Loading summary
Transcript35 lines
- [00:01]
A
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 various 18
- [00:26]
B
hi, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Are you looking for a beach read this summer? May I suggest your big wireless bill? It's got suspense, mystery, a slightly flat emotional arc, and a shocking twist where you realize you've been overpaying the entire time. Fortunately, though, Mint's story is better. Every plan $15 a month, even unlimited. That's it. Happy ending, zero tears. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment
- [00:49]
C
of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 or 12 month plan required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees Extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes. Me slow when network is busy. See terms and so when you start to invert things and start pricing them in units of dollars, like instead of saying price of S And P&1, what's $1's ability to purchase one share of the S&P? What is $1's ability to purchase one banana at the grocery store or one gallon of gas? And you invert those prices, you really see the structural multi decade decline in our purchasing power that's been masked by these academic arguments that money supply has no impact in the real world, which again, sorry for me using this word again.
- [01:26]
D
What's going on guys? Today we got a very special treat. We've got my friend Darius Dale. He's the founder and CEO of 42 Macro. And in this conversation we talk about the plight of the people, how there's so much socialism going on, both implicitly and explicitly, and why that impacts your portfolio. And then last but not least, he gives some really nuanced, insightful thoughts about what's going on at the Fed, how Kevin Warsh is changing things up, and what he thinks that Kevin War should be doing, that he's not all that in this conversation with my friend Darius Dale. All right, Darius, we are recording this right before the Fed's decision here for July. But I want to understand from your perspective before we know what they do, what is your read as to what they should do and what is the data that's backing up that thought process.
- [02:06]
C
Ooh, that's a deep question, man. And thanks again for having me. Always a pleasure to be with you and your audience. My other so what what they will do, in our opinion, is very different from what they should do. What they should do is tighten with the balance sheet, shrink the balance sheet, scare the market into believing that they are serious with regards to their price stability mandate, but ultimately leave the policy rate alone. And the reason we say they should leave the policy rate alone is because we have this big multidimensional model that essentially tries to ascertain what the Fed should do over the near term and over the medium term based on the trends and key economic variables, as well as the deviation from the Fed's various mandates. And that model is essentially saying the Fed should on net, remain on hold now and stay on hold over the medium term. Now, the re going back to where I started this answer. The reason we think the Fed should tighten monetary policy over the near term, it has nothing to do with what's happening from an economic standpoint. So in our opinion, we think this is all about signaling. We think the Fed, as we talked about the last time I was on your show, we think the Fed needs to play action pass to set up the run, with play action passing being tightening cyclically and setting up the run with the run being easing structurally. It's our belief that once we get the advent of the five task force findings later this year, early next year, that the net recommendations from those task forces will be extremely dovish and that it's not priced into financial markets. And so if the Fed pivots from today's inflation problem to a series of extremely dovish policy recommendations, ultimately that has risk that poses significant risk to the bond market, the long end of the curve. And so ultimately, we think they should take a step in between of tightening policy just to regain some credibility on inflation fighting.
- [03:50]
D
What's fascinating to me is I think if you go back to 2019, inflation has been compounding at about 4% a year. So if you include all the ups, downside, about 4% compound annual growth rate to inflation over 6, 7 years, at the same time, inflation has been all over the place when it comes to the last, I don't know, eight months or so.
- [04:08]
C
Yeah.
- [04:08]
D
During that period, even with the inflation spike, the Fed continues to expand their balance sheet, which kind of feels like it's the opposite of what you're saying. So what is their logic? Or what would they defend themselves by saying that that was the right thing to do.
- [04:21]
C
Yeah, well look, there's two schools of camp on the balance sheet and one school of thought is a very self serving Wall street focused, quite frankly, I would say insidious school of thought, which is the balance sheet has no impact on monetary policy or on the real economy. It only matters from the perspective of financial plumbing which, which is the repo market and all the transactions that take place in the overnight and near overnight cash market. In our opinion, we think that market is the very backbone of a market, a modern market economy. And so to suggest at all that what's happening in the repo market, the reserve managed to purchase program that the Fed is currently engaged in, has no real impact on the real world economy or inflation in our opinion. In the context of a $7 trillion balance sheet, in my opinion, I think that's, for lack of a better word, bullshit. It's bullshit.
- [05:09]
D
You know, when you see that what is the data that they're looking at that they would use on the defensive side? Like part of this to me is not just like they're not licking their finger and sticking it in the air. Like they have all their academic theories and all this stuff. Right. So like is there anything that they're looking at that you're like, okay, I see where they're coming from, I just disagree. Or do you think the whole thing is just they've lost their, their minds?
- [05:31]
B
Yeah.
- [05:32]
C
And it's even so the, the, where I would point them to point you to is, is, you know, the, the conc has been de anchored from the real economy and inflation. And that is largely true because we've seen so much growth of money supply not go into the real economy in recent decades. That's part of the reason why labor share of national income declines so much is because we're finding more and more clever ways to extract rent from the economy. Not we, the corporate sector has found more and more clever ways to extract rent from the economy. Whether you think about globalization, whether you think about forcing busting, union busting, pushing people to define contribution pensions as opposed to defined benefit pensions, there's been all these sort of regulatory dynamics that have caused sort of the growth rate of money to wind up less and less in the hands of small businesses, less and less in the hands of median households, and less and less in the hands of sectors, emerging sectors in the economy. It's really all going to high gross margin, high profit companies where most of that income winds up in the capital markets. It doesn't wind up in the real economy. The Velocity of money has slowed tremendously in recent decades. And so that's kind of the academic argument that they would make, which is saying, hey, we can take our balance sheet up to an infinite number, because the reality is most of this money is just going to wind up in the stock market. They won't say what I just said about the stock market, but that's the truth, right? This money's just going to wind up inflating assets over the long term. It's not going to have a material impact on inflation. But as we talked about, you and I talked about last time there, that is not a costless exercise. There's something called the Cantillon effect that no academic wishes to touch because they understand that if we, if they bring the, the phrase Cantillon effect into the public sector lexicon, then everyone will realize that when the stock market goes up 20% year after year after year, and your income as a median consumer, you know, a regular everyday Main street worker, only goes up, you know, 4 to 5% year after year. And oh, by the way, inflation in some years is greater than that. Then you just get left behind because their purchasing power, the purchasing power of people like us who are long those assets rises exponentially, whereas their purchasing power does not rise, if at all, does not rise exponentially if at all. Sometimes it declines. And so ultimately that gap widens over time, over time, over time. So that when you and I show up to go buy a new car for our family or show up to buy a new house for our family or show up to buy groceries for our family, we have a lot more money that we can demand these goods and services with, whereas they don't. And so that Cantillon effect is a real big issue from the perspective of inflation because it ultimately means that inflation is really only impacting the people who can least afford to have it impact them.
- [08:16]
D
So if I look right now, overall grocery prices since early 2020, so call it 6ish years or so, have increased roughly 29% according to the government data. So let's just say that they're accurate, which I think you and I probably got questions about. But let's give them credit and say, okay, they're right. 30% in six years is bonkers. Increase in grocery prices bonkers.
- [08:38]
C
Well, it's not like we ran forgot how to make food, by the way. You know, like, think about this. It's a supply demand dynamic. So like, we didn't run out of arable land. We didn't run out of, you know, clever techniques to extract more, you know, crop yields. And so the only reason grocery prices can possibly be going up is because the unit of measurement that we are pricing the groceries in is going down. That's it. That's the only way the Bloomberg was one of my favorite analyses that I've did and I'll tweet it out when you publish this. I'll attach it to the post when we publish this discussion. One of my favorite analyses that I did because I think it is going back to this insidious Wall Street, Jekyll island type dynamic that we see with central banking here in this country. If you go to Bloomberg and just type in US Dollar currency, which is the ticker, the time series history for the dollar, not against any currency, just the dollar. What is a dollar worth? And it just says one every single day since Nixon broke the gold standard back in August of 1971. But the reality is we know the dollar has declined in price. Heaven forbid we have a CPI index, we got a stock market index that goes up over time, priced in dollars. So the dollar has declined in prices relative to the stock market. It has declined in prices relative to the CPI index. It's declined in prices relative to what the services in the economy. Because we know the government is highly incentivized to underreport that stuff. And so when you start to invert things and start pricing them in units of dollars, like instead of saying price of S And P&$1, what's $1's ability to purchase one share of the S&P? What is $1's ability to purchase one banana at the grocery store or one gallon of gas? And you invert those prices, you really see the structural multi decade decline in our purchasing power that's been masked by, by these academic arguments that money supply has no impact in the real world. Which again, sorry for me using this word again is bullshit. And thank God for Kevin Warsh to come in into the Fed and kind of hopefully change the mindset around this. Stephen Moran was on CNBC the other day talking about this as well. The reality is the academics, they want to exclude anything that could be potentially inflationary via the Cantillon effect from discussions about inflation and the balance sheet and ultimately monetary policy because they want carte blanche to continue implementing those policies for the bankers and the masters that they serve, which is not the ordinary Main Street American households. And so hopefully it's my hope as someone who understands these dynamics at a very high level and someone from the bottom of that K I'm hoping from based on everything he's saying in his testimony a couple weeks ago that Kevin Warsh understands what I'm talking about and we'll go there and fight for the people in terms of changing the mindset.
- [11:21]
D
Today's episode is brought to you by Arch Public. Arch Public has just expanded its agentic trading platform beyond crypto. So pay attention, this is a big one now. They are automating strategies across stocks, commodities and ETFs and I think that this is going to be huge. You can now automatically take profits when one market hits new all time highs and rotate that capital into other markets showing more opportunity. Whether you're rotating capital into AI stocks Gold, if you're investing in the S&P 500 or you're accumulating Bitcoin, Archpublic brings real discipline and automation to your investment strategy. Additionally, they've launched a powerful new tax loss harvesting tool. With crypto being so volatile and its exemption from the wash sale rule, Arch Public can offset gains with losses without compromising your long term positions. It's exactly what every serious investor does. Institutional grade automation that works across every major asset class. There's no more emotional trading, no more missing tax opportunities, just smarter hands free execution of your preferred strategies. Go to archpublic.com right now, connect with their team, set up a time, bring your account if you'd like, then you can learn what automated trading can do for you. Archpublic.com Now Kevin Warsh has said that he is not going to provide kind of Fed guidance or you know, forward looking things. I think that there's two reactions to this. The first is great, they don't know what they're going to do in the future, so stop talking about it. On the other hand, everyone on Wall Street's like oh my God, I can't think for myself. I need someone to tell me what they might possibly do, you know, in the future. What are your clients saying? Do they like this idea or do they not like this idea? And the reason why I'm interested in that is because it kind of is changing the way that people analyze the Fed's potential impact on the market over the next, you know, six or 12 months.
- [13:02]
C
Oh, that's a phenomenal question because we have two types of clients for specifically as relates to this question. We have global fixed income clients, folks who manage hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars of global. We know we have a couple clients who manage trillions of dollars of global fixed income. But then we also have Non fixed income clients, which are equity investors, portfolio managers, people who invest across asset classes, credit, et cetera, crypto clients, crypto hedge funds, et cetera. And so I would say the clients in the fixed income space are annoyed as heck by this change. They're so used to making easy money by gaming what the Fed is going to say next. And as a function of their legacy forecast, we know that what they're going to say next, there's a sort of high auto correlation between what they previous said. Well now we're moving to an era where the auto correlation between what the Fed previously said and what they say and do next is declining. And so that ultimately makes it harder for the fixed income investors to make money, but it makes it easier for the rest of us who can forecast accurately to make money. And here's why. By injecting volatility into the interest rate curve, particularly on the short end of the interest rate curve, by not over communicating, which is what Kevin Warsh is seeking to do. By injecting that volatility, you ultimately allow the financial markets to price in the better price in more accurately price in changes in the R, which is the real policy rate or changes in the neutral rate better as opposed to just the. For the. As opposed to what the markets have previously been doing, which is anchoring on previous Fed forward guidance. And so by allowing the markets to price in changes, real time changes to the R star and the neutral rate, you ultimately create an economy that doesn't deviate too far in one direction or the other. Right. That is a massive important change from a sociological and economic standpoint that ultimately shrinks the distribution of probable outcomes. It reduces the probability of having significant left tail events like the global financial crisis. It reduces the probability having significant right tail events like what we saw in early 2021. You know, you're just basically compressing the range of probable outcomes which is actually better for the economy long term because you ultimately businesses can plan better, households can plan better, we ultimately can get to a much better sequence of outcomes
- [15:14]
D
when we look at Kevin Warsh's comments. Right. I'm going to read to you kind of a summary of one of the important things, the part maybe that I'm most interested in of his understanding that seems like the old Fed administration did not. Warsh has described the artificial intelligence boom as a heavily productivity enhancing and structurally disinflationary wave. Again that's. He describes the artificial intelligence boom as a heavily productivity enhancing and structurally deflation disinflationary wave. Though he maintains that immediate rate decisions depend strictly on broad economic readings rather than just tech sector growth. The thing I take away from this is this guy knows there's this tsunami coming of all of the robotics and automation and AI and all this kind of stuff. At the same time, he seems to be pretty rational saying, you can't start trying to extrapolate what we think is going to happen in five or 10 years and pull it to the future. And then all of a sudden say, let's make policy decisions based on a maybe. So have we had a Fed chairman who has this balance between understanding a technology trend and direction of travel, but still seems pretty rooted with their feet on the ground? I don't know if we've seen someone kind of talk like this before.
- [16:26]
C
Look, I mean, you have to go back to Greenspan, right? Greenspan. This is the last time we saw significant capital deepening in the economy that led to a meaningful productivity boom. We had 150 basis point trend acceleration in productivity growth from the mid-90s to the mid-2000s. And so that was obviously part of that was a function of the diffusion of Internet technology technology throughout the economy. But it wasn't just that, it was other things as well. And so anchoring on that legacy. Yes, the answer to your question is yeah, it's been a while since we've had a Fed chair that understands that the sequence of outcomes is just as important, if not more important than the destination. And here's why I just said R has been gravitating higher, neutral rate has been gravitating higher according to our market implied estimate of the neutral rate. We built a model that essentially tries to extract from various market pricing what the market's estimate of neutral is. And it's basically gone up about, you know, two rate hikes in the last couple of months. And so what that ultimately means is the market is signaling to the Fed. The market is telling the Fed, hey, we are running out of money at the margins. And so in order for you to attract this increasingly limited supply of capital, Mr. Treasury Market, you need to raise your interest rate, you need to raise the X ante return on this security. Otherwise I'm going to go buy a piece of Nvidia hyperscaler debt or I'm going to go buy this stock that's going up 10x what a fixed income return would be. And so that's the whole concept of R star and neutral. That's the market's communication mechanism, either through R star neutral or interest rates or inflation expectations, rather that's the way the market communicates to the Fed to tell them to do stuff. And so the market is telling the Fed that hey, if the Treasury Department wants more of my money, you need to make the interest rate higher because I have alternate uses for this capital and or the supply of capital is dwindling at the margins. Fun fact. If you look at the growth rate of global savings on a trailing 10 year basis, it's about 55%. That's one of the lowest readings in the history of the time series. The long run mean of the trailing 10 year percentage change in global savings is about 90%. Right now we are currently at 55%. So we've had a tremendous deceleration in the growth rate of global savings. At the same time we're having a tremendous acceleration in the demand for capital. Obviously we have an AI capex bubble. We obviously have a bubble in sovereign deficits all across the world. If you look at the US's latest value, it's close to 6%. That compares to a long run mean of 3% in terms of our budget deficit. The global budget deficit on an aggregate basis is about 5%. That compares to a long run mean of about 2 and a half, 3%. This bubble in sovereign deficits that is increasingly demanding capital at a time where capital is starting to become scarce at the margins. And we can see it in AI
- [19:25]
D
stocks now when we go and we look at the average person, I think that they're complaining about and rightfully so. Gas is high, groceries are high, they can't afford a home credit card, interest rates have exploded higher. I mean student loan debt, I mean all this stuff is just going crazy now. Pull that back. And mom, Donnie in New York, he's got a plan. He gonna have five grocery stores run by the, by the government. Go out to California, they got a plan. Seems like, you know, kind of blue states are saying, hey, we hear you, we're gonna help fix it. Red states I think are saying we hear you. But they're kind of saying like that's for the private sector to solve, that that's, we're not going to get involved there. If you put aside all of the nasty like bipartisan politic stuff and just say look at the economic policies. We essentially are going to run two different experiments in this country based on the current situation.
- [20:26]
B
Yeah.
- [20:28]
D
If you had to pick one positive from both the red states and the blue states, how would you look at like what are the things they're doing that you like in both of those
- [20:38]
C
experiments Boy, that's my favorite question I've had and probably in a podcast in history. I've been doing this for almost two decades. Yeah. Oh my God. Sorry. Not to digress, but I would say, and again, I have someone with political aspirations. You know, I, you know, obviously went to Yale so that, you know, going to Yale dual. No, no, I'm saying this like, you know, having been in the, the President's room at the Yale Club, you realize like these are people who are just like me. They're just on the wall now. You know what I mean? And so like at some point, you know, these, you know, it's not inconceivable that Darius Dale could be the President of the United States someday. It's not inconceivable that Anthony Pompliano could be the President of the United States someday. In fact, I fully intend to run for political office with you at some point in the future. I don't know if you know that, but you know now because I believe that you and I, and I'm really grateful you asked this question because I believe that you and I can again, I'm going to use the word again for the fourth time. I almost never cursed by the way you and I can see through the bullshit. We understand that this game that politicians are playing is a game designed to gamify our angst. They're weaponizing our angst so that they can gain more of our resources and stay in power and or acquire incremental units of power. That's why it's so violent, Republican versus Democrat in this country. Because the people who control the system understand that if you divide, you can conquer and administer power to greater degrees and for long periods of time. This has been tried in every society throughout human history. But you and I are smart enough to recognize that game and knock it over. They might kill us before that happens, but that's neither nor there. I'd rather die trying than stand silent. But going back to answering your question, what I like from the Democrats side of thing, or the blue state side of thing, whatever we want to call it, is that they're actually listening to the people who've been left behind by this sort of evolution of this K shaped society. Now where I strongly disagree with them is in their solutions. We know socialism doesn't work. You don't have to go to college to figure that out. You can just go on YouTube at this point. And so any policy that is designed to restrict prices and or supply will ultimately cause more inflation and cause more problems longer term. And you won't solve the underlying problem, which is people don't have enough money to afford a quality lifestyle. That is the underlying problem we're trying to solve. The issue with the red State side of things is that they want to do more of the things that are causing the K shaped economy to begin with. We have K shaped monetary policy. We know if you look at the Fed relative to a baseline Taylor rule estimate, its policy has gotten easier and easier and easier and easier and ridiculously easy over time. If you look at the Fed's balance sheet or the monetary base relative to the economy or relative to the stock market has gotten easier and easier and easier over time. So that is contributing to that Cantillon effect by inflating asset prices at rates that are far exceeding the median wage growth. We've left the median wage in the dust by hilarious degrees in recent decades. And so monetary policy has been a key contributor to that. K shaped monetary policy has been a key contributor to the K shaped economy crisis. K shaped fiscal policy has been a key contributor to the K shaped economy crisis. If you want to look at all the money that the government spends on poor people, when you aggregate all the means tested programs, it's about 1.2, $1.3 trillion currently to about $2.6 trillion that the government spends on rich people in the form of national defense and net interest on the debt. When the government has a contract, it goes to Alex Karp at Palantir, Elon Musk or whoever manufactures all these bombs and missiles and drones. It doesn't go to poor people who are lining up at the food bank. So we're basically spending double the amount of money on rich people as a federal government than we do on poor people. So that's K shaped monetary policy. That dynamic's been going on for years. And lastly, as we started the conversation, K shaped regulatory policy, we've allowed big business to take over the Supreme Court in this country in the past 55 decades. To the degree that we no longer have trust busting, we have union busting. To the degree that we no longer have defined benefit pensions, we have defined contribution pensions. We have all these things offshoring, globalization, the AI race, the race to replace white collar labor with low cost bits and tokens. All these things that are based basically, you know, great for generating profits and higher stock prices, which is great if you're on the top part of the K like us. But they are contributing to the problem. They're causing the problem of the ordinary person cannot afford to live a quality life. And so you have to find a middle ground between listening to the people and understanding the drivers of why those people are upset and why those people why we need to, you know, basically walk them off the ledge before we lose our society. Because that's the word. That's where this is at.
- [25:28]
D
Today's episode is brought to you by Uphold. Are you someone who's tired of juggling multiple apps just to trade, earn, stake or spend your crypto? Then listen up because Uphold does all of that in one single unified platform. You can access 300 plus crypto and fiat currencies with an interface that works for you whether you're a beginner or an expert. Uphold also features any to any swaps where you can swap crypto to fiat, fiat to metals, and tokens to tokens directly in the app. If you prefer self custody, Uphold's vault gives you multisig security, key recovery, direct trading access, and peace of mind without giving up convenience. Uphold is also 100% reserved, meaning no fractional practices, and proof of reserves are updated every 30 seconds so you can verify your assets anytime for US users. You can even earn yield on dollars with a USD interest account. No fees, no minimums, and funds are insured up to $2.5 million through the Atomic Cash Suite program. If you want one app for your entire digital asset life, check out Uphold today. Go to uphold.com to learn more. Uphold.com Go check them out today. Today's episode is brought to you by Simple Mining. Bitcoin mining has a reputation for being complicated, risky and hard to evaluate as a real investment. If you're considering mining in 2026, what actually matters is in headline profitability, it's uptime repairs and whether the operation is run like a real business. That's why I've been using Simple Mining. They're based in Cedar Falls, Iowa and they run a white glove hosting operation where you own your miners, you choose your own pool and you have bitcoin sent directly to your wallet. They were featured on the Inc. 5000 list as the fastest growing company in Iowa with over 40,000 machines under management. What stands out to me is execution. They have the number one rated ASIC repair center and for the first 12 months repairs are included. If mining margins get tight, you can pause with no penalties. And if you want to resize or upgrade your fleet, there's a marketplace to resell equipment instead of being stuck. To help people think it through whether mining actually makes sense right now, they put together a short resource called the 2026 Bitcoin Mining Blueprint. It walks through the five mistakes investors make when allocating to mining. And they also explain how to avoid them before deploying cash capital. If it sounds interesting to you, you can get it for free at simplemining IO pomp. That's simple mining IO pomp. Go check it out today and see if you should get into the mining game. I wrote a piece earlier this week and I talked about how socialism is one of the biggest threats to investors portfolios. But I talk about explicit and implicit and that's basically what you're talking about here. There's explicit momdani grocery stores. There's implicit, we're printing cash, we're giving it to somebody.
- [28:10]
B
Right?
- [28:10]
D
And it's two different forms, two different, you know, kind of avenues for money to go from the federal government into people's hands. And really the fight now in politics is over who gets to be the recipient of the socialism.
- [28:24]
C
Amen.
- [28:24]
D
And I think that there's a huge challenge with the number of people who believe that we should have a small government. That number is disappearing. I mean, I talked to a lot of folks, there's red and blue. I don't see a lot of libertarians, I don't see a lot of, you know, folks who are saying get both of these parties away from me. And I think that those folks who do have those beliefs, they feel like they're kind of outcasts when it comes to the u. S political system now. And the reason why I'm so interested in it is because I do believe that those folks tend to have the best understanding from the economic policies that are being implemented to what portfolios are likely to work and also probably have some of the best returns in their portfolio if you go, because they understand what both parties are doing and how it affects the investment assets.
- [29:14]
C
Amen. Amen. You nailed it, man. You absolutely noted it. And part of the reason, like, you know, when I first started, when I first joined wall street, I was a card carrying member of the von mises institute and you know, school of austrian economics and you know, that's part of my core belief system because ultimately I understand from, you know, studying, you know, literary works, like the greatest literary work of all time, the bible, and studying many other literary works throughout my academic career and post college, you know, deliberate study process, is that none of this stuff works over the long term. It always winds up getting corrupted it all if you the bigger government gets, no matter if it's big government to make Alex carp And Elon Musk, Rich or big government to make people at the food bank less hungry no matter how big, if it's big, the bigger the government gets, the worse outcomes are in society. And part of the reason for that, I believe we talked about this the last time I was on your show. Part of the reason for that is this dynamic called the wealth pump. And the wealth pump, Peter Turchin, his colleagues at the Crisis DBE and Complexity Science Institute in Vienna, they've done a tremendous amount of academic research on this. It's quite possibly the most well researched socioeconomic kind of database that I've ever seen in my two decades of doing this and even throughout my school asking experience. And basically what they found is that the bigger the government gets, the more it gets weaponized to create disparate outcomes for certain groups relative to other groups, the more the divvying up of the pie starts to get bad. Basically it starts to create more conflict and violence in society. And so if I can just end with this part of the data that they presented in this CrisisDB database in the Complexity Science Institute. And again, this is like hundreds of PhD researchers from universities all over the world have combined to kind of contribute to this over the past few decades, couple of decades. And so now that they're finally starting to publish a lot of their work, I'll just leave you with seven numbers. If you look at economies that share the US's current k shape dynamics, and part of the reason we have current K shaped dynamics is because of K shaped monetary policy, K shaped fiscal policy, and K shaped regulatory policy that's been, you know, used to, you know, extract rent and wealth from the lower classes of society to the upper classes of society. When you have those types of K shaped dynamics that are being driven by what they, what they call the wealth pump, you tend to have very bad outcomes. So let me just go through seven numbers here. If you look at the historical probability of these outcomes and thus far they've, they've, they've done this across 100 different societies spanning millennia. Obviously all the big ones in there, the Chinese, Rome, us, French, you know, all these other big societies, there's, I think they're currently studying another 200 if I'm not corre, but the first 100, the first main ones that they had the best data for, this is the historical probability of select outcomes. 17% of these societies that have the US's current K shaped crisis dynamics end with systemic violence against elites like us. 20% of those outcomes wind up with recurrent civil wars lasting for at least 100 years. 40% of those societies wind up with assassination of their rulers. 50% of those societies wind up with substantial population decline. 60% of those societies wind up with state collapse via conquest or disintegration into multiple states, which is very what could be happening right now in the United states of America. 67% of those societies wind up featuring systemic downward mobility of elites. And then 75% of those societies end with revolution, civil war or both. Again, this is the historic frequentist probability of the outcomes that economies that share our current case shape dynamics wind up into.
- [32:58]
D
What are you most excited about over the next four or five years, if you had to point? You know, we talked a lot about the challenges. I think that people are feeling that what gives you hope?
- [33:07]
C
What gives me hope is that things are going to get bad enough for us to fix it. Yeah, that's what gives me hope. And that anchors on my former colleague, one of my mentors, work, Neil Howe, is for turning work. He sees this as more of a reflexive cyclical process. And we have to go through these seasons of disintegration and violence and conflict to kind of right the ship. Because ultimately human beings are, you know, we are easily tempted. You know, human beings are very greedy creatures. We're easily tempted, resources are scarce. And so ultimately we wind up trying to. Not we, but you know, human beings in general, particularly people who don't have a core belief system like being Christian, et cetera. If you don't have a core belief system that says the herd is better than me, it's more important than me, and you just operate with mine, mine, mine, give me mine. Selfish, give me mine. I got to get mine. I got to get mine. And that's how most human beings operate. You're ultimately going to wind up with these really harsh outcomes. And so I'm most excited about things getting bad enough for us to finally fix these problems so that your children, my children, can grow up in a world that's much more socially cohesive and a lot less anxious.
- [34:12]
D
I think there's a lot of people who want to see that future come to fruition. Where can we send people to find you or find more about 42 macros.
- [34:19]
C
Yeah, no, I appreciate you, man. Again, like I said, I'm here to educate and learn and learn from you. You know, folks want to come check us out, Check us out@42macro.com you know, having these types of conversations is maybe 1% of what we do. The number one thing we do for all of our clients is is helping them stay on the right side of market risk, whether we maximizing upside capture in a bull market, minimizing downside capture in a bear market. And we do it through the lens of some of the best, you know, quantitative risk management systems that you're going to be able to access at price points that regular people can pay for. You know, again, I cut my teeth designing systems like this for the global buy side, and now we sell them to regular people because I think that's the right thing to do.
- [34:51]
D
I think you guys do a fantastic job. Obviously, I'm a fan of you and 42 Macro, so I appreciate time to do this. And we'll do it again next month.
- [35:00]
B
Yeah.
- [35:00]
C
God bless you, brother, and thank you again for this opportunity to educate, man. We need to have these conversations as a country.