Raging Moderates: The Price of Trump’s Trade War

Summary

The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway – Episode Summary: "Raging Moderates: The Price of Trump’s Trade War"

Release Date: April 8, 2025

Introduction

In this episode of The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway, host Scott Galloway delves deep into the ramifications of President Trump's aggressive trade policies, particularly the recent imposition of sweeping tariffs on U.S. imports. Joined by co-host Jessica Tarleth, the discussion navigates the intricate interplay between economic strategies, market reactions, and the broader political landscape.

Trump's Trade War Unveiled

Scott opens the discussion by detailing President Trump's recent declaration of a trade war, highlighting the extensive tariffs imposed across various sectors.

• Tariff Implementation and Immediate Impact

  • Scott Galloway [11:59]: “Last week, President Trump shook global markets by announcing sweeping tariffs on nearly everything the US imports. In a Rose Garden appearance, he imposed a 10% baseline tariff on all countries and with much deeper rates for countries he called the worst offenders, including China, the EU, Japan, and South Korea.”

• Market Reactions

  • The immediate aftermath saw significant market turmoil, with the Dow experiencing its largest consecutive losses since the pandemic onset.
  • Scott [12:00]: “The Dow posted its biggest back-to-back losses since March 2020 when the pandemic created obviously incredible uncertainty.”

• Economic Consequences

  • Scott discusses the S&P 500 entering bear market territory and the severe hit on tech giants like Apple and Nvidia.
  • The tariffs on foreign-made cars introduced on Thursday further exacerbated inflation concerns, with Yale studies estimating an annual impact exceeding $2,000 on the average U.S. household, disproportionately affecting low-income families.

Economic Analysis: The Flaws of the Trade War Strategy

Scott provides a comprehensive analysis of why the trade war is economically detrimental to the U.S., arguing that it constitutes an "own goal" comparable to major historical economic missteps like Brexit.

• Impact on Consumers and Businesses

  • Scott [27:03]: “So a couple things there. Let's talk about the deficit... This is just the biggest own goal in history...”
  • Tariffs lead to higher consumer prices, reduced demand, and retaliation from trade partners, ultimately harming both consumers and businesses.

• Stock Market Implications

  • Scott explains how tariffs can lead to a contraction in market valuations, emphasizing that U.S. stocks may underperform globally due to decreased investor confidence and multiple contractions.
  • Scott [24:32]: “This is the biggest own goal in history. Maybe since we tightened the fiscal programs of '29 and '30 and just made things worse.”

• Taxation and Fiscal Policy

  • The discussion transitions to fiscal responsibility, advocating for a balanced approach to deficit reduction through both spending cuts and tax reforms.
  • Scott [36:02]: “If we were to decide that people in the most prosperous nation in the world should not live in poverty if they work full time...”

Political Ramifications: Democratic Strategies and Bipartisan Efforts

Jessica and Scott explore the political fallout of Trump's tariffs, including bipartisan efforts to limit presidential powers and the evolving strategies within the Democratic Party.

• Bipartisan Pushback

  • Congress is advancing a bipartisan bill aimed at restricting the President's authority to impose tariffs without legislative approval.
  • Jessica Tarleth [13:41]: “Trump has urged patience. That's the party line that somehow he's playing 40 chess and we should just wait and we're taking some pain, but the pain will be worth it.”

• Democratic Response and Leadership

  • The conversation touches on Senator Cory Booker's historic 25-hour speech criticizing GOP policies and rallying Democratic unity.
  • Jessica [63:12]: “Senator Cory Booker... urged lawmakers to reconsider proposed GOP cuts to Social Security.”

Elon Musk and Government Efficiency: A Troubling Alliance

A significant portion of the episode addresses Elon Musk's involvement with the Trump administration and the resultant tensions.

• Musk's Role and Departure

  • Scott discusses Musk's temporary role as a special government employee and the ensuing friction with cabinet officials, leading to his potential exit.
  • Scott [43:49]: “According to Politico, Trump told Cabinet members that Elon Musk will be stepping down from his role in the White House.”

• Impact on Tesla and Government Operations

  • Musk's unpredictable behavior and aggressive budget-cutting measures have strained relationships within the administration, affecting Tesla's Q1 sales and raising concerns about the sustainability of his government role.
  • Jessica [47:36]: “Musk joins the Five, and I got to ask him a question last Tuesday...”

• Critique of Musk's Influence

  • Scott criticizes Musk's influence, asserting that his actions prioritize personal and corporate gains over national interests, further destabilizing economic and governmental structures.
  • Scott [51:46]: “Look what money has done to us. We forgive a guy and idolize a guy that's being sued concurrently by two women for abandonment...”

Deficit, Taxation, and Economic Growth

Delving into fiscal policy, Scott articulates the importance of balancing deficit reduction with sustainable economic growth.

• Approaches to Deficit Reduction

  • Cutting spending and raising taxes are discussed as necessary, but Scott emphasizes the need for continued economic growth to organically reduce the deficit.
  • Scott [36:02]: “How you address the deficit... you also need to continue to grow.”

• Impact on Employment and Corporate Taxation

  • The analysis includes the effects of a progressive tax structure on corporations, proposing that increased taxation could realign economic incentives towards broader prosperity.
  • Scott [24:32]: “Every dollar we increase from selling our products abroad, we recognize a much greater increase in market capitalization and value and prosperity than when they lose a dollar.”

Conclusion: Navigating an Uncertain Economic Landscape

As the episode wraps up, Scott and Jessica reflect on the broader implications of the trade war, government inefficiencies, and the shifting global economic order. They underscore the urgency for strategic policy adjustments to safeguard American prosperity and uphold democratic values.

• Future Outlook

  • Scott predicts significant challenges ahead, including potential stock market contractions and the erosion of America's financial and political standing globally.
  • Scott [43:15]: “This is the biggest own goal in history...”

• Call to Action

  • Jessica emphasizes the need for Democrats to pivot towards issues that resonate with the broader electorate, such as economic security and social welfare, to counterbalance the administration's isolationist tendencies.
  • Jessica [66:43]: “I think 2026 could go well for us. I already mentioned the overperformance in those Florida special elections.”

Notable Quotes

• Scott Galloway [11:59]: “Last week, President Trump shook global markets by announcing sweeping tariffs on nearly everything the US imports.”

• Scott Galloway [24:32]: “This is the biggest own goal in history.”

• Jessica Tarleth [63:12]: “Senator Cory Booker... urged lawmakers to reconsider proposed GOP cuts to Social Security.”

• Scott Galloway [36:02]: “If we were to decide that people in the most prosperous nation in the world should not live in poverty if they work full time.”

• Scott Galloway [51:46]: “Look what money has done to us. We forgive a guy and idolize a guy that's being sued concurrently by two women for abandonment...”

Final Thoughts

The Prof G Pod masterfully dissects the complexities of Trump's trade war, elucidating its multifaceted impact on the American economy and political sphere. Through incisive analysis and candid dialogue, Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarleth provide listeners with a comprehensive understanding of the current economic challenges and the strategic maneuvers required to navigate them.

Transcript

[Charles Schwab]

Support for the show comes from Charles Schwab. At Schwab, how you invest is your choice, not theirs. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices. You can invest and trade on your own. Plus get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs. With award winning service, low costs and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way at Schwab. Visit schwab.com to learn more.

[Scott Galloway]

Support for the show comes from Panerai. For more than 150 years, Panerai's watches have showcased the perfect balance of pioneering.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Innovation and the brand's storied legacy.

[Scott Galloway]

And now the newly unveiled Luminor Marina.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Timepieces celebrate the evolution of one of.

[Scott Galloway]

Panerai's most emblematic and enduring collections, the Luminor. While the Luminor collection traces Back to.

[Jessica Tarleth]

The 1960s, the latest models introduce new innovative materials and design refinements while retaining the collection's bold, iconic style.

[Scott Galloway]

You can shop the new luminor [e-mail] or make an appointment at the boutique nearest you. Discover the world of Panerai at P A N e r a I.com.

[Home Depot]

At the home Depot. Spring Black Friday is here and we've got 14 days of deals to transform your space. So what are you working on? How about a quick and stylish patio furniture update? And what's outdoor dining without a shiny new grill? Find a wide selection of grills under $300 like the Next Grill 4 Bur for only $229 at the home Depot. Then add a little ambiance with string lights. Shop 14 days of deals during Spring Black Friday now through April 16th at the home Depot.

[Scott Galloway]

Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Scott Galloway.

[Jessica Tarleth]

And I'm Jessica Tarleth.

[Scott Galloway]

Should I run for president?

[Jessica Tarleth]

Jess, it seems like the Internets want you to. Yeah.

[Scott Galloway]

Stack ranking. Give me the pluses and the minuses. The dog. Dog 28. A chicken in every pot. A Cialis in every cupboard. We're going off script here. I'm coming in hot. What do you think? Give me the negatives first. I can take it. I'm thick skinned. Although I may never speak to you again the rest of my life. Go ahead.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Oh well, that would be a bummer. I would hope that you could at least give me a low level campaign position.

[Scott Galloway]

You're going to be ambassador? No, you're going to head up. What is it? American Free Radio to the islands with.

[Jessica Tarleth]

The penguins that got a big tariff.

[Scott Galloway]

Now the One they just canceled. You're going to be my Carrie Lake. I'll send you to Voice of America and then fire you the next day. I'll put you in charge of doge. Just usurp congressional authority and ramp up the spending on everything. I like that.

[Jessica Tarleth]

I won't be in it for that. I'll think about what position I would want. But the big negative I would think would be your family. I do not feel like they would be excited about this.

[Scott Galloway]

100% agree. My son brought it up. My 17 year old came home, panicked and said, are you running for president? I said no. And my partner said the only thing. She listed off about 15 reasons I shouldn't. Then the one she liked said, I like the outfits. And she. That almost compensated for the 15 negatives.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Yeah, the outfits are pretty serious. And if they're now even dressing first ladies that they don't like, imagine what she would have access to if the couture imagine were available to her. I mean, saving the country seems like a good thing. I feel like we are moving into a world in which a traditional politician is gonna have a much harder time winning a primary. At least there's gonna be a need for some pushback of someone with, like, real world experience also understands media very well, which you do not to be too positive, I guess, at the beginning of the show, because I don't want you to get too big for your britches in minute three.

[Scott Galloway]

It's happened already. I'm already there. We've already arrived. Dad, when are we getting there? We're here. We are here.

[Jessica Tarleth]

But it does feel as if an abundance Democrat, because now we're a cohort, is going to have, I don't want to say a very easy time because I think the primary is going to be super fierce. But if you're looking at where the electorate is and how people moved in 2024, it feels like someone that thinks like you slash Ezra Klein could do very well. So, I mean, I'm excited. And once I figure out what it is that I want to do for the campaign, that's going to be very important.

[Scott Galloway]

Well, you're clearly, at this point, your comms director. If you bring up Ukraine, you'll be Secretary of Defense. We're going to pivot back and forth. This was all inspired. I was on a college tour this week and it was a really, really lovely and emotional week for me. And I spoke at the University of Chicago at the Institute of Politics run by David Axelrod, and he interviewed me and he said what should Democrats do? And I said, this is the platform Democrats should adopt. And then everyone weighed in and said, you should run. And then over the weekend, I heard from all people, organizations, a guy who runs a law firm who's very involved in Democratic politics, and this is how the sausage gets made, I guess. And he said, I slash, we will put in $10 million. If you put in 10 million, that'll get you the name recognition you need and get your ideas out there, and we'll see how you do, and we'll go from there. And I thought, that's really interesting. They clearly want people with money, but there's a machine out there kind of behind the curtain working to identify candidates. And it's also sort of a signal of just how desperate things have become when they reach this far into the barrel, that someone is willing to give me 10 million bucks to announce I'm running for president and start putting my ideas out there.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Well, I think, and I don't want to diminish the importance or the weight of this early ask, but I think that people are pretty smart about the fact that we're gonna spend several billion dollars on doing this, and if it's possible that they're going to hit a winner or someone who at least can get the conversation started. Remember when we were on the Bulwark with Tim Miller and he said, like, why doesn't someone just start running for president now? And you could be that person because you're not the governor of Pennsylvania right at this particular moment. So I think a $10 million investment makes a lot of sense when they a could have someone who could go on and do it and be looking at the total haul that's going to be spent on this. So are you. Are you taking the money? Are we going?

[Scott Galloway]

Well, first, I'll tell you what my platform is because I made it up on the spot. I think our platform. I don't think we can go back. I think the current platform of we need to return to normal is not what Americans are looking for. The right is coarse and mean and stupid, but the left is corporate elitists who tell us what we want to hear and then just continue in this grift. It's not helping. Americans can't go back. And my campaign or my platform that I thought the Democrats should adopt is very simple. We all do this because we want to have purpose in our life. We want to have meaning. And the thing that is the source of that purpose and meaning, I think for most people is the ability to partner with someone and raise children. And I don't think you have to do that to be happy. But I think that's table stakes for the most prosperous nation in the world. And so I would reverse engineer every policy up to this great unifying theory of everything. And that is young people should have the opportunity to meet and fall in love. What does that mean? National service, more freshman seats, more mental health. Starting kids later, boys later. Getting more funding in pre K and education, Putting a lot more money in their pockets. Tax subsidies for third places. Give more young people the opportunities. Break up big tech, Tax the shit. Hold them liable for things that radicalize young men and sequester them for society. Give people the chance to meet and fall in love. And we don't like to talk about it because it sounds sexy, racist or weird, but not enough young people are getting together and then should they decide to have kids. Table stakes. 7 million manufactured homes which are 30 to 50% less expensive than homes built on site within 6 years. Minimum wage of $25 an hour. Every state that's done it has grown their economy. Stop the bullshit that it's going to destroy jobs. Tax holiday for people under the age of 40 such that young people, should they decide, can start the most meaningful, purposeful voyage in life and that is to have a family. And should they decide not to have kids and spend that money on brunch and Saint Barts, more power to you. But for me, that's table stakes and we should reverse engineer any policy that gets in the way of love. If you can't be in an emergency room or in a hospital room with someone because you're the same sex, we do away with that law. If you're putting a family in poverty because you're forcing a 16 year old to carry a baby to term. Now, we're not going to allow that. We're going to redo family court to try and get dads more involved in people's lives. And also, I'm a war hawk. I'm just a big believer that the far left doesn't understand at the moment people have the ability to take our Netflix and Nespresso away with violence. They will anyways. Love and Prosperity 2028. What do you think?

[Jessica Tarleth]

I'm in? I'm living it. Well, a little bit less on the prosperity president.

[Scott Galloway]

I see a vice president.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Oh, now I get upgraded?

[Scott Galloway]

Why not? You're literally more qualified than half the cabinet right now.

[Jessica Tarleth]

I mean, you are low bar, but thank you. Also, I'm not sure about that. Well, I Don't know. I. I am a little bit sure of that at this particular moment. But I'm looking forward to talking about your platform for the Democratic Party with our special guest of the live show, which is coming up next week.

[Scott Galloway]

He should run.

[Jessica Tarleth]

It's Hakeem Jeffries.

[Scott Galloway]

Oh, Hakeem. I was thinking Mark Cuban. No, he'd be amazing. I think Mark Cuban has kind of the sauce in terms of witty banter and fleet of foot. And also he has the money, which unfortunately is hugely important. Do you think Hakeem Jeffries should run for president? I don't.

[Jessica Tarleth]

I think Hakeem Jeffries is pretty busy right now, but I think it's important that we tell our listeners that we have this amazing guest.

[Scott Galloway]

Oh, yeah, he's coming on with us. Talk about that.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Well, we have our live show coming up on April 17th.

[Scott Galloway]

Sold out. Sorry, folks, you're out. Wait outside. I might sign. I might sign something. I might say hi on the way out as I dash into my Suburban.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Is that like a thing that people do at the Y? They wait to sign autographs.

[Scott Galloway]

I'm expecting a Suburban with one of the Kardashian sisters waiting inside adoringly for me. That's, you know, potential. Potential number. What am I, 48? I should be dating a Kardashian.

[Jessica Tarleth]

You are the Benjamin Button of the podcasting world, huh?

[Scott Galloway]

That's right. No, I'm aging in reverse 100%. But Mark Cuban and Hakeem Jeffries are both probably in the. The top 10. I haven't heard Hakeem's name a lot.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Really? Is that cuz you're not paying attention to politics?

[Scott Galloway]

Is that right? Is that because I'm ignorant to all of this?

[Jessica Tarleth]

Yeah, the Minority leader. The leader of the Democratic Party. You're not hearing a lot about him.

[Scott Galloway]

Is anyone hearing a lot from any Democrat right now?

[Jessica Tarleth]

Well, you were on school tour. But anyway, we're very excited to have him with us, and it's a big deal that he wanted to do it, and we'll see. For those of you who can be there on the 17th, but you can also watch online, there's an option to buy tickets for that on the 92nd Street Y site.

[Scott Galloway]

Okay. Secretary of Commerce.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Oh, I'm sorry.

[Scott Galloway]

Be careful. Pretty soon you're gonna be Secretary of Transportation. Although you look great this morning, I'm gonna make you Director of hhs.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Is that the good looking one?

[Scott Galloway]

Well, you gotta think someone who's in good shape and looks good should be would be better than some anti vax weirdo.

[Jessica Tarleth]

I mean, sure, but RFK Jr is like not hot to me anymore. Like post kids dying of measles. I'm like, it's overriding my attraction to him. I mean he looks great for his age, but all right, get into it.

[Scott Galloway]

He's a good looking guy. All right, let's get into it. Last week, President Trump shook global markets by announcing sweeping tariffs on nearly everything the US imports. In a Rose Garden appearance, he imposed a 10% baseline tariff on all countries and with much deeper rates for countries he called the worst offenders, including China, the eu, Japan and South Korea, basically our largest trading partners, if not our strongest allies. China alone was hit with a 54% tariff and quickly responded with 34% of retaliatory tariffs. Markets tanked. The Dow posted its biggest back to back losses since March 2020 when the pandemic created obviously incredible uncertainty. So it's just important to note we are now have the same level of uncertainty about what's going to happen as when a global pandemic was killing when they had to have makeshift refrigerator trucks as morgues outside of Langone. Here in New York, the S&P 500 entered bear market territory on Monday and tech giants including Apple and Nvidia were hit hard on top of that. Jess A separate 25% tariff on foreign made cars also took effect Thursday. The Fed warns this could fuel inflation and a Yale study estimates it'll cost the average U.S. household over $2,000 a year. With low income families hit hardest. That's usually U.S. economic policy. And Congress is now pushing back with a bipartisan bill to limit the president's power to impose tariffs without approval. Jess Trump has urged patience. That's the party line that somehow he's playing 40 chess and we should just wait and we're taking some pain, but the pain will be worth it. However, China's slapping on a 34% retaliatory tarif tariff and the EU gearing up for its own responses. Are we officially, do you think, in a full blown trade war?

[Jessica Tarleth]

It feels, I mean, I'm looking forward to listening to your markets coverage again with Ed. I thought you guys did a great job on that episode that came out this morning. It feels like someone formally has to declare that someone more important than me as I'm only the HHS secretary. But it feels like we're inching closer to it and this level of whiplash is not comfortable for anyone but the true, true, truest of believers. And it seems like even some of those people are just not having it anymore. Kind of see top Trump defenders from the finance community, like Bill Ackman has been having a meltdown on social media for the last few days. He's going after Lutnick, which I find that part pretty amusing in all of this. But you have people like Stan Druckenmiller who tweeted, I guess this is not a regular occurrence for him, that he does not support tariffs in excess of 10%. The Wall Street Journal wrote an article even about the fact that he had a tiny tweet, just to say that people are taking his words out of context when he talked about the potential benefits of tariffs. And, I mean, there were so many reactions to this that I. I found interesting. But one in particular was the Singaporean Prime Minister who did a direct to camera two and a half, three minute speech about what's going on here and how this is a total shakeup to the global order. And that this is not so bad for Singapore at this particular moment. But as a country that relies heavily on trade, that they know now that we are entering a new, what is it, arbitrary and protectionist phase, that America is not a reliable partner. And he brought up the fact that when we did have a trade war in the 1930s, we ended up in armed conflict leading to World War II, which was a pretty scary forecast to be hearing in all of this. And I mean, some things as a political strategist with. You know, I have a PhD in political economy, but definitely politics more my.

[Scott Galloway]

Business than being rumor you're gonna be Secretary of State.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Oh, my God. By the end of this, maybe I'll be president and you can be my vp.

[Scott Galloway]

I'll be comms director.

[Jessica Tarleth]

You just wanna be comms director. Okay.

[Scott Galloway]

No, I'll be like Billy Carter, just embarrassing you wherever you go.

[Jessica Tarleth]

No, you never embarrass me. Or at least I wouldn't admit that in such a public forum. But I keep thinking about the job of government. And this has been a theme in our conversations as we've gone the last six months, and that the parties have a different vantage point on what role government is supposed to have in your life. But fundamentally, we all agree that the government is supposed to protect us. And Trump ran on that with the border, right, saying Biden opened it up and Harris was even the border czar. And they did nothing about this policy. And millions of people got in here. Americans are dead as a result of undocumented people that came across the border during the Biden years, et cetera. And I'm looking at an administration that tells you to keep holding the line when 62% of Americans own stocks are mutual funds. This isn't a problem only for the top 10% or something. Scott Besant gave a big interview to Tucker Carlson and was making this out to be a rich person's problem. He did the same thing on the Sunday shows. That is not true at all. This is a middle class and upper middle class and certainly upper upper class problem. But this collective fu to the majority of Americans who are not too dumb to understand what's going on and are aware of the fact that also this calculation was based on a mistake. There's an incredible article from the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute where they were the ones that figured out that they had done the equation improperly in determining what the tariffs are. That led to that chart that they paraded out there that Ed was talking about on Prof. G Markets. And people know it is not just about Nike doing more here or more auto plants here. This is a small business problem. The amount of small businesses in America that run off of cheap imports is in the millions and they can't afford to pay a $500,000 tariff in order to stay in business. This is going to wreck every sector of the economy if it keeps up like this. And this morning there was, and we should say it's 11am on Monday morning that we're recording, there was a rumor that Kevin Hassett from the President's team had said that there was going to be a 90 day pause or they're exploring a 90 day pause. China market jumped up. Then the White House confirmed that that wasn't the case and now the market is back down and how are we supposed to survive this?

[Scott Galloway]

Yeah, just to the point about playing the populist argument of look, a small number of people own. I think the Dow and the NASDAQ are in fact terrible metrics because they give the illusion of prosperity and that everything's fine. So life expectancy has gone down for the last five years. Our kids are more obese and anxious. But we don't have these really elegant metrics to track that that everybody talks about every day at the beginning of every news program if it goes up a lot or down a lot. So we've decided that that's more important. And the argument they're making is one they've never made before. They didn't make it until it was convenient. But I do believe that the Dow and the NASDAQ are not an accurate reflection on the health and well being of America, they're an indicator, they're a signal. But people think, oh, market's up 2%, that means America is 2% better today. No, that's not true. And there are reasons you would probably want to sacrifice or justify the long term investment or trade off of the markets going down. If we were to decide that people in the most prosperous nation in the world should not live in poverty if they work full time. And we need to create incentives for work and we need to buttress the American brand, which includes central to that did we work. Americans work hard. And we raised minimum wage to $25 an hour where it would be naturally if it had catch pace with productivity or inflation. And McDonald's and Walmart stock went down and so did Chipotle because they're dependent upon labor at 12 or 15 bucks an hour. I think that would be worth it. I think you could make the argument if we were to say we're going to, these deficits are out of control and we need to be more responsible and stop taxing young people in the future. And we're going to substantially increase the tax rate on corporations which are paying their lowest taxes since 1929. Okay, I get it. And the market would go down because I remember being on the board, I was on the board of Dex Media. I remember one quarter of them saying we beat earnings by 30%. And everyone's like, what? What happened? Like what good thing happened? I said, well, the Trump tax cuts just took effect and our stock went up. So if you created a more progressive tax structure and took corporations back to say not even the median of what they've usually paid, but in the 30th percentile versus the lowest, which is where they are now, I think that's worth it. This is an own goal. This is shooting yourself in the feet. And then after recognizing what you've done, you take the gun and you put it in your mouth. Lumber comes across or steel and aluminum comes across the border from Canada, we tax it, we collect some revenue, but it makes it more expensive for our cars which supposedly are going to go up 10,000 to $12,000 per car. And aluminum that goes into everything, including a workout bench, including steel that you build in buildings, everything goes up in price. So the demand for those products goes down so people can have less of them. And then the other nation puts on reciprocal tariffs and Jack Daniels or Brown Forman, you know, one of the biggest companies I think in Kentucky sells less and they make less money. So our prices go up, we make less money and the demand for our products goes down and the amount of money collected in the tariff is dwarfed by the loss in capital. So this is just the old, this is the biggest on goal or own goal since Brexit. It's an economy that's 25 trillion. So we're taking everyone else down with us and it's the definition of stupid. Smart people help themselves while helping others. That's the basis of capitalism and quite frankly free trade. We don't want these manufacturing jobs back. We are the second largest manufacturer in the world. People don't want to go back into a manufacturing facility and put on a hazmat suit or work with a robot doing repetitive tasks. They would rather be in higher paid service work or very high end finished goods manufacturing. We have purposely made these trade offs. Now have we done a good job protecting the people outplaced? No. But this is a conscious decision to move to more higher end, higher margin, higher paying lines of business in the service economy or very high end manufacturing. The other thing that people aren't recognizing is that these tariffs are especially punishing on us. And this is what people are missing. Toyota trades at 0.6 times revenue. Their market cap is equivalent to 0.6 times their top line revenue. Tesla trades at 8 times revenue. So assume these tariffs are sort of diminish each company's revenues by a billion dollars. That means the market capitalization that Toyota loses is 70 million. The market cap that Tesla loses is 8 billion. So just the general level of prosperity and wealth is massively decreased in America relative to other countries because when they bring in a Mercedes it trades at 0.23 times revenues. When we export Meta or Nvidia, Nvidia trades at 24 times revenues. So free trade is overly accretive to us because we're selling them high margin products and we're importing low margin products. Every dollar we increase from selling our products abroad, we recognize a much greater increase in market capitalization and value and prosperity than when they lose a dollar. This is the biggest own goal in history. Maybe since we tightened the fiscal programs of 19, 29 and 30 and just made things worse. Your thoughts?

[Jessica Tarleth]

I agree. I mean it all sounds reasonable to me the way that you're putting it. And it just runs completely counter to what Trump is saying. The quote unquote goal of this, which is no more trade deficits, which is a complete impossibility. We're not set up anyway to be the kind of economy that you would need to be a manufacturing economy, not less because we have to take two to three years to even build a factory. But Larry Fink from Blackrock was speaking at the tariffs and he said we don't have the workers for this and we don't have the interest in it. To your point about people are not dying to go get on an assembly line and you have the Commerce Secretary out there talking about how people can be the ones putting the screws in the iPhone, as if that that's the goal for everybody who's feeling like they're getting a bad deal with the way the global economy is structured. And I think, as usual, I don't wanna say the fundamental problem, but at least a fundamental problem in what's going on with this tariff strategy implementation is that nobody who's speaking on behalf of the administration has the same story. So Lutnick saying we wanna reshore everything. Besant wants more free trade deals. Navarro wants to burn it all down. Now Elon wants this, this robust free trade zone. Right? An EU free trade zone. So which official has the actual policy? And you know, I mean going back to the fact that it was all predicated on a mathematical error and the economists who, they even whose paper is being cited in this have even now spoken out there, have an op ed in the New York Times saying they completely missed the point, which doesn't surprise me at all about this administration and the kind of clown car that we have going on. But what is the policy? And if you were setting it, I'm curious as to what you would be doing about China, because I've been reading a lot, particularly in the ft, about how much China is pumping their products through other Asian countries, particularly Vietnam, and that that's the way that they're going to try to get around any tariffing. Also looking even to Mexico, so they can kind of huff and puff and President Xi can say we're going to have a retaliatory tariff, the 34%. But if China is the big dog problem in all of this for the us how can they address that problem in particular?

[Scott Galloway]

Let's use China as an example to bring it home down to a ground level. Get this, Jess, 77% of toys imported into the US are imported from China. As a result of the new tariffs, toy prices could jump as much as 50%. Think about this. Four fifths of America is going to have half as many toys under the Christmas tree. That's what this president means. You don't think your kids are going to notice that half as many toys this holiday? And they do pay sort of tariffs, I think it's like 10 or 12%. This is going to take those tariffs to 34%. And the clowns of the Trump administration or Peter Navarro will say, well, actually, the company that we are exporting from that is sending their products into the US Will absorb those costs. That would make them a monopsonist, meaning that they have so much power that essentially they've been able to dictate prices to this point, and they can easily take the price down and still make a lot of profits. If they could have, if that were in fact the case, they would have already done it. They would have already raised their prices and captured that additional revenue. They will basically not have as much demand. They will not lower their prices because they can't. They have to make a profit. So the prices will go up and there'll be less demand. Now, 70% of people live hand of mouth. So they're not going to go, oh, toys are a little bit more. But Trump has this master plan, no biggie. They will have to buy 20% less toys to meet the same Christmas budget, meaning that every kid in America, the family is going to have eight toys under the Christmas tree, not 10. This immediately impacts American consumers. In addition, 40 million jobs in the United States and you think, well, it's a big country, 350 million, that's not as bad. Only 150 million people work. So a quarter of workers, their jobs are directly linked, if not dependent upon trade. So this will have huge impact on unemployment, prosperity, inflation, prices. And this leads me to one place, and it sounds, I realize I'm going to sound a little bit Laura Loomerish, but just free your mind. And that is if somehow we had elected Putin as president and she is vice president, and they said, okay, what do we need to do with America to help us? We need them out of Ukraine. We need to fragment the alliances between the largest economies in the world that believe in democracies and pushing back on autocrats. We need to thrust every large economy and trading partner into the arms of china of me. Mr. Xi, what would be different about the major policies that the Trump administration has implemented since inauguration than the policies that the Putin Xi administration would be implementing had they been elected president and vice president of the United States. And effectively, I believe, and I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean I'm wrong, but he either has such weird acolytes in a cultish group around him that have bought into this cult of Trump and he is really, really stupid, or they have taken advantage Putin and Xi of this ultimate grift, the Trump coin, where they essentially opened a Swiss banking account that people can put money in and it's not disclosed, and have called Trump and said, hey, I need you to figure out a way to get out of Ukraine. I've lost 800,000 people. It's draining my military, it's weakening me and Xi to say, I'd love for Japan and South Korea to get over their differences with us and start trading with us. What would be different about America if it had been the Putin Xi ticket than the Trump Vance ticket? It's just, I mean, we don't like to say that because we don't want to be the pizza gate guys. There is more legitimacy to the conspiracy I am outlining than any conspiracy they have put forward. What would they do differently had they been elected president and vice president? Your thoughts?

[Jessica Tarleth]

Well, I think that you're touching on something and that has become kind of omnipresent, I guess, in Democratic circles or in Buyer's Remorse circles as well, about President Trump, which is the number of people, including first and foremost Hillary Clinton, who was on record essentially calling every single thing that was going to happen through the first and beginnings of the second administration, save for the Abraham Accords, which I do think are a bright shining light in this. And I'm not sure that President Xi and Vladimir Putin would have been as into that as Trump administration 1.0. But you see, like, video circulating now of Mitt Romney calling it, saying we're going to have a recession, Kamala Harris calling it, saying, we're going to have a recession. They were predicting by the summer, I think Kamala said, so this could come a little early. I think Goldman has it up to, what, a 60% chance? And if the tariffs, the April 9 tariffs go through in full, they'll say immediately up to the 100% likelihood of a recession. So I think your point is well taken. But it gets to this larger issue of how do you say that without seeming like someone who needs to be wearing a tinfoil hat? Because we've gone through this before. People have been Chicken Little screaming for years about, you know, he's a Russian agent, he's not on the side of America. He's on, you know, the side of the most terrible authoritarians that are out there. And the American electorate rejected that argument at the ballot box. And so now we are stuck with this mess. And also in finding a way to articulate a cogent counter argument to it. And I already mentioned a few minutes ago That I was listening to Scott Besson on with Tucker Carlson. I had a what do people say? Like, I listen so you don't have to. But it was actually, you know, a pretty thoughtful conversation. But I was stuck on, you know, the number of times that Besson says we're heading for a financial calamity because of our debt. And that's something that you say the same, right? He's talking about wealth inequality. He sounds like an economic populace. He sounds like Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. And then the problem is, is that their solution does nothing to get us out of that jam. You know, talking about lowering the corporate tax rate, benefits accruing to the richest people, cuts to food stamps are part of their policy. 880 billion in cuts to Medicaid. And society will not be better off. It will not be more balanced, it will not be freer or fairer under the Republican legislation that they're trying to get through the big reconciliation bill or frankly under their leadership. And, and you're seeing, because it has to do with money, and money brings Republicans out of hiding, you're seeing this pushback on whether Trump even has the right to do this in the first place. So there are seven Republicans in the Senate. They're signing on to this bill, which is a bipartisan co sponsored bill to limit his tariff ability. But I was watching Rand Paul on the floor give this speech as a completely historical speech looking back, saying, this is why we left. There is no taxation without representation. The Constitution is clear that the President cannot do this and the power to tariff goes through Congress. Ted Cruz has said something similar. James Lankford was on TV last night, very conservative senator, talking about it as well, that this is going to be an issue for the courts. There's going to be a House bill. Congressman Don Bacon, who's a Republican, is bringing that up on the House. Obviously all the Dems are gonna sign on. I don't know how many Republicans will feel the same. But he's told us who he is more times than I can count. You know, this is someone who gets to the Supreme Court, which ends up granting him a level of immunity that you never expected. But this is someone who wants the ability to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and for nobody to care and for there to be no penalties about it. And I feel, you know, borderline despondent about this, not only because of the economic consequences of it, but this feels like a constant affirmation of the fact that this man has no limits and that society may not be structured in such A way that we can push back effectively and make a real change.

[Scott Galloway]

So a couple things there. Let's talk about the deficit. We're a family. If we're a household, we make 50,000 a year. We spend 70, and we have debt of $320,000. And unfortunately, this debt, our kids will get it. Our kids may not want it, but they'll get it. So mom and dad are going to Cancun and doing tequila shots and they have this amazing credit card, and they keep getting more and more offers because they've always paid their debts and they continue to live above their means. There is a really solid argument that we need to get our fiscal house in order. I think the Democrats should become debt hawks. Having said that, there's two ways you address the deficit. The first is to cut spending and raise taxes. You just have to. But you also need to continue to grow. So if you were to, for example, massively raise taxes and cut spending the way they're cutting people, stop spending money. And we're not going to solve the deficit if we don't continue. If we shrink the top line and the reason we're headed, in my opinion, towards a deflationary economy, I think inflation's going to come down and they'll claim victory, but I think we're going to go deflationary. And a deflationary economy is especially bad because what happens is if you have a mortgage or credit card debt or student loan debt, you end up paying with more valuable dollars. You have less money, more valuable dollars. Inflation in some ways is good for people with large fixed debt because they're paying with less valuable dollars. So you have to. You can't put the economy into a coma if you were to cut Social Security or I don't want to cut it. I want to means test it. I want to move the age limit up. It's now three people for everyone supporting someone on Social Security, it used to be 12 to 1. It's absolutely the thing we don't talk about on Social Security. It's regressive tax. Someone making $160,000 on my team pays $9,000. If I make $10 million in a year selling stock or companies, I pay, wait for it, $9,000. So we tax the middle class and lower full freight on Social Security. But rich people, it's capped. But you wouldn't want to cut it too much. You wouldn't want to cut spending too much, because the last thing you want to do is diminish the second weapon of getting us out of the deficit, and that is growing. If we just grow 3.6% a year, GDP growth, which is real growth, that means in 10 years the economy grows by 50%, which should grow our tax base 50%. And who knows, if we're thoughtful and even keep spending flat, maybe take it down, we substantially reduce the deficit. But you can't just come in and start cutting and put the economy into a coma thinking you're being responsible. You're not. There are two sides to debt reduction. Growth. Growth isn't everything, but it's mostly everything, as is productivity. You have to have both. So attempting, attempting to quote, unquote, use it as an excuse to put the economy in a coma. That is cutting off your nose to spite your face. It absolutely, it absolutely makes no sense. The other thing we should just keep in mind here is that, and this is the reason why I believe that US stocks are going to vastly underperform the rest of the world is that there's two components to a stock price. There's the earnings. That represents the underlying innovation, culture, industry they're in of a company, right? The profits. And then the stock is a function of the profits times the earnings multiple. The earnings multiple on the s and P 500, all 500 of our biggest, best companies, is around 28 until Wednesday. Now it's about 26. The S& P multiple in the German stock market's 22. Japan 18. China 14. Now, why do great companies trade as a whole on different multiples when they're under the umbrella of a different nation or a different index? And that's why everyone wants to go public on US Exchanges. It's because we have certain attributes and features that people and investors all over the world really like. America is more risk aggressive, it has more risk capital. It has great universities, it has great ip, it's really flexible, it's agile and it has rule of law. No one's going to come and just China put Didi out of business. We don't like your practices around information. You're out of business. They can put a company out of business. Jack. Ma, you're talking. You're a little too big for your britches. We don't like what you're saying. We're going to disappear you for six months. The US has rule of law. So companies feel somewhat safe that when they're investing, they're protected, their money is protected. Two, we're seen as consistent partners. They're not stupid, they're not sclerotic, they don't have these epileptic seizures. They don't just weigh in and decide not to do business with certain people or kick these nations out or kick these companies out. They respect rule of law. We haven't seized the 300 plus billion dollars in Russian assets despite the fact they've invaded a neighbor. Because we have rule of law, because we no longer, in the last two months, have those associations with the American brand of rule of law and consistency. I believe you're gonna see a RE rating of the price earnings multiple on the S and p down from 28 to more like what China's at, at 14. And this is what that means and why it's so important to investors. You can't outrun multiple contraction. If the multiple on US stocks gets cut in half, which it very well could, and it's happened before, you know, all of these nations had traded at higher multiples than the US before then a company like Meta, a company like P and G could grow its earnings 18% a year, which is incredible. And in five years, its stock would still be down in Latin America. It didn't matter how good your company was. The flows of capital out of Latin America because of different policies, inconsistent governments, unreliability, lack of rule of law, have taken their multiple consistently down for the last 10 or 20 years and no one's made any money. So the multiple contraction we're about to endure in U.S. stocks because of the puncturing, because of the exit of this notion of this brand America that includes rule of law and consistency is going to result in a massive contraction in market capitalization in the US which will trickle down to US households, prosperity, tax revenue. This is. I mean, you never like to predict a recession because people like me have predicted nine of the last three recessions. But if you see this kind of multiple contraction that I think we're about to incur because of the puncturing and erosion of the brand US right now, you're going to see just a massive. You're going to see companies overperform, hit all of their earnings, and their stocks are going to go down over the next couple years.

[Jessica Tarleth]

That's an uplifting story. Thank you. Right, yeah.

[Scott Galloway]

There you go. I should write children's novels.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Oh, my God. Your children's novels would be so weird.

[Scott Galloway]

Dog 2028. Things are about to get worse. Sometimes. Sometimes it's darkest jest, sometimes it's darkest jest before it's pitch black. How's that on a bumper sticker?

[Jessica Tarleth]

I mean, I've seen worse ones, but that would be up there for sure. But it feels like the mood that folks are in right now. But we have to take a quick break. Stay with us.

[Scott Galloway]

Support for the show comes from NetSuite.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Nobody knows what the future will bring. Sure, you can keep an eye on trends and cross your fingers, but rates will always rise and fall and rise again. The bear market will change to a bull market and back again. And until they invent a crystal ball, your next best bet is NetSuite by Oracle. Almost 40,000 companies choose NetSuite to help future proof their businesses so they can stay on track no matter what tomorrow brings. NetSuite is a top rated cloud ERP, bringing accounting, financial management, inventory and HR into one fluid platform with one single source of truth. NetSuite offers real time insights and data you can use to make the right decisions at the right time. All to help you close your books in days, not weeks so you can spend less time looking backwards and more time on what's next for your business. And whether your company is earning millions or even Hundreds of millions, NetSuite can help you respond to immediate challenges and seize opportunities. Speaking of opportunity, download the CFO's Guide to AI and Machine Learning at netsuite.com Prof. The guide is free to you at netsuite.com Prof� netsuite.com Profile.

[Katie Milkman]

This episode is brought to you by Choiceology, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. Choiceology is a show all about the psychology and economics behind our decisions. Each episode shares the latest research in behavioral science and dives into themes like can we learn to make smarter decisions? And the power of do Oversight. The show is hosted by Katie Milkman. She's an award winning behavioral scientist, professor at the Wharton School and author of the best selling book how to Change. In each episode Katie talks to authors, historians, athletes, Nobel Laureates and everyday people about why we make irrational choices and how we can make better ones to avoid costly mistakes. Listen and [e-mail] podcast or find it wherever you listen.

[Charles Schwab]

Support for the show comes from Charles Schwab at Schwab. How you invest is your choice, not theirs. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices. You can invest and trade on your own plus get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs. With award winning service, low costs and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way at Schwab. Visit schwab.com to learn more.

[Scott Galloway]

Welcome back. According to Politico, Trump told Cabinet members that Elon Musk will be stepping down from his role in the White House. By the end of May, Musk had been working under a special government employee designation. It's called the male abandonment designation anyways, which limits him to 130 days per year. And that clock runs out soon. But the possible exit comes at a very tense moment. Musk's Doge team, the Department of Government Efficiency, has been pushing aggressive federal budget cuts and his unpredictable behavior, especially on X, has reportedly frustrated cabinet officials. Critics say his entire billionaire mindset clashes with the realities of governing, especially after a major GOP loss in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. A race must spend over $23 million trying to win. The news follows a new Marquette poll showing just 41% approve of his work in government, with 58% disapproving. And while Trump publicly praised Musk early on, some insiders say he may now be using him as a scapegoat for recent political missteps. Meanwhile, Tesla is also feeling the heat with Q1 sales down 13%, raising questions about whether Musk's political ambitions are hurting his business. Jess, what do you think? Do you think Doge is coming to an end? Do you think Elon's leaving?

[Jessica Tarleth]

I think those are two separate questions. So I think Elon is leaving and he talked about being a special government employee which has this 130 day limit on it in his interview with some of the Dogettes with Bret Baer a couple weeks ago. So that was the expectation. But it couldn't come at a better time for how tense things are in DC between Musk and the other cabinet secretaries who are trying to do their job, or at least trying to do their job less bad. And Musk keeps getting in the way of it because every time that he makes a cut from somewhere that has to be reinstated, that's something that these Cabinet secretaries need to deal with. And there's been public reporting about pushbacks in meetings and complaints. Secretary Rubio and Secretary Duffy in particular have been very frustrated by Musk's outsized role in this. And apparently Trump, Trump himself. And you could see that something was changing by the content of Musk's tweets. So the last kind of week, he doesn't talk about DEI much anymore. He doesn't talk about massive fraud. He's actually talking about business again and going to space and Tesla and Neuralink and Starlink. And yeah, he's still red pilled and getting into some of the conspiracies, but, but he was so far off the reservation that you can tell that something has changed. And I think that this moment where he is advocating for a free trade zone at the time when Trump is putting forward these crazy tariffs and he's going straight at Peter Navarro, those two seem to have a bit of a war going on. I think Navarro called him not a carmaker, but a car assembler on CNBC this morning. So that's Monday morning. You know that there was massive of trouble in paradise. And I don't know if you caught it because you were on school tour last week, which was way more important this, but Musk joined the Five, and I got to ask him a question last Tuesday, the day of the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, which he spent more than anybody else, you know, dwarfing George Soros, who loves to buy off elections, Musk spent 23 million. It was versus Soros spent 2 million, I think. But I had just a couple hours to figure out what I wanted to ask him. And there are so many things when you have the opportunity to talk to someone that is doing these other cool things. Like I'd love to talk about Neuralink, I'd love to talk about global population trends with him and things like that. But I was like, you know what, I need to talk to or at least try to get him to answer something about these conflicts of interest that he has. And so I brought up him firing all of the folks that are looking into his companies. And then he keeps getting government contracts and he keeps accepting these subsidies for Tesla, even though he's advocated against subsidies. And he totally dodged, which is what I expected. And I lured him in. I was friendly and I smiled and I made a joke about being a liberal Tesla lover and not throwing a Molotov cocktail myself. But that dichotomy between what he says that he's doing, that this is a totally transparent process and they're just trying to make government more efficient. And what they are actually doing is what it is animating and kind of setting the Democratic base on fire as of late. I mean, Elon Musk is the most unpopular figure in government by far and away. And I think that Trump saw the writing on the wall with all this, looked at the results of the Wisconsin Supreme Court seat, but also these special elections in Florida where Democrats overperformed 15, 16 points and just said like, it cannot come soon enough for you to leave. Maybe he'll continue to be an advisor. I'm sure they'll have their alliance for time to come, but he can't be someone that's in every press conference and became a political liability for them. And likewise, the government became a liability for Musk to continue to be a successful businessman.

[Scott Galloway]

I predicted, I think three weeks ago on Pivot that Musk would fade to black and leave within 30 days. And the reason why is if you want to understand anything or you want to understand behavior across big tech and for the most part across almost every individual in America, just reverse engineer to what decisions, what motivations would give them more money. America used to be about your character, your partner, your reputation indicated a decent amount of what your life was like. Now you can have none of those things. And if you have money, you can have an amazing life and you can have all of those things. And if you don't have a lot of money, you can have almost none of the prosperity. So all incentives are do whatever you can to make a lot of money. And when I think it was the province of Alberta announced that they were canceling their SpaceX contract for Starlink, I'm like, that's it. He's out. All he cares about is money. He's not trying to help America. He's trying to remove inspectors so he can get his autonomous out there faster. He's trying to remove any sort of oversight around merging X and XAI and data privacy. He hates subsidies. After he's taken, you know, after he's taken 15 to 50 billion, these guys are all about money. And there's a few lessons in here. The Democrats need to move away from identity politics. There's a very loud minority of people who see at Ivy League universities and in the media and cultural elites who see everything through the lens of race. America, the people who decide the president, see everything through the lens of money. Who's going to put the most money in my pocket? Yeah, I'll give some lip service to women's rights. I'll give some lip service to Ukraine. But for the most part, I'll vote for the criminal because I'm under the impression he's going to put more money in my pocket. And it's also the most dynamic issue if you're a fierce. If you're one of those voters that just votes on bodily autonomy, you know which party you're going with. But the swing voters basically vote on the economy and the economy's dynamic in the sense that sometimes Democrats get the benefit of the doubt around the economy. If anyone does any homework and realizes over the last 50 years, Democratic administrations have created 40 million jobs and Republican administrations have created 1 million, or they say, this guy is not a failed businessman. In reality, TV game show host he's actual businessman. And Biden and Harris were trying to tell us when we couldn't afford to put food on the table, that everything's great, not to worry about it. They went Republican. But it's about the economy. And this is what is so disappointing in my view. Even though I know this is happening, but it shocks me when it happens. What have we had in the last couple months? We've had a reversal in the global order. We've said we used to use our massive tax base and military to support democracies and nations that believe in civil rights, women's rights, trying to do the right thing. We've torn it up and said, you know what, let's pretend that Russia won the Cold War. Let's not support democratic allies, let's support murderous autocrats. Let's create an environment where we have judges, where if a woman is bleeding out or dying from sepsis in an emergency room parking lot because people, doctors are so scared to treat her, you know, her pregnancy gone wrong, let's create that environment. Let's decide that a woman who is a conspiracy theory fucking loon, Laura Loomer, that she gets to fire General Hawk, who is arguably one of the brightest generals, government men in the world, who's responsible for intercepting signals and making sure our troops are safe overseas. Let's hire a group of people that are so incompetent that they're sharing attack plans on an unsecure phone on an app and then start calling the reporter they invited in a loser. Let's do everything we can to tear up 90 year alliances. Let's start picking up people with the wrong tattoo, shipping them to El Salvadorian prisons, not even where they're from, and then claim we can't get them back, when that's just a bald faced lie. One call, they could get this person back. All of these things in my mind are well ahead. I lost several million dollars on Thursday and Friday, which is the bad news. The good news is if you lose several million dollars, it means you're already wealthy and you're doing just fine. And I am. I'm doing just fine. I was much less triggered by the markets than I have been about these other things. And so if it took the markets going down 10% to convince you that this ass clown was the wrong person to be overseeing the greatest experiment in history, you still have your head up your ass. I was kind of like, this is what it took to get people upset. All of a sudden the tech bros, the most powerful people in the World are decided they need to go down to Mar a Lago, okay? When a 14 year old girl in Mississippi has to carry a baby to term after being raped, you know, okay, that's bad. But when my stock goes down, I'm on a plane. So what I know, but it always disappoints me is the following. Look what money has done to us. We forgive a guy and idolize a guy that's being sued concurrently by two women for abandonment, for not seeing his kids. I mean, look what money has done to us. And the thing we get outraged about, the thing that is the call to arms, is the markets go down fucking 10%. This is number 15 on the reasons why we elect our leaders. So I actually found this week it didn't trigger me at all. I was on the college tour, I was emotional for a lot of reasons. I didn't care whether I'm worth x million or whatever, 0.95x, it doesn't fucking make any difference. What makes a difference is your kids growing up in a nation that's no longer America, where their friends who aren't them, who aren't in the top 1% don't have the same rights we had, don't have a shot at getting out of the bottom 90. So I find what's happened in the last week disappointing because not disappointing because Trump makes a stupid decision. He's been making them. I actually am disappointed that this is what it took to get people into the streets of America that okay, the war on poor women. Well, okay, that's too bad. But what's profound is if NASDAQ goes down, your thoughts.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Depressing, but expected. And that has been the lesson of the last few cycles. And to your point about wanting to get away from identity politics, this is the game that we have to play. And that the most compelling stories are going to be the ones that are rooted in the oligarch class taking something away from people with a lot less. And that does come down to Social Security payments. That's been resonating. That's money. How do you put food on your table, right? Your Medicaid. That's money that you need to spend on your healthcare and they wanna come for that. And I do think that the Democrats are getting hip to the fact that those are the types of arguments that are going to resonate and that they're the most powerful motivators. And I still feel like hearts in the right place, of course, to want to amplify those incredibly depressing stories that you're talking about, about, you know, young women being forced to carry children that they don't want to term and what's going on to the, going on with the global order and how we're treating our allies versus our enemies and that the world is moving on without us whether we like it or not. And we're stuck here with this administration that feels like isolationism is the way to go. But nothing is going to move the needle unless it's bank accounts. And I don't want anyone to suffer. I have said this multiple times and also, obviously I'm fine financially, but the stock market change makes a big difference in my life. Thinking about how I'm gonna send my girls to college, what retirement looks like and all of that. But it feels like this was the fuck around and find out moment for a lot of people. Those 62% that are invested in the market and I'm not sure that that's such a bad thing for us. To have this reminder this early in the Trump administration that he doesn't care about anyone but himself and a few select friends. And that number is dwindling by the day. Okay, let's take one more quick break. Stay with us.

Support for Proph tea comes from Nutrafol. Your hair and your journey with your hair is a very personal thing. And your hairline is often a reflection of what's happening on the inside. Hormones, nutrition, even lifestyle can contribute to thinning hair. So doesn't it make sense to target the key root causes with a physician formulated product? For that you can try Nutrafol. Nutrafol is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand trusted by over one and a half million people. You can see thicker, stronger, faster growing hair with less shedding in just three to six months with Nutrafol. That's because Nutrafol supports healthy hair growth from within by targeting key root causes of thinning, stress hormones, aging, nutrition, lifestyle and metabolism through whole body health. Start your hair growth journey with Nutrafol. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners $10 off your first month subscription and free shipping. When you go to nutrafool.com and enter the promo code Prof. G. Find out why over 4,500 healthcare professionals and stylists recommend Nutrafol for healthier hair. Nutrafol.com spelled n u t r a f o l.com promo code Prof. G. That's Nutrafol.com promo code Prof. G.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much, please for the love of everything good in this world. Stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying. No judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment.

[Katie Milkman]

Of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full [e-mail] this episode is brought to you by Amazon Business. How can you free up your team from time consuming office tasks? Amazon Business empowers leaders to not only streamline purchasing, but better support their teams so they can focus on strategy and growth. Free up your teams and focus on your future. Learn more about the technology, insights and Support [e-mail].

[Scott Galloway]

Welcome back. Before we go, we wanted to briefly touch on the record breaking speech from Senator Cory Booker. Last week. He spoke on the Senate floor for over 25 hours straight, the longest speech in congressional history, urging lawmakers to reconsider proposed GOP cuts to Social Security. He called on Democrats to unify and fight harder, even as the party continues to debate how aggressively to take on Trump's policies. This speech was followed by a massive hands off protest in all 50 states over the weekend. Groups including Indivisible and MoveOn organized around a simple message. Trump's economic policies, including cuts to health care, education and Social Security, are hurting everyday Americans while helping the wealthy. Actually, I should correct myself. A lot of those protests weren't just solely a function of the market decline. They had been planned around some of these other issues. So that was not fair on me. Booker's marathon moment wasn't just about policy. It's also being read as a potential turning point of Democratic leadership and strategy. Jess, what are your thoughts on Booker's Senate floor diatribe speech?

[Jessica Tarleth]

Marathon we have a pulse. I feel a little alive in terms of being a strong opposition force and there are going to be detractors and I work with a lot of them who were calling him Spartacus and mocking the whole, I don't know, the whole scene of it all, you know, but it animated people and he made a lot of points that I think are really important to take stock of that. You know, we're in a moral moment in American history and our coalition does not look like it used to. Well, also we used to win and now we don't win as much. So that's part of it. But he said, I'm standing here because of a national crisis that's growing. We talked about Social Security, we talked about healthcare, we talked education. This is a crisis for us. And you've taken responsibility for going too hard about the market because those are things that are causing people to show up at town halls that are causing millions to go to these hands off protests. I saw that the Google searches for the protests this weekend rivaled the Women's March in 2017, which I remember and participated in the New York one. So. So I feel like we have a pulse in all of this. And Musk has been the linchpin, I think. And it's the money component of Musk that he continues profiting off of us while trying to fire us and steal from us. But Musk was a huge gift. And something that I wanted to ask you about that occurred to me. Do you think actually now looking at what's happened in the few weeks since the continuing resolution passed, that actually Chuck Schumer was right to make sure that we keep the government open because now the Republicans own absolutely everything that's going on. There's no way to blame a Democrat, right, for any of the cuts that are happening, for what's happening in the market. Like you pick your pet issue and we are nowhere near any position of power. And I am feeling a little bit it wrong that I was so hard on Schumer because I think it is a good thing that we can just point squarely to Mike Johnson, Donald Trump, Senator Thune, and say, Musk, you did this.

[Scott Galloway]

So I love what the military does whenever they have an operation. So the best reforming organization in history is the US Military. And a lot of corporations take their cues from military procedures and best practices because they're so good at what they do. And one of their best practices is that they review every combat operation. What went right, what went wrong, how can we improve the culture, the chain of command, the weapons, the intelligence, such that we iterate to become a more lethal force moving forward. And one of the key sort of paradigms or lens through which they look at decisions is they say it's not about the outcome, it's about did that officer, what did that officer know at that moment? And did he or she make the best decision based on the available information at that point? And given what's happened in the market with these tariffs, you're right, it worked out well because they can't say, well, if the Democrats hadn't shut down the government, this wouldn't have happened. So it's ended up up. I think we would rather be Here right now with the government open and then not having a, you know, a punching bag or a voodoo doll to blame us all on. So the outcome here is good. Having said that, given what we knew back then, I think it was still the wrong decision. So I hear what you're saying, and I wouldn't change anything now. But it doesn't excuse the fact that based on what we knew then, he should have gone upstream and shut it down and said this. You no longer believe in government, Fine. We're no longer going to fund something that is nothing but a vehicle for you to raise taxes on the young, bypass congressional authority, make budget cuts that are supposed to have congressional approval. We're done. We're no longer going to fund your clown car. But I agree with you, this has actually ended up turning to Democrats advantage.

[Jessica Tarleth]

I think we could judge it a little and we can meet in the middle and just say, maybe he just, he should have messaged everything better, which we were talking about at the time, and had a plan to keep the government open from the Democratic side and tried to do some negotiating. Nancy Pelosi styles and maybe then we could have won on all, on all fronts. But I feel a bit better, like we're a real opposition party. I feel like 2026 could go well for us. I already mentioned the overperformance in those Florida special elections. One was by 16 points, one was by 22. And Elise Stefanik, who was headed to the UN to be our ambassador, was called back to her New York district, which is a Trump +21. And they're clearly afraid of the fact that they could possibly lose that or it would get so close that it'd be another, you know, big moment of embarrassment for the Republican Party and a harbinger of things to come. So, you know, the country is in turmoil, but on the politics side of it, I feel like we're getting our ducks in a row. And I have not felt that way for several months.

[Scott Galloway]

There was so much I loved about Senator Booker's speech. You're right. Pulse is the right word. I love that. And just because I like to trigger our listeners, I thought it was a very masculine thing to do. I think the Democrats lack a certain level of aspirational masculinity. I think showing that sort of physical strength and endurance. And people may also say, well, could a woman do it? Not as easily. Men are stronger.

[Jessica Tarleth]

We definitely have to pee.

[Scott Galloway]

Women can endure more pain because they have to endure childbirth. Notice how my politically correct instincts moved in and I had to Say something nice about. When you say. Or if you say something nice about women, you don't feel a need to compensate with saying something nice about men, but we need to say something nice about women. But anyways, I think the Democratic Party is lacking aspirational masculinity and demonstrating that sort of strength and endurance demonstrates some of that masculine energy, which I think we're desperate for. So hats off to you, Senator Booker. It also convinces me that he's going to get married or engaged in the next two years because these guys realize it's like, who is that? Who is the senator? Was he a senator from Tim Scott? Yeah. Who was making a run for VP so decided to get engaged in the middle of his run for vp. These guys, they've all figured out you can't be president as a single man. Although that would be a good rap. What do you do? I'm president. Hey, you want to go back and, you know, watch some tv? That would be a good rap, right?

[Jessica Tarleth]

Well, I mean, nothing better than the American President. Oh, he was a widow. What a word.

[Scott Galloway]

That was such a fantasy. A nice Democrat who's single. That was so ridiculous.

[Jessica Tarleth]

It's the best.

[Scott Galloway]

Annette Benning. God, she's hot. She's really hot.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Yeah. Andrew Shepard, though, he is. I think he usually is the top for fictional presidents that on all of those lists.

[Scott Galloway]

And then she was great in Bugsy.

[Jessica Tarleth]

I mean, she's great in everything. And she makes that haircut so hot. Like the little pixie cut.

[Scott Galloway]

Yeah, I hadn't thought about that. She was in one of my favorite movies, which is how I would describe almost every. Every tech bro right now. Did you ever see Grifters? The Grifters with Angela?

[Jessica Tarleth]

No.

[Scott Galloway]

Oh, gosh. What's her name? Am I saying the movie, right? The woman who was dating John Cusack. Annette Bedding. It's a fantastic film. And the guy, the woman, Angela Houston. That's her name. That is a fantastic film.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Well, I need something to watch because I saw the White Lotus finale and I. Please, we shouldn't talk about. No spoil.

[Scott Galloway]

Don't say anything.

[Jessica Tarleth]

You don't know you're the star of White Lotus. You don't know what happened.

[Scott Galloway]

Well, I'm glad you recognize I've carried this season. It's pretty obvious. It's pretty obvious. No, but I think my predict Cory Booker basically is now one of the top three or four contenders for the Democratic nomination for president. All of these guys want to be president, so one, mostly you. I'm probably the most recalcitrant I don't. I'd have to give up edibles. I just don't think I could be near. Would you, to be president?

[Jessica Tarleth]

Look what's going on right now. Would I. I mean, he's sober, but he's.

[Scott Galloway]

Yeah, but it's a different standard. It's a different standard. I'd have to go so fucking crazy like him that nothing mattered.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Edibles would be the least of your issues, I think, if you were.

[Scott Galloway]

Yeah. No, I love the idea of running. I just don't like the idea of actually being president. It's like the key to happiness is to be rich. But anonymous. I'd rather I'm going to fade into anonymity anyways, but my prediction here is that Cory Booker, in the next 24 months, as he makes a move towards announcing his presidency, is going to realize he needs to be married. So, ladies, if you like the Senator Booker, he's looking right now because, you know, marriage. As I coach young people, I'm really going off script. I'm like, it's not about meeting the One. There is no such thing as the One. It's about where you are and where they are at that point in their lives. So. But he's at that point because he realizes that he actually has a shot at doing what he's wanted to do his whole life, be president. But he needs to be married anyway. It's kind of an odd prediction, but I'm standing by it.

[Jessica Tarleth]

First person to ever say timing is everything, huh?

[Scott Galloway]

Scott? That hurts. A chicken in every pot of Cialis in every cupboard. All right, that's all for this episode. Thanks for listening to Raging Moderates. Our producers are David Toledo and Chinenye Onaker. Our technical director is Drew Burrows. You can now find Raging Moderates on its own feed every Tuesday. That's right, its own feed. What a thrill. That means exclusive interviews, including the one with the person who will come in number two in Iowa, Mark Cuban, with sharp political minds you won't hear anywhere else except every other place in the world, as they're all whores running for president. But yeah, just exclusively on Raging Moderates. Unless you got a mic and they'll speak there this week. As we said, we'll be speaking with Mark Cuban. Make sure to follow us wherever you get your podcast. You don't miss an episode.