What the AI Scare Gets Wrong

Summary

Prof G Markets – “What the AI Scare Gets Wrong”
Episode Date: March 2, 2026
Host: Scott Galloway
Co-host: Ed Zitron
Podcast: Vox Media Podcast Network

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the recent market chaos triggered by a viral, fictional AI “think piece,” “The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis,” from Citrini Research. Scott Galloway and Ed Zitron break down how speculative, narrative-driven fears about AI-induced economic collapse impacted real markets, why those fears are overblown, and how investors can better interpret technological change. The second half shifts to a critical, data-driven look at President Trump’s recent State of the Union, debunking economic claims and analyzing capital flows, market underperformance, and shifting global investment sentiment. The episode closes with an in-depth discussion of Netflix, Paramount, and Warner Brothers’ media M&A drama, and actionable investing predictions.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The AI Scare: Fiction Meets Markets

(08:10 - 18:00)

• The Incident: Markets tumbled—Dow down 2%, software stocks down 5%—after a fictional blog post from Citrini Research went viral, depicting a 2028 AI-led economic apocalypse.
• Blog’s Narrative: AI causes unemployment to spike to 10%, slashes consumer spending, triggers stock market collapse, and rewires the economy into a spiral of declining demand and “ghost GDP.”
• Market Reaction: The companies most impacted (Apollo, Blue Owl, TPG, Visa, DoorDash, etc.) were simply those named in the post—showing the narrative, not fundamentals, drove the sell-offs.
• Scott Galloway: "I think the opportunity here is that there's a growth versus valuation mismatch... Compressed multiples plus durable fee growth plus strong fundraising all adds up to what I think is undervalued stocks relative to the broader market." (10:53)
• Ed Zitron: "These drawdowns have absolutely nothing to do with fundamentals... it's all about the vibes. It’s the most obvious perfect example of narrative running away from fundamentals, narrative becoming untied and untethered from the numbers." (11:54)

Notable Quotes

• “What we’re seeing is a level of panic and confusion in the markets... We’re deciding to just re-rate everything based on that interesting and creative think piece.” — Ed Zitron [13:40]
• “Who is actually selling right now? If this is what it took, some article that some guy wrote online, that was kind of interesting and spurred some imaginative thoughts... then I don’t really agree with your prize in the first place.” — Ed Zitron [14:44]

---

2. Debunking the “AI Doom Loop”

(15:28 - 20:50)

• Central Claims Examined: AI will double unemployment, create “ghost GDP,” and render white-collar jobs worthless.
• Ed Zitron’s Critique: The scare story ignores the value creation side of AI adoption and the inevitability that productivity gains are spent (e.g., on new, more complex legal and business services).
• Scott Galloway: Shares personal example of legal spending: “I’m spending probably more on legal this year, but it’s moving upstream... from reviewing simple advertising agreements to corporate structure and tax efficiency.” (18:07)
• Upstream/Downstream Work: Work gets more “human” as automation advances; complexity, relationships (EQ), and creativity are resilient.

Notable Quotes

• “My mom was a secretary... that’s gone away. But my mom had good EQ and went upstream and became an executive assistant.” — Scott Galloway [19:00]
• “The money is going to go to someone.”— Ed Zitron [22:00]
• "Sure, some money might move out of this ecosystem, but then where is it going to go? That’s the question that people aren’t really asking enough and that the Citrini research article actually refuses to acknowledge at all." — Ed Zitron [20:50]

---

3. Tech, Labor, and Economic Optimism vs Pessimism

(25:08 - 32:53)

• YouTube Viewer Question: What about young people whose expensive degrees may become useless due to AI?
• Scott Galloway: Critique of economic pessimism as a political and cultural phenomenon rather than a technology inevitability: “We have decided we want income inequality in the US because we all believe at some point that we’ll be a millionaire… The American ethos of risk taking and understanding of technology—every innovation in technology has over the medium and the long term created more jobs.” [27:10]
• **Applications for law/business school hit record highs—AI isn’t scaring off the next generation. New business starts are at all-time highs.
• Ed Zitron: Both optimism and pessimism are justified—investors must ask “what could go right?” while governments should plan for “what could go wrong?”

Notable Quotes

• “If you want a chance of getting rich, sorry, you must ask yourself, what could go right?” — Ed Zitron [30:42]
• “The fact that we’re talking about this convinces me this is not going to happen as it’s played out, because it’s the shit you’re not expecting that gets you…” — Scott Galloway [32:53]

---

4. Real Market Risks: Political and Capital Flow Shifts

(34:19 - 37:27)

• Biggest Threat Isn’t AI, It’s Policy Uncertainty: Galloway warns that America’s erratic industrial policy and declining rule of law is spooking international capital, making the US market underperform globally.
• “Despite the massive investment and success of these tech companies, the American market has underperformed every major market.” — Scott Galloway [36:20]
• Discussion of declining foreign investor trust, the weakening dollar, and international capital rotation.

---

5. The State of the Union: Hype, Spin, and Market Realities

(41:07 - 53:59)

• Debunking Trump’s Claims: $18 trillion in “new investment” is made up; tariffs are paid by US firms and consumers, not foreigners; gas prices not as low as claimed; inflation spun, not solved.
• Scott Galloway: “I thought it was mostly a nothing burger… A masterclass in cherry picking. I have trouble getting through the whole thing.” [43:16]
• **Unemployment is low, but GDP growth is concentrated among a few big companies and deficit spending is enormous ($2T+).
• “He’s asking everyone to stare at AI and big company Capex and then take off your glasses when you’re looking at your grocery receipts.” — Scott Galloway [43:51]

Notable Exchange

• “It’s a great analogy. There should be legal implications for lying about the numbers of the economy during the State of the Union.” — Ed Zitron [46:16]
• “When all the mistakes are in your favor, they’re not mistakes, they’re lies.” — Scott Galloway (citing Frances Haugen) [50:00]

---

6. Netflix, Paramount & Warner Brothers: M&A Winners & Losers

(58:40 - 80:22)

• Netflix Walks Away: Leaving the Warner Bros. Discovery bidding war, Netflix stock jumps 10% premarket, Paramount surges 7%.
• Winners: Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders (top price for a declining asset); Netflix (demonstrates discipline, avoids a “deal from hell”); Paramount (gains scale, for now).
• Losers: Creative community (consolidation likely means cost-cutting/AI, job losses); American public (less media diversity, more power concentrated in a few entities).
• Galloway on Netflix’s Advantage: “They aren’t very acquisitive because... they walk away when no deal makes sense. Every deal makes sense at some price, and no deal makes any sense at a certain price.” [66:13]

Notable Quotes

• “If I were more Machiavellian, I would start firing up my lobbyists... to delay [Paramount’s] deal. It’s going to put most of Hollywood into a sense of stasis.” — Scott Galloway [61:00]
• “You are about to see so many people in your unions get rode so hard and put away wet... a destruction in human capital…” — Scott Galloway [71:44]
• “Does that mean they’re all going to shift over to Netflix, which has become entrenched in Hollywood…?” — Ed Zitron [73:32]

---

7. Macro Takeaways & Investing Predictions

(80:32 - 82:02)

• Scott’s Sector Picks: Sees opportunities in business development/private capital companies (Apollo, TPG, Blue Owl, Blackstone). Undervalued due to pessimism, compressed multiples, but with strong fee growth and fundraising.
• Ed’s Summary: Watch for liquidity fears in private credit, but fundamentals are stronger than the market’s pricing suggests.

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [08:10] - The AI “fiction” blog post sparks real market panic
• [15:28] - Breaking down/exposing the “Ghost GDP” & unemployment claims
• [25:08] - Should we fear for college grads in an AI economy?
• [32:53] - Risk: Real threats vs policy-led decline
• [41:07] - State of the Union: Fact vs. Fiction
• [58:40] - Paramount beats Netflix for Warner, implications for media
• [80:32] - Market outlook and actionable predictions

---

Memorable Moments

• “When all the mistakes are in your favor, they’re not mistakes, they’re lies.” — Scott Galloway [50:00]
• “It doesn’t matter how great the barbecue is if it’s raining outside, like the atmospherics and the context matter.” — Scott Galloway [50:36]
• “If you want a chance of getting rich, sorry, you must ask yourself, what could go right? You have no other choice.” — Ed Zitron [30:42]
• “I think last night when this deal, when Netflix walked, I think you heard a scream from millions in the creative community that they’re just... WGA and SAG AFTRA are literally too fucking stupid to realize what just happened.” — Scott Galloway [71:44]
• “What we’re seeing now... because of lack of faith in our current administration, industrial policy, and a degradation of rule of law, I think you’re seeing flows out [of US markets].” — Scott Galloway [50:36]

---

Tone & Style

• Conversational, irreverent, sharp, no-holds-barred.
• Frequent humor and market metaphors; clear frustration at market irrationality and political shenanigans.
• Deep dives into both market narratives and policy fundamentals.

---

This episode offers a comprehensive look at how the stories we tell—about AI, markets, and media—move money, move people, and rarely correspond to deeper fundamentals. Galloway and Zitron’s advice: Don’t get caught up in the hype, ask “what could go right,” and look for opportunities in the gaps between narrative and reality.

Transcript

[Scott Galloway]

Support for the show comes from vcx, the public ticker for private tech. The US Stock market started history's greatest wave of wealth creation. From factory workers in Detroit to farmers in Omaha, anyone could own a piece of the great American companies. But today, our most innovative companies are staying private longer, which means everyday Americans are missing out. Until now. Introducing VCX, a public ticker for private tech. Visit getvcx.com for more info. That's getvcx.com carefully consider the investment materials before investing, including objectives, risk, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the Fund's [e-mail] this is a paid sponsorship. Support for today's show comes from darktrace. Darktrace is the cybersecurity defenders deserve and the one they need to defend. Beyond darktrace is AI cybersecurity that can stop novel threats before they become breaches across email, clouds, networks, and more. With the power to see across your entire attack surface, Cyber defenders, including IT decision makers, ISOs, and cyber security professionals, now have the ability to stop zero days before day zero. The world needs defenders. Defenders need Darktrace. Visit Darkchrace.com defenders for more information. Close your eyes. Listen to Monday.com feel the sensation of an AI work platform so flexible and intuitive, it feels like it was built just for you. Now open your eyes, go to Monday.com, start for free, and finally breathe. Today's number 57. That's the percentage of American dating app users who are men. And true story. I was furious when I found my wife had a profile on Raya. That lying bitch isn't fun to be around. I like the Ronald McDonald approach to dating. Quarter Pounder. Ooh, that's right. Claire's got her hands over her eyes. She's got her hands over her eyes.

[Ed Zitron]

At least it's clever.

[Scott Galloway]

How are you, Ed?

[Ed Zitron]

I'm doing very well back in New York. Good to be here.

[Scott Galloway]

Oh, you did make it home.

[Ed Zitron]

I made it home. I made it home. The blizzard was a real problem.

[Scott Galloway]

So Ed is like an amateur traveler. Like a little snowstorm and he's stuck in London for three days. He's like, oh, no, I missed a flight. I have to be here until the winter solstice and go on the Queen Mary. You're so amateur.

[Ed Zitron]

You know, I also left a sweater on the plane, so I'm not having to deal with that. So you are right. I am an amateur.

[Scott Galloway]

I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. Dude, do you realize how much shit the fact you even brought that up?

[Ed Zitron]

I know. I should just go get myself a new one, right? But it's my favorite sweater. I looked online, tried to find it, couldn't find it in the right color. And so, yeah, I put the complaint

[Scott Galloway]

in for a sweater. I've lost computers and passports and panerai watches on planes. And this is what you do. Oh, I need a new computer, Panerai or, Or. Or passport. You're never getting it back. Well, how do you think these flight attendants look so good when they're not working? You think they've ever returned anything?

[Ed Zitron]

I will check back with you. I'm gonna get that sweater back.

[Scott Galloway]

Gonna get your sweater back. Yeah.

[Ed Zitron]

How are you?

[Scott Galloway]

I' well, I've done a bunch of podcasts. I'm trying to figure out what to do with resistant unsubscribe. Going to March. Do I do meta March? I'm doing this event next Sunday in Minneapolis. My youngest got a shadow day at a high school we were applying to, so I'm taking him to the US and then I might go to the Zero Bond opening party in Vegas.

[Ed Zitron]

So.

[Scott Galloway]

A little bit of. Little bit of chocolate and peanut butter there.

[Ed Zitron]

Do you have to go to the Zero Bond opening policy in Vegas?

[Scott Galloway]

No, the correct question is, do I have to go to the fucking shadow day for my kids high school? Daddy needs to head to Vegas.

[Ed Zitron]

Love that. Vegas. Vegas, baby.

[Scott Galloway]

You want to come with me? Yeah. No, I'm taking Claire. I think Claire's dirtier than you. I don't think she minds me getting fucked up.

[Ed Zitron]

I think Claire wants to go. I think Claire wants to go. I think you should take Claire.

[Scott Galloway]

You'll judge me. You seem surprisingly uncomfortable. Were my jokes that bad today?

[Ed Zitron]

I do.

[Scott Galloway]

You seem very uneasy. Is it because you don't have your favorite sweater? Do we need Claire? Do we need to get Ed a plushie? Yeah, he needs a stuffed in. Do we need to get Ed a plushie? That's what you decide to talk about on the podcast? That you left a sweater on a flight?

[Ed Zitron]

I live a boring life. These things are important.

[Scott Galloway]

You live a very exciting life.

[Ed Zitron]

I'm not going to the Zero Bond opening party in Vegas.

[Scott Galloway]

Yeah, but the problem is you're going to get more action in south by Southwest. Everyone's going to be like, can you introduce me to Ed?

[Ed Zitron]

Well, speaking of south by Southwest, quick shout out. We are returning to the Vox Media podcast stage at south by southwest on Saturday, March 14. I'm very excited about it. Scott I think, is very excited about it. So join me and Scott at 10am for a live taping of Prof. G Markets. Last year was honestly pretty epic. We filled out that that auditorium and we had a great time. The year before that was our very first time doing a live show. Less epic, but still pretty fun. But I think this year is going to be the greatest ever.

[Scott Galloway]

Is it another thing? Are we doing. Do we have a sponsor? Are we doing it at some corporate headquarters? Are we doing it actually at south by southw?

[Ed Zitron]

We're doing it at south by Southwest on the Vox Media podcast stage. On the main stage.

[Scott Galloway]

We're taking. I think 16 of us are going, aren't we? It's like a bunch of us. You guys stay at a shitty hotel and Daddy stays at the Austin proper because Daddy's daddy. But I love it there. I think it's so much fun. I think it's. And please. And trying to be sincere, which isn't easy for me. But please come up and say hi. Especially Ed's a little like pretentious and a little arrogant. Thinks he's better than everyone else. I am.

[Ed Zitron]

Totally.

[Scott Galloway]

Claire and I are down down with the digirati at South By.

[Ed Zitron]

All right, well, before we move on here, I'd love for you to really genuinely and passionately read the info about our special discount on the voxmedia.com website. Could you?

[Scott Galloway]

Great that they're discounting us already. That's a good sign. For more info and a special discount, visit voxmedia.com SXSW that's voxmedia.com SXSW we'll see you there. Oh, that's compelling copy. That's compelling copy.

[Ed Zitron]

You can feel the excitement. It's palpable. Okay, let's move on.

[Scott Galloway]

Now is the time to buy. I hope you have plenty of the wherewithal.

[Ed Zitron]

A blog post about AI from Citrini Research stirred up some market chaos last week after it dropped. The Dow fell as much as 2% and software stocks fell 5%. We've seen markets react to AI commentary before, but this time there was a twist. This piece wasn't really an analysis. This piece was actually fiction. Titled the 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis, the blog imagines a scenario where AI drives unemployment to 10%, where consumer spending collapses, where markets plunge and the entire economy is fundamentally reshaped. So, Scott, we discussed this a little bit with Josh Brown during the week last week. He had some interesting thoughts. We also got a lot of feedback from our audience. A lot of people are very shaken by this article. Again, it doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. But it does imagine a potential scenario where AI is so powerful, it's so productive that actually it just completely rewrites the script of our economy and actually puts the S and P, puts all markets into the red and takes the consumer economy down with it. So let's just start with your initial reactions to the Citrini research article, the blog post, and also how the markets reacted.

[Scott Galloway]

I think the best thing about that paper, that paper inspired an enormous drawdown in the market and it's inspired me to start buying stocks in Apollo, TPG and Blue Owl because I mean, just to summarize, and I bet everybody's already heard this, but the basic notion is that okay, these white collar work gets kicked in the nuts, right? And that unemployment basically doubles. And then there's because of all these big spenders who have good jobs, get fired, they cut their consumer spending and consumer companies are forced to look for places to save money to maintain their EBITDA margins. They turn to AI and it just kind of inspires us and so on and so on in this downward loop. That's not an original concept. I mean the idea that we've gone from 90% of us in agriculture to 2%, you would have thought that people being laid off spend less money, spend less money on food. Technically it's not a new concept. What's different here is the speed and they think the severity. But where I had with this is that effectively what you have now the companies I'm looking at, I've been doing a lot of selling and buying. I've been selling down Apple and Amazon for kind of resistant unsubscribe and I'm reallocating it into SaaS companies. And also I think the new opportunity is in these PE private credit or what they call business development firms. So just to look at them, Apollo is trading at 14 times earnings while maintaining double digit earnings and AUM growth. And that's how they make money, Is they deploy AUM and they collect 2 and 20 on it. So it's trading below market multiple of the S and P. Despite higher growth, TPG is trading at about a third below kind of fair value estimates relative to its peers. It's got incredible fundraising and it's expanding its fee earnings. And essentially these prices reflect pessimism more than growth trajectory. And then Blue Owl, which was kind of the ground zero for this, has a 7, 8% dividend yield. And the market appears to be, in my opinion, over inflating the fears around private credit. Or put another way, I think the opportunity Here, and I want to get your thoughts is that there's a growth versus valuation mismatch and that is all three of those companies are growing AUM and recurring fee revenue and sector multiples compressed due to kind of private credit or liquidity fears. So I would argue kind of. To summarize, compressed multiples plus durable fee growth plus strong fundraising all adds up to what I think is undervalued stocks relative to the broader market.

[Ed Zitron]

All those companies you mentioned, they got really hit hard after this article came out. Some other names that have gotten really hit hard again because of this AI narrative. Visa, MasterCard, American Express, DoorDash, a lot of the big software names. And you ask yourself like, okay, what do all of these companies, what have all of these stocks have in common? If you look at their fundamental businesses, they do not have a lot in common. They're very different businesses pursuing very, very different objectives. The thing that all of those companies have in common is they were all mentioned by name in the blog post, which tells you that these drawdowns have absolutely nothing to do with fundamentals, nothing to do with what we're actually seeing with their businesses on the ground, nothing to do with their earnings. It's all about the vibes. It's all about the fact that they were included in the big bucket of stocks that this guy who wrote this interesting and as we've discussed, very well written article that was really creative and really fun to read. I think that's an important underlooked aspect of this. And they were all mentioned by name. And because of that, you saw this gigantic drawdown literally in a single day on all of these stocks because they were included in that article. And that is like the most obvious perfect example of narrative running away from fundamentals, narrative becoming untied and untethered from the numbers. And so I think you're right with your instincts to just go in and be like, okay, I'm probably gonna have to buy these things because they it, it is such a clear indication of such a level of panic and confusion in the markets. I mean, imagine you are an asset manager and you've been invested in, let's say doordash for a number of years and you've done like pretty well if you were an early investor. And imagine this article comes out because your friend's friend sent it to you over DM on Twitter and you read it and you see the name DoorDash and the guy who wrote the article says that DoorDash is going to be the poster child of the AI apocalypse. And then you see people retweeting it and people commenting about it. And then you start to look at the markets, maybe you see a little bit of a drawdown beginning to occur. And then suddenly you say, oh my gosh, all bets are off. I'm panic selling right now. That is such a crazy thing to do. And what I would love to to know is like, who is actually selling right now. I mean, we could talk about the macro themes in this blog post. I think there's a lot in there that is very interesting and that we should take seriously. But the selling pressure that we're seeing after these blog posts come out. We saw the same thing with the other blog the other week. Something big is happening. Another dude writing a think piece. It's a creative writing project, not telling us anything new, telling us all the same things that we already know, but reframing it in a creative and slightly doomerish way. And then suddenly we're deciding to just re rate everything based on that interesting and creative think piece. I mean, it really doesn't make a lot of sense. So I think that your instincts are correct on that. On the blog itself. I mean, some of its conclusions I think are fair and worthy of discussion. I think that there is a real unemployment risk here with AI that is worth talking about. I think that the way that the article kind of ties in all of the different elements and pieces in the ecosystem and how there could be a chain reaction that is triggered by AI, I don't agree with the idea that it's going to bring down the markets by 40%. I think that's way over the top. But the fact that all of these things are interconnected, I think that is a worthwhile statement. But it's the conclusions that are being drawn and the actions that are being taken after these things come out, which just makes me think, like, where is your conviction? I mean, if you were invested in these companies for the past 10, 15 years and then suddenly some guy writes something, you decide, this is it, now I'm going to sell. It's like, well then I don't really agree with your prize in the first place. If this is what it took, some article that some guy wrote online that was kind of interesting and spurred some imaginative thoughts. So we should turn, I guess, to some of his economic predictions.

[Scott Galloway]

What were the biggest assumptions around some of the macro factors he's assuming here?

[Ed Zitron]

The central stat is again, he's writing this as if it's 2028 and we're looking at what's happening in the headlines. Quote, the unemployment rate printed 10.2% and the cumulative drawdown in the S and P was down to 38% from October 2026 highs. And the central thesis is that AI adoption is going to cause this mass unemployment, which is going to reduce wages and reduce earnings across the board, and it's going to put the economy into this downward spiral. And there's this idea that he brings up called, which he calls ghost gdp. And I'll just read you the quote. It says, when cracks began appearing in the consumer economy, economic pundits popularized the phrase ghost GDP output that shows up in the national accounts but never circulates through the real economy. And this is really the central idea of this AI thesis, that there's going to be a lot of value that is created, but none of us are really ever going to see it. And I think that that is arguably fair only up to a point. And the trouble is, it gets into this level of doomerism that just is really unrealistic, where there's this idea that actually we're not going to be able to get paid anything because AI is going to completely replace us, which is going to completely eviscerate incomes, completely eviscerate wages. And meanwhile, as that is happening, consumption of, of the AI products is going to keep growing and growing and growing. And this is the part that doesn't really make sense because how is it that you're going to have people who don't have enough money to pay for anything or to consume anything, and yet consumption continues to go up? And this is the part where he's very descriptive on the value destruction that we might see, but then completely ignores the value creation and what we might do with all of that productivity. And I think this is the thing that a lot of people are taking issue with. It's something that I take issue with as well. I think that there's not enough analysis of what's going to happen on the other side of those accounts. I mean, if you've got consumption going up, then that necessarily assumes that people have money to pay for things. But he doesn't really acknowledge that side of the equation. He only focuses on the downside, which when you read it, is kind of interesting, but when you start to logically think it through, it doesn't really make

[Scott Galloway]

much sense what you've done. And I want to use it as a jumping off point. You've been talking a lot about what does AI mean for your career. And I've been thinking a Lot about. Okay, on a meta level, how should you be thinking about not only how you allocate your financial capital and we talk a lot about where we think things are oversold and there's opportunity, as we do in the SaaS space and now the, I don't know, the private credit space or the business development space. In terms of your own human capital, the way I would try and frame it is the following. My mom was a secretary. She oversaw the secretarial pool at the Southwestern University School of Law in downtown la, where by the way, I worked in the mailroom. And that's gone away. Word processing, you know, there's no more secretaries, they're gone. But my mom had good EQ and went upstream and became an executive assistant. Another example, we have every piece, every contract I had with an advertiser, with an employee I used to, if I got investment document, if I'm negotiating an agreement with Vox, I'd send to our lawyers and some mid level, not even a partner attorney would review it, come back with some thoughts, I'd jump on the call, cost me 1, 3, $5,000. Every agreement, send it to a lawyer. Now I say to Claude, who's working with us, no, you're smart. Have AI look at it, give the prompt on what you're worried about it, get a feedback. And you're now the in house counsel at the same time. So being a quote unquote fairly mid level attorney, that's not a good place to be. At the same time, I'm spending more money than ever on a woman named Lucy Lee, who's this partner at a firm called Citron, around things like corporate structure, ensuring that the types of compensation strategies for you guys that give you the opportunity to sell shares at some point, long term capital gain, structuring the company such that any capital I put in, if we hold onto it for 5 years might qualify for 1202. I am spending probably more on legal this year, but it's moving upstream from reviewing simple advertising agreements to okay, corporate structure and tax efficiency, which is Latin for tax avoidance. So the question everyone should be asking in their job is of all the things I do here, what is most complicated and generally most of them come down to? A lot of them come down to sort of EQ or complexity. What do I do that's hard or complex? What involves relationships and will I have an opportunity to move upstream or downstream? Because a lot of that stuff will be taken out.

[Ed Zitron]

I think this is a really important point. You mentioned you're pulling back on A certain type of legal service. And you're spending a lot less money on that because you've got this AI tool that is helpful and you've hired someone who's going to consolidate that work. But then you're spending more on the corporate restructuring over here. And that is a dynamic that I think a lot of people are not really recognizing, which is, sure, some money might move out of this ecosystem, but then where is it going to go? That's the question that people aren't really asking enough and that the Citrini research article actually refuses to acknowledge at all. They spend a lot of time saying, here's where the money's going to move away from. It's going to pull out of here and here and here and here and here and then I don't know. And they just offer no other alternatives. And I think one of the. In my view, one of the silliest predictions is the idea that friction goes to zero. This is a big thesis that we see in the article. The idea that all forms of friction in business and in daily life, when you're trying to book something and it takes time and it's annoying, all of these things that often involve some level of middle management or human relationships, all of that is going to go to0 because AI agents can do them for us. Therefore, friction, on which a lot of the economy is built is going to be entirely eliminated. That's the way they describe it. It's just gone. Now. That, again, is a. Is the wrong characterization, because what's happening, it's not that the friction is suddenly eliminated, is that we now have a technology and a set of companies that are just handling the friction better than the old companies, which is the same thing we always see with technology. If you look at Visa, which was brought up in the article, or MasterCard, someone might make the argument that when they came up with the credit card, they eliminated the friction of paying with a check or paying with cash. And so therefore friction is gone. No, the friction has just been handled by someone else. And now the value and the money is accruing to a different player. The same thing is going to happen with these AI agents and the same thing is going to happen for, as you say, you're taking the money away from here. And now I'm going to spend it on something that is also worth my time, and so the money's going to go to someone. The only real concern if the doomsday scenario actually plays out would be that all of the value is sucked up and literally hoarded with no redistribution mechanism whatsoever into the hands of literally just like the few people that own the AI companies. Now that's not a totally ridiculous statement because we're already seeing how that's kind of playing out in our current economy. But it's not going to go to the to the extent that I think that this article assumes you're going to need some level of consumption in the regular economy for the value to go up and for the value to accrue somewhere. And that's the part that the article doesn't really acknowledge enough. I do want to say one more point. This was a YouTube comment that I read this morning that was responding to Josh's view that I think is kind of similar to us, that this article is a little bit out there and it's fiction. It's not going to happen. So I just want to get your reactions to this YouTube comment. This guy says, okay Josh, but what happens when AI renders my kids $250,000 finance undergraduate degree useless because he can't get an entry level analyst job because the jobs have all been assimilated under some AI chatbot? Or if their law degree is useless because they can't get an associate job because the partners have discovered AI can get rid of 80% of their associates and paralegals. When this hits white collar the way automation has hit blue collar jobs, then what are we all commun for advocating for ubi or do they all pivot to just deliver for Uber Eats? Oh wait, they can't. All the cars are autonomous because of a robotic delivery driver. This was a popular comment on the YouTube. I just want to see if you have any thoughts or responses to that.

[Scott Galloway]

I think that comment is a function of dissatisfaction with our economy where too few people are enjoying the spoils. And I don't even think some of that is a function of technology. But what we hate to admit is we keep voting in people. You know, Bernie and Senator Sanders and Senator Warren have been bitching and moaning about inequality for 30 years while they've been in the Senate, including when they controlled all three houses. We have purposely chosen Democrats and Republicans. Income inequality. So yeah, technology has been played a part in it. But be clear. We have decided we want income inequality in the US because we all believe at some point that we'll be a millionaire and just wait to see how we treat the bottom 99% when we're in the top one. Is that a breaking point where it's at the same. The Gini coefficient is at the same Levels of France during the French Revolution. Absolutely. But the what Josh has said, that really struck me. You need to ask yourself what could go right? I love that. So what does your kid do? First off, in terms of this narrative that your college degree isn't worth. That's effectively what he's saying is that the college degree at Stern or at UVA is not worth 3 to $500,000. Okay, I get it in theory. But guess what? Applications hit record highs this year to law school. If there's a place you would think people would not be applying to school or would have no pricing power, you would think it'd be law schools. No evidence of that. People are still doubling down on law school. I would argue that probably it's because EQ and being a well rounded person better immunizes you against whatever change comes down from this technology or others than any than anything else you can do. In addition, when people ask me what's the difference When I speak here in the uk, what's the difference between the UK and the us? I say the same thing. You're the ones that stayed. The word risk defines our success. We're more willing to take risks on capital. We're more willing to start crazy stupid businesses. People are much more promiscuous with their own capital, thinking maybe someday I'm investing in the right Google. People are much, much more risk aggressive, giving up a good job and moving to San Francisco and taking a lower salary and more equity in a startup. And just along the lines of risk, the number of new business permits or new business applications in 2004, not that long ago, was 150,000 new business applications. This year or last year it was half a million, triple the number of people have decided to try and start their businesses. Some of that might be because they're fed up in the corporate world or they don't have any choice. But whatever it is, it's just striking how many people are starting businesses. When I graduated from business school in 2002, 92, there were only two entrepreneurs in my entire class and my co founder was the second. No one was starting businesses just to be the optimist here. There is a really solid case here around what could go right. The American ethos of risk taking and understanding of technology. Every innovation in technology has over the medium and the long term created more jobs. The market responds with good government policy. It tries to fill in the gaps. Unfortunately, the V might be more severe here in America. We are not good at taking care of the people who are retraining them who are on the wrong side of this trade. But not to sound too much like, I don't know, a Pollyanna here, I think it's a pretty interesting time to be coming out of college and looking at different opportunities. If Ed Elson was coming out of Princeton and you had two co founders. Now granted you're white and privileged and a little bit snooty, but okay, you come out of Ohio State or you come out of Michigan State, which are both really good schools and you are outstanding at leveraging AI and you're going to start a senior some sort of. You're going to help people find the right seniors facility for pop up or nana and you're going to charge them 200 bucks instead of the consultants charge 5,000 and then you're going to negotiate using AI agents the best deal possible. I think that's a really cool little bit. I just made that up in 30 seconds. I think it's a really cool little business and people are going to fill all sorts of niches and be able to find capital and do really cool, interesting businesses. If I was coming out of school right now, I'd be saying I'd want to learn AI and I'd want to understand healthcare care and I'd want to cut a swath through the middle of those two things. Anyways, long winded way of saying I think it's important to ask what could go right.

[Ed Zitron]

I think the thing that a lot of people are feeling right now is there's this incredible cognitive dissonance because the argument for what could go right, as you say, is actually very, very strong. And we've heard it from you, we've heard it from me and we've heard it from many others at the same time. The argument for what could go wrong is also quite strong because this technology is incredibly powerful and we don't know what's going to happen. We are at such a time of incredible uncertainty that having a position on either side, both of them are very reasonable. And that's why I think a lot of people would maybe listen to us right now and say, oh, they're talking out of both sides of their mouth. It's like, yeah, because there are different futures here and there are different probabilities to those different futures. And that's what we're trying to parse out right now. What is the probability of it going right? What's the probability of it going wrong? They're both decent probabilities. Now, a framework that I would add onto this, I think Going forward, I think it is the investor's job to ask what could go right? Because as you say, if you are an investor and you spend all your time thinking, what could go wrong? You are going to get absolutely destroyed. If you never put your capital to work, if you never take risks, if you always think that tomorrow is going to be doomsday, you're just never going to get rich. That's just the reality. So that's why we're asking this question. This is an investing show, this is a markets show. If you want a chance of getting rich, sorry, you must ask yourself, what could go right? You have no other choice. If you want to just sit and stay, you know, never increase your income, never increase your assets, then okay, go for it and just always ask, what could go wrong? Having said that, I also think that it is the government's job to ask what could go wrong. It's the regulator's job to be asking that question. What could AI do to job displacement? How many jobs could it theoretically get rid of? If that happens, what is going to be our response to that? How do we regulate this technology such that we don't walk into an economic disaster? And the thing that I am noticing right now is that the investors right now seem to be obsessed with the question of what could go wrong, which is a bad idea. And the government seems to be obsessed with the question of what could go right. The government seems to think, everything's going to be fine, don't worry about it, hands off, everything's going to be great. We're not even going to include any policies. In fact, we're going to create policies that make sure that no one else creates any policies. And that is a very, very stupid idea because we should be asking that question. It is a legitimate possibility. We should be thinking about things like upi. We should be thinking about a worker reinvestment fund. We should be thinking about what would happen if the unemployment rate actually was 10%. Not if you're an investor. I don't think that's a very wise move to assume that. But if you're in government, if you're a regulator, I think these are good things to assume. You should be erring on the side of caution. And what we're seeing in government is not that at all.

[Scott Galloway]

The fact that we're talking about this means convinces me this is not going to happen as it's played out, because it's the shit you're not expecting to get to very few people, other than a really intelligent CIA analyst was thinking, oh, a bunch of young men from Saudi Arabia are going to hijack planes and slam them into buildings. That just wasn't something we were worried about. That took down the economy for a brief time. The subprime crisis. Michael Burry saw it, but not many people saw that, including the smartest financial people in the world were layering on lay and all the risk models did not turn this up. We did not see a virus shutting down the economy and taking GDP down 31%. It's the shit you're not worried about. You're too young to remember this. We spent a year masturbating over Greek sovereign bonds. We were convinced that Greece was going to take down the EU and the global economy, you know, 2% of the GDP of Europe. And we sat here obsessing over it. There's a phenomena when you worry about something a lot, it doesn't happen because you start to prepare for it.

[Ed Zitron]

It.

[Scott Galloway]

So I just don't think by virtue of the fact that we've done so much catastrophizing around this, we don't worry about it. The thing that is actually a bigger issue in the markets right now is the following AI and the CapEx and the incredible opportunity of AI and the excitement around these things, which I think is probably overhyped as well to the upside, has created real economic growth capex and buoyed the market.

[Ed Zitron]

Right.

[Scott Galloway]

But a sclerotic industrial policy that makes Europe look more competitive and more decisive. Where we have an administration saying anthropic, you gotta do what we want. Even though you're a private company, you've gotta do what we want. We're not putting in place laws around guardrails around how companies should behave. We're just gonna do one offs based on this guy's blood sugar level. Oh, the administration is gonna get to decide who gets to acquire whom. And oh, we're taking a stake in one chip company and not others. Oh, we know how to run a steel company when the deepest pools of capital become more shallow because foreign investors don't know who the fuck they're waking up to next because there's different laws that might be imposed on them. What has happened in the last 12 months? Despite the massive investment and success of these tech companies, the American market has underperformed every major market. Why? Because the dollar's gotten much weaker. Because people have less faith in the full credit and faith of the United States government, our ability to pay back its debts because of fiscal irresponsibility. And the entire world is Rerouting their supply chain around us, including the capital they invest in these companies. And one of the reasons they that people were willing to invest so much capital in the US is because there was a rule of fair play and we have lost that and people are rotating out of US stocks. That is, in my opinion, a much bigger threat to our economy. When we have decided that with a third of the world's GDP we can control it. Whereas we used to be the operating system through cooperation, rule of law and standards and consistency, where we were the operating system for two thirds of the world's economy and everybody wanted to invest in the U.S. do you think big Canadian pension funds are thinking, how do we invest more in the US right now? Fuck you. I'll invest in Alibaba or I'll invest in Mistral or whatever it is, or Salonis in Germany. They're like, we need to diversify away from this asshole. And you're seeing that show up in our valuations in our market. In my view, that is the existential threat here to a decline in our prosperity. Is, is the price of products go up when people either ban our products or stop buying our products, shrinking our markets for exports, they impose reciprocal tariffs. Human capital stops coming here, which reduces the quality of our teams and institutions. Don't want to invest in everything we do here, Taking the pe down of everything, reducing or increasing our cost of capital, making us less competitive because of Absolutely head up your ass, sclerotic, lurching, irrational industrial policy from our government. In my opinion, it's not the Terminator that's gonna kill us. It's a fucking clown called the President.

[Ed Zitron]

We'll be right back after the break. And if you're enjoying the show so far, send it to a friend friend. And please follow us if you haven't already. Support for the show comes from Deleteme. Deleteme makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. This is not a one and done service. Delete Me sends you regular personalized privacy reports showing what info they found, where they found it, and what they remove. Our producer Jennifer Sanchez tried Delete Me. She was surprised to find out how much personal information was actually already out there about her. And Delete Me made it easy to clean it up. She said, take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me Me now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20 off your Delete Me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com profg and use promo code Prof. G at checkout. The only way to get 20 off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com profg and enter code Prof. G at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com profg code Prof. Giving

[Scott Galloway]

support for the show comes from VCX, the public ticker for private tech. For generations, American companies have moved the world forward through their ingenuity and determination. And for generations, everyday Americans could be part of that journey through perhaps the greatest innovation of all the US Stock market. It didn't matter whether you were a factory worker in Detroit or a farmer in Omaha, anyone could own a piece of the great American companies. But now that's changed. Today our most innovative companies are staying private rather than going public. The result is that everyday Americans are excluded from investing and getting left further behind, while a select few reap all the benefits. Until now. Introducing vcx, a public ticker for private tech, VCX by Fundrise gives everyone the opportunity to invest in the next generation of innovation, including the companies leading the AI revolution, space exploration, defense tech and more. Visit getvcx.com for more info. That's getvcx.com carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, discharges and expenses. This and other information can be found in the Fund's [e-mail] this is a paid sponsorship. Support for the show comes from LinkedIn. It's a shame when the best B2B marketing gets wasted on the wrong audience. Like imagine running an ad for cataract surgery on Saturday morning cartoons. Or running a promo for this show on a video about Roblox or something. No offense to our Gen Alpha listeners, but that would be a waste of anyone's ad budget. So when you want to reach the right professionals, you can use LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn has grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals and 130 million decision makers according to their data. That's where it stands. Apart from other ad buys. You can target your buyers by job title and industry, company role, seniority, skills, company revenue, all so you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience. That's why LinkedIn Ads boasts one of the highest B2B return on ad spend of all online ad networks. Seriously, all of them. Spend $250 on your first campaign on LinkedIn ads and get a free 250 credit for the next one. Just go to LinkedIn.com Scott that's LinkedIn.com Scott Terms and conditions apply. Foreign.

[Ed Zitron]

We're back With Prof. G Markets. President Trump used his 107 minute state of the Union to paint an optimistic picture of the country, declaring what he called a, quote, turnaround for the ages. He touched on everything from inflation and immigration to healthcare and voter fraud. But not everyone feels so positive about it. So let's move past the rhetoric and let's dig into the numbers. We are going to take a look at the data on inflation, on markets, on GDP and employment, and we are going to reach a consensus on the real State of the Union. So, Scott, I think maybe we should just start with some of the untruths that we witnessed in this State of the Union, just so that we're all on the same page here about how America is doing and what's true and what isn't. So I think the first big lie that we need to just dispel immediately is that we secured $18 trillion of foreign investment in 12 months. I have no idea where Trump has gotten this number from. That is literally more than half of our current GDP. His own website says that the number is 9.7 trillion, which is also a made up number. This is based on nothing. As we've said. None of these are actual deals. They're just verbal commitments. And then they explode the numbers by 100% to the upside and the downside, depending on the. I mean, that number is totally bogus. So that's the first thing. The other thing he said is that foreign countries are paying the tariffs. Not true. Multiple studies have been done. 90 to 96% of the tariff burden is falling on US firms and US customers. He said that prices are plummeting downward. Not true. Prices have risen nearly 3%. Inflation is going up. Gas is below $2.30 in most states, 199 in some. Also not true. No state had an average below $2.37 and only two states averaged below $2.50. Those were sort of the big lies. So now that we agree, hopefully that those are not true, let's start with your reactions to the State of the Union.

[Scott Galloway]

I thought it was mostly a nothing burger. I thought if I try to cleanse my biases, I thought it came across as robust. He didn't say a lot. I didn't think it was that. I mean, it felt like not much to me. I was waiting for some sort of announcement. There was no new pol, new policies. He teased tax cuts. We didn't see that. It was 75 minutes. There was 20 standing ovations, there was 80 applause breaks. I feel like these you know, I feel like Congress burns more calories clapping than actually legislating.

[Ed Zitron]

Totally agree.

[Scott Galloway]

And okay, so unemployment, to be fair, unemployment is pretty low. Inflation is down from its peak, but it's still above where it was when Biden left office. GDP growth is positive, but it's especially concentrated around a small number of companies. He's sort of asking everyone to stare at AI and big company Capex and then take off your glasses when you're looking at your grocery receipts. Right. So I don't know, I felt like it was a masterclass in cherry picking. I have trouble getting through the whole thing. So I didn't. I actually thought the Democratic response from Abigail Spamberger. Is that her name? I thought that was really strong. I actually have an idea there that I want to pitch you. But, like, the data was sort of real. The spin was much realer. And again, I just don't think we're dealing with the real issues here and that is the deficit. I think at some point we're getting an adult in the room that says, okay, folks, Democrats, we're going to have to cut spending. Republicans, we're going to have to raise taxes. Let's get to it. Who are the adults in this room? Is anyone actually ready to address these? Oh, and we, we need a billion doses of GLPO1 drugs to try and bring the average cost of healthcare from 13,000 per person down by $400 a year for the next 10 years and address the deficit because all roads lead to entitlements which lead to healthcare. Anyway. No, I feel like I would love to just write this speech and just look at all of them and say, okay, who's ready? Is there anyone in the middle here ready to actually address these issues?

[Ed Zitron]

So.

[Scott Galloway]

So I have trouble watching it at this point. I just think it's so insane. And at one point, I think he said that we brought an $18 trillion in investment. I'm like, where the fuck is he even getting these numbers? So it felt like it's an earnings call, whereas investors are the Republicans and there's no sec. He can't get in trouble. You can just throw out numbers.

[Ed Zitron]

It's a great analogy.

[Scott Galloway]

It'd be like if Jensen Huang said our earnings were up 11 million percent. That's the greatest earnings quarter in history. And our backlog. We're going to grow into this. We grew our revenues 440 fold.

[Ed Zitron]

It's honestly a great point. There should be legal implications for lying about the numbers of the economy during the State of the Union. Address, if we have legal implications for Jensen Huang saying the wrong thing, shouldn't that exist for the President? That's a really good point.

[Scott Galloway]

That's an interesting statement on America, and that is we're much more protective and value investors more than we do citizenry.

[Ed Zitron]

Right?

[Scott Galloway]

So, oh my God, that was the most insightful thing we've ever said, Ed. That was Come see us at south by Southwest.

[Ed Zitron]

That's a really good point. I hadn't thought of that.

[Scott Galloway]

Let me just bring it down a bit. Quarter Pounder. Anyway, sorry about that.

[Ed Zitron]

Just to run with this analogy between the State of the Union address and an earnings report, I think that's exactly right. There's a level of spin here and cherry picking which was actually quite deft. And I think you actually have to give credit to whoever wrote that speech for navigating all of these issues pretty well. But. But to your point, he's asking America to believe that everything is going really great for Americans and that gas prices are coming down and that food prices and grocery bills are coming down. He's asking everyone to believe that when that is simply not true. And consumer sentiment among Americans right now is absolutely tanking. Most Americans, two thirds of Americans agree that he has completely bungled these tariffs. I think most Americans are realizing what tariffs are doing to consumer prices, what they are doing to their grocery bills. That is, they're making their grocery bills go up because as we've discussed, the tariffs are being passed through onto the consumer. And so it's consumers that are paying the cost of the tariffs. They're also, we're also seeing that a lot of Americans are saying we just don't agree with and we don't approve of how he is handling the economy. And yet he's asking in this State of the Union for us to just say things are going well. Look at this number over here. Look at this number over here. Look at the fact that our GDP has grown. Look at the fact that our, quote, economy is roaring like never before. And then as you kind of point out, not acknowledging that the reason that is happening is because AI is adding a full half percentage point of GDP growth right now because America is essentially becoming a giant bet on AI. The reason that we're probably going to see some more growth in the next year is, as you say, because of this unbelievable deficit spending, which is going to reach $2 trillion next year. That's a level that we've only reached during recessions and during pandemics. So the underlying situation and picture isn't great. And he's asking us to believe it is great. But the most important point is the one you brought up in the previous section, which is that you look at the stock price. We are underperforming every major index, every major international market right now by a pretty significant margin. When you look at last year, where yes, the S and P rose 16%, which was good, but you look at the All Country World index minus the US which rose 29%, which is almost

[Scott Galloway]

double the return of the US not even dollar adjusted. What was our big prediction? The end of 24? Rotation out of US stocks into rotation

[Ed Zitron]

out of US US and then the big question was, is this going to continue in 2026 or was all of the juice squeezed out of that trade in 2025? It is continuing year to date. S and P is flat year to date. MSCI World USA index is up 10%. So all of these other stock markets, I mean, they are outperforming. And you can get up there on, on the stage and you can say, look at the stock market, we're doing well. But as we all know, all of this stuff is relative. When you compare us to the rest of the world, we're actually not doing so well, which is surprising because you would think that if we own all of the AI companies, which we do, why aren't things going well? And I think it's to your point. The capital flows are adjusting, people are rotating out. People are looking for an excuse to sell these companies and to get into something else. And that's a real problem for him and for Americans.

[Scott Galloway]

But again, it doesn't matter how great the barbecue is if it's raining outside, like the atmospherics and the context matter. And you can't. There's some amazing companies in Latin America that have grown their revenues and profits every year for the last 10, 20 years. And all of them are flat or down because you can't outrun flows. And the flows out of Latin America have been one way to other markets until last year. So great companies, maybe with the exception of Mercado Libre, just went down. You can't. Market dynamics trump individual performance. And what we're seeing now because again, of a lack of faith in our current administration, industrial policy and a degradation of the rule of law, I think you're seeing flows out. And with respect to the State of the Union, and I loved what I think it was with Jonathan Haidt, I forget who said this about Mark Zuckerberg and Meta, you know, they would say, all right, what's happening with teen depression. And they would cite a bunch of false data or lies or they would. It was clear that they were hiding data, their own data, about how much mental impact anguish it was creating on young people, especially girls. And this one person said something that really struck me. It was Francis Haugen. And that is when all the mistakes are in your favor. They're not mistakes, they're lies. And I constantly use that quote when I check out of hotels. I never check my bill, but whenever I do, I find mistakes. The mistakes are never in my favor. It's always, oh, wait, didn't you check in a day? No, I didn't check in on Wednesday. I checked in on Thursday. Oh, it says here you had. Had six ginger ales. No, I didn't touch them. There's never a mistake where they forget to charge you. And I always say this. I'm like, when all the mistakes are in your favor, they're not mistakes, they're lies. And every single mistake in his state of the. I mean, the lying has gotten so out of control that it's been normalized, that it's been, okay, we've just given up on fact checking. And. And the North Korean or the Soviet Politburo or Duma here will just stand. I mean, the thing that it reminded me of is in North Korea and in Iraq under Hussein, when they'd have these meetings or State of the Unions, you got the very real sense that if they were not seen jumping up and applauding, there was a chance they might be strapped to a cannon and executed the next day. And that's not much of an exaggeration. That's how it felt. It's like, okay, folks, I don't care if you're Republican or not. You're smart people. You do math. They didn't bring $18 trillion back to the US in new investment. These tariffs are making America. I mean, these guys know this is fucking bullshit, but they're all so scared. I just can't figure out what is so amazing about being an elected leader, because I do think he has the power to primary people. But is it just that awesome to be in Congress? Like, what is so incredible about being in Congress that you're willing just to prostrate yourself like this? But, yeah, it was a series of meetings, and it was my ideas, the following. Did you see the Democratic response from Abigail Spamberger?

[Ed Zitron]

I didn't.

[Scott Galloway]

Okay, so Abigail Spamberger, 46, former. I believe she was either in the NSA or the CIA, just a former intelligence officer. Just such an incredibly impressive person. Exactly who you want in government. And she's the 75th governor of Virginia. She did the response. This is my idea. And I called a Democratic senator who's running for president so he has to take my calls because he thinks I'm going to give him a lot of money. But I'll text him and say I have an idea.

[Ed Zitron]

And he's like, oh, name drop him and ruin his campaign.

[Scott Galloway]

He calls me right away. These four guys, they have to listen to me.

[Ed Zitron]

It was awful.

[Scott Galloway]

Anyways, so I'm like, I got an idea for the next so 30 years ago, the halftime show was irrelevant. Everyone took a break. No one cared. No one really cared about Michael Jackson or whoever. Well, they had a I remember my favorite was they had a Disney halftime show once. All your favorite Disney characters. And now the halftime show is more important than the game. I would make a real effort over the next two years to make the half to make the Democratic response more important than the Republican response. I'd rent an amazing venue. I would hire Jay Z's Roc Nation, give him a huge budget. 10,000 rabid hot young Democrats have fucking amazing music lead up to it. Her speech was so awesome and I'd have lights and sex because the moment it comes, after the majesty and the sex appeal of the rotunda, it just feels flat. That sex it up, sex it up, make it super cool, super overproduced and turn it into the halftime show. That's more important because the contrast. If you read her speech, it was outstanding. It was fact checked. It was really solid. She went right for the jugular and everything she said was on point. They did her a disservice by not wrapping was all chip, no salza, all substance. They need to sex it up Anyways, that was my big idea.

[Ed Zitron]

We'll be right back. And for even more markets insights, sign up for our [e-mail] Subscribe.

[Scott Galloway]

Support for this podcast and the following message is brought to you by E Trade from Morgan Stanley Simplify your finances and discover the convenience of investing in banks Banking all in one place with E Trade from Morgan Stanley. Choose from a wide range of investment choices and award winning banking solutions together in one platform. Plus get up to $1,500 when you open a brokerage account with a qualifying deposit today. Learn [e-mail] offer banking products and services are provided by Morgan Stanley Private Bank National Association Member FDIC Terms and other fees apply. Investing involves risks. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC Member SIPC. This episode is brought to you by SoFi Small Business Loan Marketplace. You know SoFi, the one that helps you get your money right with student loans and high yield savings. Now they're helping small businesses find fast funding. If you run a small business, you're probably dealing with cash flow, trying to find capital for new opportunities, or thinking about other ways to expand. With SoFi Small Business Loan Marketplace place, you can get fast Digital Solutions. That's SoFi Small Business Loan Marketplace. In one single simple search, SoFi matches you with vetted providers for your business. In just minutes, you'll get matched with loan options that meet your goals. And if you find a loan that works for you, you can receive funds as soon as the same day you're approved. You can also explore business bank accounts and business credit cards. Visit sofi.com profg and see your loan options in minutes, all with no impact to your credit score. The SoFi Marketplace website is owned by SoFi Lending Corp. Terms, conditions and state restrictions apply. CFL 605-4612 NMLS 1121636. This episode is brought to you by Indeed. Stop waiting around for the perfect candidate. Instead, use Indeed sponsored Jobs to find the right people with the right skills fast. It's a simple way to make sure your listing is the first candidate. C According to Indeed data, sponsored jobs have four times more applicants than non sponsored jobs.

[Ed Zitron]

So go build your dream team today with Indeed. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at

[Scott Galloway]

Indeed.com podcast terms and conditions appreciate we're

[Ed Zitron]

back with profit markets. Netflix has dropped out of the Warner Brothers Discovery bidding war. That clears the path for Paramount to make the acquisition just days after submitting a revised $111 billion offer. Warner Brothers gave Netflix four days to counter, but the company declined, saying the deal was, quote, no longer financially attractive. The transaction will still need regulatory approval, but for now, Paramount has come out on top on the news. Warner Brothers stock fell 3%, Paramount climbed 7% and Netflix popped 10%. Scott Paramount, David Ellison, the son of Larry Ellison. They are the winners. Or it appears they're going to be the winners, pending regulatory approval. Initial reactions to Paramount beating Netflix well,

[Scott Galloway]

it depends what you mean by winner, so let's talk about winners and losers here. And the top of the list in terms of winners is Warner Brothers Discovery shareholders, and that is David Zaslav. I think he was a pretty, I don't know, mediocre operator. He's an outstanding investment banker. I mean, they literally got if either the Ellisons or Sarandos ever thought you're going to bid more than 25 bucks a share for this. Six months ago, they would have said, no way. That company's not worth it. This is a company that's gone from a low of 7 bucks a share to 31 with no change. Arguably, the business has gotten worse over that period. So he put on a masterclass and his bankers and how to get testosterone involved and competitive dynamics. And literally every possible cent on the table has gone to Warner Brothers Discovery shareholders. So they're the biggest winners. A close second in terms of winners is Netflix shareholders. Because what this shows, or Ted Sarando, specifically what this shows, is Ted is a disciplined operator. He can put out a press release saying, we have an obligation to shareholders. At some point, no deal makes sense. He was able to show he could do a deal. He handled it well. I think he acquitted himself well. And they're doing what good operators do, and that is they walk away when it no longer, you know, every deal makes sense at some price, and no deal makes any sense at a certain price. So him walking away from. From this deal, they save. I think the total consideration was approximately $120 billion. And then, and we predicted this, the stock is up 10%. Netflix on the news. So with a $350 billion valuation, they get $36 billion for walking away and increased market cap. They're going to get another two and a half billion in cash for the breakup fee. So if you look at the total consideration of say 120 billion, plus the kind of 40 billion free gift with purchase in terms of stock appreciation and the breakup fee, Netflix got $160 billion technically for not doing this deal. And I mean, we're getting to the point where Netflix could take the money that they're registering from not buying Warner Brothers and the increase in their stock price. And now they're in striking distance of potentially buying Disney. Disney's got about a $200 billion market cap. So for, you know, close second in terms of winners, Ted Sarandos and Netflix from showing discipline and walking from a deal that made no sense. In addition, then if I were them and I were more Machiavellian, I would start firing up my lobbyists and start questioning this deal. Lawsuits everywhere. And I would try and if not scuttle this deal, but delay it. And it's going to put most of Hollywood into a sense of stasis. And that is, I have a deal at Netflix. During this period, it was sort of, I don't want to say on hold, but there was a lot of Insecurity around what they were going to do. Supposedly CBS and Paramount are in a bit of like flux right now for a lot of different reasons. So the insecurity here is going to be pretty dramatic. Meanwhile, Ted Sarandos can say to his creative team, just for shits and giggles, what could we do? What else could we do with $120 billion? Could we own sports? Could we become the biggest sports network in history and go out and buy a bunch of rights? Olympics, NFL? Could we decide that we're going to be the most dominant streaming media platform in all of Southeast Asia, Latin America and Africa over the next decade? I mean, there's just, they've got a lot of firepower now that they weren't going to shoot at this. So Netflix, the second biggest, second biggest winner here. Let's talk about. And then I think you'd have to say Paramount, because this was an existential must do for Paramount. If Paramount hadn't gotten this deal and gotten some scale, they would have been in the company that paid overpaid for a subscale Paramount. So their only way out here is scale. Now can they ever show dad had a return on this investment? You know, I don't know. That remains to be seen. But at least now they are. They are a scaled player in Hollywood, whether they decide to use AI, but they now have the requisite scale to compete with the bigger players.

[Ed Zitron]

I agree up to a point that Netflix is coming out a win here because that shit, that price is totally ridiculous for the company. As you point out, this is a company that was trading at 7 to $10 a share as recently as a year ago. And now a company's come in and decided to buy it for $31 a share. That is ridiculous. And the reason that they're willing to do that is because it's the son of Larry Ellison, who's the founder of Oracle, who is a multi, multi, multi billionaire. And that's the only reason that this is even possible in the first place, is you've got a guy who doesn't really know what to do with his tens of billions of dollars. And that's how he's putting up the money for this deal, which is why he's willing to pay such an irrational price for it. And it would be dumb for Netflix to pay that much money. And they said that, they said this is an irrational, this is a ridiculous price. We're not going to pay it. Having said that, though, we should also acknowledge that since this all unfolded, Netflix stock is still down it's up since, in the past month or so. But, but remember, this all started to go down before that. This started to go down in December. From the time that Netflix was announced as or revealed as one of the potential buyers of Warner Brothers, the stock has slid from 100 to around 85. And they have lost almost $200 billion in market cap since that moment. Now, is that purely because of, of the Warner Brothers deal? I'm not so sure. I think there are probably some other forces at play there too. But it's hard for me to position Netflix as a total winner coming out of this considering the fact that before Netflix and Warner Brothers were even in the same sentence, Netflix was trading at above $100 a share.

[Scott Galloway]

Right. So depending on when you time sort of the deal was revealed, whether it was before Netflix entered the fray, they are off kind of 20 plus percent done. But it just says press release that they're walking. The stock's up 10% in the pre market.

[Ed Zitron]

They're the winner of the week or the month for sure.

[Scott Galloway]

I think we're in agreement here. And that is as soon as the market looked at this deal, the market said they're overpaying. And one of Netflix's advantages is similar to Apple and that is their culture is so strong internally and they built such an incredible machine. They aren't very acquisitive because as Demodorin points out, two thirds of acquisitions don't succeed. One, because testosterone gets involved and they overpay and it becomes about winning and losing. And two, the acquirer overestimates synergies and underestimates the difficulty of integration. So I mean, this would have been all hands on deck of the most talented people or managers at Netflix trying to figure out how to incorporate, how to like, how to get Frankenstein to move into your house and get along with your three kids who are, you know, Frank is different and he's gonna be a big presence here. And if it doesn't work, the whole household's gonna come down. So the parents, you know, the babysitters, the grandparents, everybody was gonna be focused on. Wrong metaphor here. On how to integrate Frank. And now it's just gonna be a lot of fun to say to Bella Bajaria, who's arguably one of the best are content minds in all of Hollywood. We just freed up a lot of money. What are your ideas here? So let's go through the losers. I think first and foremost the biggest loser is the creative community. This combined company, they have paid so much for these two companies. When I say they, the Ellisons for Paramount and our Warner brothers, there's no vision that's going to increase revenues to the extent to justify these prices they paid. They are going to have to focus on the expense side. Larry Ellison is one of the biggest players in AI. I think I use the analogy in the first Star Wars. Obi Wan Kenobi is on the Millennium Falcon and has to sit down because he feels a disturbance in the Force. And that disturbance is that millions of people died in an instant when Darth Vader orders the Death Star to destroy the planet Alderaan. And he said he hears a scream and then nothing. I think last night when this deal, when Netflix walked, I think you heard a scream from millions in the creative community that they're just the unions. WGA and SAG AFTRA are literally too fucking stupid to realize what just happened.

[Ed Zitron]

It's the image of Ted Sarandos feeling a disturbance in the fall, taking a seat, having a breath.

[Scott Galloway]

Ted was a Jedi, so say what you want. You know, Hollywood bitches about Netflix having too much power, but Ted likes Hollywood. I was at the BAFTA Awards. He shows up with a bow tie. He likes creatives. The guy ran video store chains. He was the manager of a video rental chain. He likes movies. He likes the creative community. Netflix may have outsourced much of their production to overseas arbitraging geographically, but he believes in big production. Makeup artists, gaffers, editors, actors. You know, he's sort of. He is. He is part of the community. Do you think Ellison gives a shit about. I think he's going to literally say to his son, all right, okay, this has been a lot of fun. Good for you. I'm glad it's your legacy. This company's trading at a crazy multiple of ebitda. You got to grow revenues high single digits. You got to cut expenses 10 to 20% within 24 months. How are we going to do that, dad, without dramatically reducing the top line? We're going to use AI. And instead of putting out 30 movies at 150 million each, we're going to put out about 50 movies at 30 million each using this new cool thing called AI. And I'm not saying it's going to work. It might be a bunch of AI slop, but all roads lead to the following sag, AFTRA and wga. Grab your fucking ankles. You are about to see so many people in your unions get rode so hard and put away wet, you're going to see a destruction in human capital. It's going to Make Jack Dorsey's announcement yesterday look soft and cuddly. The other losers, I do think that the American public, and this would have been true of whether Netflix or Paramount won. I think this consolidation and concentration is not good for America. Whether it's Netflix owning Warner Brothers. I compared it to like Walmart owning LVMH or with Paramount, we're going to have CBS, CNN, Paramount and TikTok in the hands of one entity. I don't think that's good.

[Ed Zitron]

And Warner Brothers and hbo and hbo Max and TNT and Discovery and MTV and Comedy Central. Like the list is quite insane.

[Scott Galloway]

Fair points. You know, the people at CNN this morning, it's like a, it's like a wake over there right now. They're so freaked out having said that, that I'm not as worried. People have made these existential threats about free speech in America, I find. I said this to Cara yesterday, I'm like, if the Washington Post and CNN go away, America's going to be just fine. Because I think what you find is the two things between us and what I would call more fascism are one, midterm elections and two, what I refer to as distributed media. And that is a lot of people. Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper, Dana Bash, Michael Smerconisch, they're all incredibly talented. If they need to, they're just going to go start their own media companies, go to work for Puck, Axios, their own podcasts. It's not as if their voices are going to be silenced. And the means of production here has gotten so expensive and inefficient. I pulled up, I did an analysis of our listenership in the core demographic versus cnn, CNBC and Fox. And I can show that more people, more people in the core demographic listen to profiting markets than listen to any CNBC show. And we do it at a fraction of the cost. So this is, you're going to see, there'll be some high profile exits from cnn. They'll write out their contracts because quite frankly they're overpaid from an old day. You know, a day's gone by where people would pay $80,000 for a 30 second spot to convince you you had opioid induced constipation. Those days are gone. But I don't think it's what I, you know, cnn, at least the morale there, that's a loser. But I don't think it's the existential threat to media you think.

[Ed Zitron]

It's a really interesting point because I think that aligns with the way Hollywood sees Paramount and the Ellison family at this point. And also the way the journalistic institutions like, like CNN and all of the, you know, legacy journalists view David Ellison and the Ellison family. And that is they don't like them. I mean the, the pushback against CBS and his decision to bring in Barry Weiss and then leading to Anderson Cooper leaving 60 Minutes. I mean, more and more it seems as though the predominantly more liberal community that is entrenched in these institutions, they do not like David Ellison. We just saw that photo that went viral of David Ellison hanging out with Lindsey Graham before the State of the Union and now he's going to own all of Hollywood. And what does it mean if all of Hollywood decides they hate their new boss? Does that mean that they just don't want to work with them anymore? What does it mean if all of Hollywood realizes that their new boss is going to try to fire 50 to 60 to 70% of them? What does that mean for the remaining 30 or 40% left over? Are they going to say screw this, we don't want to work with you, we don't want to be on your team. Does that mean that they're going to all shift over to Netflix, which as you say actually has become entrenched in Hollywood in a way where I think Hollywood respects and likes Netflix in a lot of ways. It was kind of the saving grace of Hollywood over the past last decade. And I think that is something that is probably going to be an underrated force in the markets. And that is just how unpopular David Ellison is becoming among the very community that he is trying to be a part of. He wants to be in the Sunset Boulevard Hollywood Club. He wants to be in the newsrooms at cnn. He wants to be working with these people. And they're all probably going to say screw this guy guy, we don't like him.

[Scott Galloway]

The Ellison's brought in, bought the Free Press basically was an aqua hire for Barry and Barry Weiss and her team. I'm, I actually think. And, and they hate her and the creative community hates her because she's again, there's a bit of a bias there. She's a Republican. I think they've been a little unfair. I think, I think the Free Press is, is actually very innovative and did a great job. However, Barry has created, has scored just a series of own goals. Whether it was spiking a CBS story. You know, there's, she's come across a little bit as a propaganda vehicle or doing the President's bidding. And a center left creative community hates that. There has been a series of unforced errors on the part of the Ellisons vis a vis Bariweiss that have basically dyed their hat black and kind of confirmed the creative community's worst fears. The idea of it'll be really interesting to see if they say Barry Weiss is now in charge of cnn, because that's when I do think you see hair on fire. Now, the notion that they're all going to walk out tomorrow is just kind of is sort of a fantasy because, and I'm not exaggerating, if you were to name 10 of the top TV journalist anchors, I have probably had offline, substantive conversations with half a dozen of them. And it goes something like this. I realize that this ship is sinking and I'm thinking about doing a podcast or starting. You know, they're all like, want to figure out the next thing? And I have an open conversation. I'm like, okay, how much money you're making? And they're like this. I'm like, how long's your contract? I'm like, don't go fucking anywhere. You're overpaid.

[Ed Zitron]

Yeah. What are the numbers? Ish. From my Googling around, it's something like high. Single digit millions.

[Scott Galloway]

Yeah. The tier two ones, and I won't name them because they'll get upset, get 1 to 3 million. The tier ones get 5 to 10. And there's quite a few that make between 10 and 20 million a year.

[Ed Zitron]

I think Sean Hannity makes the most. I think 25.

[Scott Galloway]

Yeah. And so they all have these visions that they like. I love the idea of control of my own content and starting a substack and a podcast and a YouTube channel. I'm like, yeah, you'll make 60 grand. And in five or six years, if you work your ass off or work harder than you're working now. And some of them do work hard. Most don't. You're going to get to a half a million or a million bucks a year because you're very talented and people like what you do. But be clear, don't go anywhere. You're going to take it. You're going to take a. So the notion that somehow they're going to break their contracts and leave where they're getting paid 2 to 3 million dollars to show up at 4pm and work to 8p and host a show that's got 200 or 300,000 viewers, it's like they're hoping you leave.

[Ed Zitron]

The question becomes, though, how long can they remain overpaid? And I think that is something that Daddy Ellison's going to Come in and say, this is fucking ridiculous. Why are you paying this talking head 10 to 20 million dollars a year? Cut it.

[Scott Galloway]

Well, there's only a few of those, but I'll give you an example. Chris Wallace, who was at CNN, he was making $7 million a year. And CNN said, said I would imagine the conversation with something like this, Chris, you're a legend. We love you, we want to keep you. We're going to take you from 7 to 1 million. And Chris goes, wait, I'm Chris Wallace. And he leaves. I heard from Chris Wallace the last 12 months. So nobody ever thinks they're overpaid. I've never had anyone say to me in a bonus meeting, I've had them say, wow, thank you, this is great, or that's generous. But they've never said, you know what, what? The moons have lined up. And let's be honest, I'm overcompensated right now. You always anchor off. This is your natural tendency. You look at the year you made the most money and you think, oh, that's how much I'm worth. No, it's not. You were overpaid. And almost every one of them is making a lot less money than they were a couple years ago. Right? And then they go to new media. And some do it really well, like Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo have really made an effective transition to new media. But I bet they're making a third of what they made in the heyday of cable news. They're making good money and they're building enterprises that they own. And I think they'll make more. But I bet guys like Don and Chris are making 5 to 10 million bucks a year and they are making substantially less than that now. And they are the most successful of the ones who got off the island. They've built really, really interesting little media companies that are growing or they're participating in kind of this new media ecosystem. But this industry, it's going to be, I think it's going to be chaos in the next 12 to 24 months.

[Ed Zitron]

Okay, let's take a look at the weekend. We'll see the unemployment report for February. We'll also see earnings from AST, Space Mobile, Target, Target and Broadcom. Scott, do you have any predictions?

[Scott Galloway]

Yeah, I made it. I think there's real opportunity. I don't know what you call these business development, private capital, hedge funds. Apollo 14 to 17 times earnings, double digit earnings growth plus AUM growth. And trading at what feels like or trading at a multi year low. TPG is trading at a third below kind of fair value estimates. Unbelievable fundraising. I know some people who work there. They are just a juggernaut in terms of their fundraising, which is the raw capital for what they make money on. I think that current pricing reflects pessimism more than growth trajectory. Even Blue Owl. I'm doing a basket of these things. It's got a 7.8percent dividend yield. In sum, the market is discounting private credit fears and I think there's a growth versus valuation mismatch. All three are growing AUM and recurring fee revenue. The sector multiples levels have compressed due to private credit liquidity fears that I think are overblown and market pricing. The market's basically pricing risk more aggressively than current earnings trends justify my thesis. And the reason I'm starting to buy these things is that compressed multiples plus durable fee growth plus strong fundamentals equals potential upside relative to the broader market. Anyways, my prediction is that a basketball, Blackstone, Blue Owl, TPG and Apollo is going to outperform the market.

[Ed Zitron]

This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Allison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Jorge Carty. Our research team is Danjalon, Isabella Kinsel, Kristen O' Donoghue and Mia Silverio. Jake McPherson is our social producer, Drew, Barbara Burrows is our Technical director and Catherine Dillon is our Executive producer. Thank you for listening to Profit G Markets from proftream Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and join us for a fresh take on markets on Monday.

[Scott Galloway]

In kind. Reunion as the World Turn. And the. Okay, well I think you guys are doing a bang up job job. Super excited to hang out in south by Southwest. We should definitely do a zoom while we're all down there. That's definitely a zoom. Definitely to a zoom. Really excited to see you guys.