is likely the logical conclusion. We will figure out a way to exploit this phenomenon and turn it into profits for those who are highly incentivized to create those profits.
- [16:36]
Ed Elson
Michael Green is Chief Strategist and Portfolio Manager for Simplify Asset Management. Michael, really appreciate your time. Thank you.
- [16:43]
Michael Green
My pleasure, Ed.
- [16:46]
Ed Elson
After the break, worrying signs in the jobs report and for even more markets insights, you can subscribe to my weekly newsletter. Simply put@simplyput. Prof. Gmedia.com.
- [17:06]
Sponsor Announcer
Support for the show comes from anthropic. Some questions don't come with obvious answers, and when you're working through a challenging problem, it helps to have a partner bounce ideas off of and uncover deeper issues beneath the surface. That's where Claude can help. Claude is the AI for minds that don't stop at good enough. It's a collaborator that actually understands your entire workflow and thinks with you whether you're debugging code at midnight or strategizing your next business move. Cloud extends your thinking to tackle the problems that matter, and Cowork brings the power of Claude code to a desktop app. No terminal required. Just connect it to a folder on your computer or service like Google Drive and Gmail, describe what you need and it gets to work. Whether that's organizing files, building spreadsheets, or turning scattered notes into a polished report, Cowork can handle the heavy lifting. You can even queue up tasks and come back later to find the work already done. For problems worth solving, get started with Claude today at Claude AI Markets. That's Claude AI Markets and check out Claude Pro, which includes access to all of the features mentioned in today's episode. Claude AI Markets. Support for the show comes from Vanta. Every new tool your team signs up for every vendor that turns on AI features. Every new integration has a chance for something to go wrong. And most security programs weren't built for AI's pace of growth. Enter Vanta. Vanta is the number one agentic trust platform used by over 16,000 fast moving companies including Ramp, Cursor and Harvey to ensure they're always audit ready. And now Vanta is helping companies like yours watch for the risks that show up between audits across your vendors, your AI tools and your entire environment. How the Vanta Agent network works like a 24.7grc engineer in the background, finding issues, drafting fixes for you and cutting vendor assessment time by up to 50% whether you're a fast growing startup or a global enterprise, Vanta is here to help you automate your security and compliance and earn improve trust. Get started today@vanta.com markets. That's V A N T A.com markets.
- [19:19]
Catherine Ann Edwards
This episode is brought to you by Google Chrome. You think you know a browser, but Gemini and Chrome? That's new. It can help you with practically anything on the web like restoring a vintage motorcycle from a 50 page restoration block. Or finally break down that long article you've had open for weeks. Gemini and Chrome is here for it, ready to make anything online make sense. There's no place like Chrome. Check responses set up required compatibility and availability varies. 18 foreign.
- [19:48]
Ed Elson
We're back with Prof. G Markets the June jobs report came in weaker than expected. The economy added just 57,000 jobs in June, less than half the number economists were forecasting. April and May payrolls were also revised downwards. And while the unemployment rate actually fell to 4.2%, that was largely due to a sharp decline in the labor force participation rate rather than a surge in hiring. Roughly 720,000 people left the labor force between May and June, which dragged the participation rate down to its lowest level in about five years. So joining us to discuss the June jobs report, we're speaking with pod favorite Catherine Ann Edwards, Ph.D. economist, Economic Policy consultant, and columnist for Bloomberg News. Catherine, welcome back to the show. It's great to see you. This jobs report here doesn't seem great, and the labor force participation number doesn't seem great either. In fact, it seems quite concerning. But what's the truth? What's the reality? What should we make of it?
- [20:59]
Catherine Ann Edwards
I mean, I think in some ways this report really puts us in the place that we've been for about a year and a half, which is the labor market is treading water. And so many of the indicators that we look at so closely, I mean, it's almost like they're bouncing within their standard error. Just they're right around zero. They go up a little bit, they go down a little bit. But we're not seeing a trend that we can monitor over time. We're not seeing it just fall apart and just decline. We're not seeing it just take off and recover and become stronger. We're just seeing this almost like noise around the mean. And the mean is treading water. I think it makes it hard to parse on a monthly level. But the upshot is this is a weak labor market, because if it weren't weak, it'd be very obvious to see it growing, showing signs of strength, and we just don't see it.
- [21:43]
Ed Elson
The strangest part to me is the labor force participation rate. And just to clarify what that means for people, this is the share of the working age population that is either working obviously or looking for work, which fell, which to me tells me that a lot of Americans are saying I'm no longer gonna look for work now. And we see that that rate was especially among the 25 to 54 year old demographic, was especially pro. How do we make sense of that
- [22:12]
Catherine Ann Edwards
labor force in the US this century? People tend to, not that you're doing this, but people tend to pick the rate that they want. If you look just at the overall rate for 16 and older, it's really low this century because it's reflecting the retirement of the baby boomers. Right. It doesn't have an age cap on our overall labor force participation rate, which is why you're right to look at the prime age. It's not really taking into account those big demographic shifts, but how much are people who are really expected to be working, working. And the cutoff for leaving the labor force because you've gotten, because you're no longer looking for work is really tight. It's just four weeks. So it's basically since the last survey. Have you looked for work in the past four weeks. If you say no, you fall off. So there could be people who have sent in, you know, like a lot of us have looked for a job. You're so frantic, you, you fill out 50 applications and then you're. It's almost like waiting, trying to buy a house. You've got to wait for something else to come on the market and that can push you kind of mechanically out of the labor force for interpreting the market's strength. What to get from the prime age labor force participation falling in a month. You can think of it as maybe it's just noise, like I said at the beginning, or it's a function of what we have seen to be true in the labor market for some time, which is it is not generating jobs for people who have been looking for some time. Hiring is slow. The share of unemployed workers who have been unemployed for six months or longer has been increasing for a year and a half and has shown no signs of slowing, including in this report. So we have a lot of people who have been looking without much success for a long time. And even amongst prime age workers, that can result in them leaving the labor force in a month. Historically, prime age labor force participation is at a near high but this particular time in the labor market has not shown as many opportunities for workers as it should, particularly for workers who don't have a job.
- [24:05]
Ed Elson
One of the big themes that we have continued to discuss whenever we have you on is the fact that almost all of the job growth that we've seen is coming from healthcare and social assistance. That's been true. It continues to be true each report. Was it true in this report? Is that still kind of what's happening in the job market?
- [24:22]
Catherine Ann Edwards
Yes, we are still seeing that kind of. The only sector that is very consistently and predictably adding jobs are healthcare and social assistance. I think a lot of people were hoping that this month would see a big boost to leisure and hospitality from the World cup, but it actually shed jobs in June.
- [24:37]
Ed Elson
Justin Wolf has also pointed out that since January 2025, 90% of all new non farm payroll jobs have gone to women. Actually, women now hold a majority of all non farm payroll jobs. How do we make sense of that statistic? Why is that happening? Do you think that trend will continue?
- [24:57]
Catherine Ann Edwards
Well, men and women don't work the same jobs. And if you're adding jobs in places like leisure and hospitality and in healthcare and social assistance, those can often be dominated by women. And so it's really, it's not so much that the labor market is favoring women versus the labor market is giving opportunities that women are much more likely to take. Some of your typically male jobs, especially something like manufacturing, has seen a hit over the past year and a half. Construction has been a little bit more stops and starts but has seen some growth. But we have gender differences in employment, which is natural. But that means that men and women can fare differently based on how the economy is doing. I mean the 2007, the Great Recession was notoriously very male. I mean it was a cratering of construction and manufacturing employment. The COVID pandemic recession that hit women so much harder because it hit healthcare and social assistance as well as leisure and hospitality. So I don't think these patterns spell like shouldn't be over interpreted because at the end of the day it comes down to are we pursuing policy that helps the labor market and helps workers? I think the answer is no. You can't look at the warner on, you can't look at tariffs, you can't look at deportation, you can't look at a deficit financed tax cut, that cut Medicaid and food stamps and say all of this is benefiting the worker who hurts from weak policy isn't gonna be uniform. It's gonna hit different people at different times. And right now, we're just. We're seeing male employment take a hit.
- [26:32]
Ed Elson
I wanted to ask you about immigration as well. Cause that was one of the big themes in our previous conversation. It's timely because Trump just posted on his trut. He said that there was a Federal Reserve paper that, according to Trump, showed that illegal immigration under Biden increased home prices by 30%. In reality, that's not what the paper said. It actually said that immigration had driven up prices by around 6% during the Biden administration. And then it also had some details about how actually wage growth had not been suppressed or taken a hit because of immigration. And also that employment actually increased. Point being, there's some data that might suggest that the immigration that we saw was problematic to the housing market. Trump is obviously exaggerating it and using it as a way to sort of score some political points and kind of distorting the truth. But while we're here, what do you make of those comments? And also, what do you make of how immigration is affecting the economy and the job market right now?
- [27:41]
Catherine Ann Edwards
I mean, I think it speaks volumes about how terrible his immigration policy is in 2026 that he's pointing to an effect of 2023 as being a reason why immigrants are bad for the economy. I mean, we've had a historic year in the United States. We had a net loss in immigrants, and the majority of them were legal immigrants. That did not come because of restrictions on spousal visas, restrictions on H1BS. I mean, restrictions on student vis says this hit United States hard. We had a net decline in immigrants in 2025. And if there was some miracle cure waiting at the end of immigrants not being as important part of our economy, surely we would have seen it in 2026, the year after. And yet here we are talking about speculative and misrepresented comments about a paper that took place years ago. For me, the hollowness is obvious. If there was some cure to not having immigrants in the economy or having fewer immigrants, you would have seen it by now. But instead, what you really see is that the people who have benefited from the decline in immigration are the immigrants who are still here, who are seeing lower unemployment rates and more opportunities. Because just like men and women don't hold the same jobs, native workers and immigrant workers, they don't hold the same jobs either. So if you deport part of the immigrant workforce, it tends to leave the remaining immigrants in higher demand and helps their wages accelerate because now they have more market power. So I Mean, I suppose in some backwards way he is doing immigrants a favor, but at a really high cost to our society and the fabric of our democracy. I mean, I do wonder at what point Americans will learn the lesson on immigration that nativism has no economic benefit. It's unclear to me when that will happen, but so long as you need me to make the case on the show, I'm always happy to do it.
- [29:25]
Ed Elson
Well, I always do appreciate it because it's a helpful reminder, just looking ahead. You pointed out that, that there's a lot of noise in these reports always. And it's kind of hard to know what to even pay attention to, what is actually important and what matters going forward. Open question. What does matter? What are you focused on in the job market? What do you think people are not talking about enough that they perhaps should be talking about?
- [29:52]
Catherine Ann Edwards
I think what matters most to me tends to be what matters most to people, which is wage growth. The reason why we care about the payroll employment number is because if we're adding enough jobs, we can bring down the unemployment rate. And the reason why we care about bringing down the unemployment rate is so that people who need economic livelihood have it. And if the unemployment rate is, falls enough, that pushes up wages and we all earn more money. I mean, this is a market. It's. It's called the labor market. It operates off of supply and demand and we want it to be tight so that we can have higher wages. And given, given the oil price shocks from the war in Iran and given the weak wages we've. Or the weak labor market we've had for the past year and a half, we've had months where price growth is outmatching wage growth, that a pay cut for every American worker. And I don't think I will feel like the economy is in a strong enough place or the labor market is in a strong enough place until we have consistently good wage growth for every worker. Not just the workers at the top, but workers in the middle and at the bottom. And we have not seen it on the aggregate, on the average. We haven't seen it in months. It hasn't really picked up pace since 2022. But we also are coming off of decades when the bottom half of Americans have not seen good enough wage growth. So for me, wages, because that is the payout, the literal payout for workers, weak wage growth like we've seen this spring. I mean, it's, that is just, it's so hard on families to have prices go up even inches at a time when your paycheck's not going up at all.
- [31:23]
Ed Elson
Yeah. And the negative real wage growth that we were seeing, to me, I totally agree, seems to be the most striking. Do you think that that will continue in 2026 or is it just impossible to tell at this point? I mean, who knows about, about inflation? But I mean, the real question is, will wages keep up? So far they haven't. And how much longer will that continue to be the case?
- [31:48]
Catherine Ann Edwards
You know, if the economy is not producing jobs fast enough to get employment to the workers who want it? It's very hard to imagine a scenario in which workers have enough bargaining power to really bid up wages. I mean, at the end of the day, yes, it's a market, but that market's tightness is a way to give workers power to ask for more, to demand more from their employers. There to be some channel of getting power to workers to ask for money to see wages grow up. If the market's not doing it, you could do it through things like unionization, collective bargaining, labor market regulation to give workers a lift. The labor market remains to be seen. I don't see it going up this year. I don't see Republican controlled Congress and House and Senate and presidency to, to really do much for the working class.
- [32:31]
Ed Elson
All right, Katherine Ann Edwards, Ph.D. economist, Economic Policy consultant and columnist for Bloomberg News. Catherine, we always appreciate your time. Thank you.
- [32:39]
Catherine Ann Edwards
Thanks for having me back.
- [32:45]
Ed Elson
Dell stocks surged as much as 8% yesterday. Not because of any material information or any news related to the company, but instead because the President pumped it. Yes. Yesterday on live television, Trump encouraged Americans to, quote, go out and buy a Dell computer. And it was exactly at that moment that shares of Dell soared. Does President Trump own any Dell shares, you might ask? The answer is, of course, yes. According to his recently released financial statements, Trump purchased nearly a million dollars worth of Dell last year. And now he is actively pumping it on tv. This is yet another example of a dynamic that we are calling the kingmaker economy. And that is the best way to increase your stock price in America today isn't to improve product or to sell more goods and services. It is to have your stock anointed by the high priest of American markets, AKA the President. If you can do that, great things will occur. You might get a shout out in a national address. You might even get a government contract. Who knows? The point is, it pays to kiss ass. Not metaphorically, but literally. And that's why so many leaders are now doing it, from Tim Cook and his golden Apple trophy to now Sam Altman and his benevolent offer to sling OpenAI stock onto the balance sheet of the US Government and hopefully get a bailout. Is this how free markets are supposed to work? Is this what capitalism is supposed to look like? Absolutely not.
- [34:30]
Catherine Ann Edwards
Not.
- [34:31]
Ed Elson
But that doesn't matter anymore. Trump has made it clear to American business, do something for the leader, and the leader will do something for you. Quid pro quo. We are becoming more and more like China every day. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our research team is Dan Shalon, Kristen o' Donoghue and Mia Silverio. And our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Profit you Markets from Profit you Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I'll see you tomorrow. Queen Carvania stood haloed by the morning sun. An army hung on her every word. Champions, I have sold my chariot on Carvana. Twas a lovely suv, an inexplicably queenly offer.
- [35:37]
Catherine Ann Edwards
They're even coming to the castle to collect it. Tonight we feast. An offer you can feast on. Sell your car today on Carvana. Pickup fees may apply.
- [35:49]
Michael Green
Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile.
- [35:51]
Ed Elson
Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for 15amonth is back.
- [35:58]
Catherine Ann Edwards
So I thought it would be fun if we made 15 bills, but it
- [36:02]
Ed Elson
turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment
- [36:11]
Catherine Ann Edwards
of 45 for 3 months, $90 for 6 months or $180 for 12 month plan required. $15 per month equivalent to taxes and fees. Extra initial plan term only greater than 50gb. Me slow when network is busy. Terms.