Pivot - Liz Cheney's Next Move, a Massive Crypto Scam, Earnings, and More

Episode Date: July 26, 2022

Of course Kara and Scott will talk about the sex lives of tech leaders. But once that's out of their system, they'll discuss Q2 Earnings, whether the Jan. 6th committee will hear from Ginni Thomas, and salary transparency. Friend of Pivot Jamie Bartlett tells us about his book, "The Missing Cryptoqueen: The Billion Dollar Cryptocurrency Con and the Woman Who Got Away with It.” Send us your questions! Call 855-51-PIVOT, or via Yappa, at nymag.com/pivot.Send us your questions! Call 855-51-PIVOT, or via Yappa, at nymag.com/pivot. You can follow Jamie at @JamieJBartlett and check out The Missing Cryptoqueen podcast here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for Pivot comes from Virgin Atlantic. Too many of us are so focused on getting to our destination that we forgot to embrace the journey. Well, when you fly Virgin Atlantic, that memorable trip begins right from the moment you check in. On board, you'll find everything you need to relax, recharge, or carry on working. Buy flat, private suites, fast Wi-Fi, hours of entertainment, delicious dining, and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. delicious dining and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. Check out virginatlantic.com for your next trip to London data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates fast. Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash podcast.

Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.

And I'm Scott Galloway. Scott, I have something to tell you. Okay. I slept with your wife and I am so, so sorry. As long as I can watch. I don't have a problem with that. I knew you would say that. I knew you would say that.

I had a better opening. I was going to say, I'm coming clean. I've been literally banging every executive in big tech. I mean, who would have known that Nick Clegg had a foot fetish? And me and Andy Jassy, Jesus Christ, the sweet, sweet love. Last week, Kara, last weekend, and it's just— Did he deliver? I made one, too.

Before it comes out in the post, I just want everyone to know that I've been in an ongoing affair with Jack Dorsey and Ben Silverman. The other day I had him over to my house. We did magic mushrooms. I got on my knees and yelled, touchdown, Kara. I yelled, touchdown. Too much? Too much? Too much.

He didn't need to add that little delight thing. That Nick Clegg is a saucy little bitch. Okay. The shit he's into, Kara. Let's hope he comes to code and you can continue the relationship. He's thinking about it. Anyway. Hey, you're sleeping with my wife.

I did not. And she's a lovely woman. And mostly because she's so smart. She's not lovely. She's scorching hot. No one wants a lovely wife. She's scorching hot. Well, I know, but she's beautiful.

As you know, my mother thinks she's beautiful and can't believe she's married to you. In any case, if you slept with my wife, it would be problematic. You would have the militia at the ridge coming for you. I'm just telling you. I have absolutely no comment on that. All right, but what we're all talking about, and we usually do partake in sexual banter on this show. And yet there's no sexual tension.

Not a smidge. Not even- None at all. Not even like a, no. Like I'm watching NPR. I mean- Right, exactly. That's exactly how I feel.

Yeah, good. I reciprocate your lack of sexual tangent. It's not even, ew. It's not even, that's how little there is. It's not even, ew. It's like, no. It's just not there. Not there.

In any case, Elon Musk also says he hasn't had sex in ages, although I don't know what's going on with you two these days. That's part of his defense to a Wall Street Journal report, which came this weekend, which lit up my texts from everybody, including people around the principals, claiming Elon slept with the wife of Sergey Brin. The report says the couple filed for divorce earlier this year as a result, and Brin and Musk had a falling out over the incident. They've been very close, I have to say. I do know that. Musk denies the entire story and says that he and Brin are still friends, and in fact, they were at a party. He says it is not true. I am perplexed as to why the Wall Street Journal wrote this. But some great tweets from this whole thing.

Father Robert Balliser tweets, Tesla auto drive now has a feature that brings women directly to Musk's house. This is a priest and a doctor. Dr. Parikh Patel says the reason Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos both got divorced is because Elon slept with their wives. Now, right afterwards, I did text with some people who might know some stuff, and they didn't believe it, actually. People who would not predispose to either of them, by the way, and said they thought it was weird because these relationships are very fungible in Silicon Valley, these particular ones,

and that it's not in their nature to be mad about things like this. This is what I was told. Now, at the same time, for the journal to do something like this, which is owned by Robert Murdoch, was really something. I was sort of like, wow, this is some limb to climb out on. So, what do you think? You know, I saw this and I'm like, it's like, you don't want to be TMZ, right? Yeah, I agree. And at the same time... But we did get a lot of jokes in at the beginning. Well, that's, you know, any chance for me to talk about banging Ben Selberman, that's just fair play. That's just good humor. Yeah, that's true. What was weird for me was it came up as a news alert, a Wall Street Journal news alert. And I'm like, the Wall Street

Journal is now in this business of talking about people's affairs. The reason why it's probably true is I didn't see Sergey or I think her name – I don't even want to say her name. Nicole. But they didn't deny it. I mean – Well, yeah. All three – if it wasn't true, this is a pretty – I want to say awful thing to say about somebody. But this has real ramifications for the employees of both firms.

awful thing to say about somebody, but this has real ramifications for the employees of both firms. And if it wasn't true, wouldn't they have all three issued a press release saying this is ridiculous and the Wall Street Journal needs to retract it? Well, Sergey's not one for making statements, just so you know. And oddly enough, there was a story. I hate these stories. This is pretty personal. If someone said they were having an affair with your wife, you would decide to make a statement if it wasn't true. Perhaps. Now, what's really interesting is that many years ago, Recode, and it was a real perplexing thing for me to make a decision on, broke the story about Sergey having a relationship with someone at Google Glass. And it broke up his marriage. And the only reason we did it was- For clicks. I get it, for clicks.

No, no, no, no. It was a corporate issue. It was a big problematic because Google had a history of this kind of stuff at the company with executives. And it directly impacted, Larry Page was furious. They were all current executives. And again, this other executive who was going out with, in fact, I had had dinner with this woman and her then boyfriend a week before. And then he left the company and went on to other things. And he was a major executive. So it was really hard to write about. But there were also implications of ownership of the stock. And I knew Sergey and his ex-wife very well.

And so we thought very long and hard before we published this. But this one, I don't see the implication. I would not have published it because I don't see the implications of it as a business newspaper. I could see the Daily Mail doing it. I could see others doing it, but I don't see the business implications here. There's no links between them. I would not have published this. Just, I would not have. You're right. I don't, I don't think it's, I was shocked that the Wall Street Journal put it out. I think there's a couple bigger issues here. And the first is you have an individual who has a psychopathic need to be in the news, is a bit erratic, has tremendous influence, is probably the premier role model globally for men. More than Tom Brady, more young men look up to Elon Musk than any other individual. And it looks as if in the same 30-day period, in one month, he welcomed a baby from his girlfriend by surrogate.

He also welcomed twins from a subordinate that reported to him. That one I would have written about. But go ahead. Sorry. And it appears that also in that same month, supposedly this happened in December, he was having an affair with the founder of Google's wife while they have a toddler at home. I mean, all of this is just so – I mean, this guy – it just appears, whether this is true or not, whether the Wall Street Journal is republishing it, I'm going to use a term here. This guy is fucking out of control. And has – I love it, yeah. I mean, any one issue is not worthy of examination. I don't think the media, I think the media should let private lives be private lives. But quite frankly, he's decided to prostitute himself every which way but loose.

So then to say, and he hasn't said, no, you can't talk about this. The bigger issue, in my view, is that, is sex in the workplace? It's a nuanced argument, but I believe, and I said this in a Goldman Sachs town hall, and you could just tell HR's hair was on fire. I think it's okay for young people, if you're going to ask young people to work really hard and spend all their time at work, I think it's nice when young people meet, fall in love, have sex, get married, have kids, maybe not in that order. And I've been to several weddings of people who met while they were working together at firms I started and I ran. And because of just some abhorrent behavior of powerful men, there's a general assumption that

romantic relationships should be discouraged. And I think that 99.9% of romantic interactions at work are usually positive or people know how to deal with it. Now, having said that, and I think young people should meet each other and mate. I think once you get to a certain level of seniority, much less the CEO of a company, you take that shit off campus. Your fly is up on lock. You are not allowed. Well, this recent story, she's not an executive there. It is off campus. It is. I'm not. Okay.

Let's take that one aside. Right. I think there's nuance here. I think once you hit a certain executive level, full stop, you are not allowed to have romantic or sexual relationships with someone you work with because at the end of the day, it's an abuse of power. The power dynamic is weird. You create risk for shareholders. You create a nightmare for HR. Anybody else who did this shit, anybody, anybody would be out and probably never be able to work again. It does depend on the rules that his company have, though. I mean, you have to understand.

Listen, disclosure, I went out with someone who worked for me and then we disclosed extensively. Now, I still don't feel like it was the correct. Okay. Do you think he disclosed that he was not only having a relationship, but that she was carrying his twins as he was giving birth to another surrogate? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. And I'm not even speaking to the situation.

I'm speaking to the situation because it's a problem. I mean, this is a problem. Every CEO of a company has to deal with this eventually. Every board has to deal with this because we're humans. We're a social species. The heart is stronger and stupider than any muscle. And people decide to have relationships at work. You can't ask people in a modern economy to work 60 hours a week and not expect them to form relationships at work.

Well, Microsoft has an interesting rule after many years of problems, which was a love contract, which people signed. You know, Melinda Gates and Bill Gates both worked at Microsoft, and they were married for a very long time. However it ended, they had a very successful relationship for many, many decades, I think. And so they have a thing, they created a thing at Microsoft, and many companies do, called a love contract, where the two principles, they move them. It's happened at Google a number of times. Different areas.

In lots of places. Disclosure is, to me, the most important thing. In this case, it's about this guy being in the news all the time, and it's always around the same kind of stuff, right? So, smoke fire is what people have here with him, whether it's true or not. And it does create a kind of jazz hands discomfort around this guy who seems, I think you nailed it. Whatever happened here, it's the attention on this guy on things that are really kind of crazy and not about business. And so that's what I'd worry about as a shareholder of any of these companies. This guy's on a tear, right? He is the modern day star. I'm writing this, New York Magazine asked me to write about, they're doing a whole piece on Elon. And I said, Elon's America.

Technical brilliance, taking advantage of platforms, enormous risk-taking, moving the world forward, and represents the worst of the valley. And the valley has two very unfortunate externalities. Roger McNamee summarized it. One, the companies that have done the best are in the business of exploiting their users. They're not there to enable them. They're there to violate their privacy or depress them or addict them. And then two, there just is a massive gestalt coming out of tech leaders that they are not subject to any standards of behavior, a code of ethics, a rule of fair play. Like, okay, you don't commit securities fraud on Twitter and you don't fuck

your friend's wife. I mean, there's just a certain code men are supposed to live up to when they get to a certain level of blessing and good fortune. And the people who seem to be most likely to disregard any code around what it means to be a good neighbor, much less a man. I mean, look, we all have instincts. None of us are perfect. We've all done stupid things with our genitals. That's what genitals should be called, the organ that makes really stupid decisions. Stupid things.

But when it's just like over and over and over, and then you make stupid jokes like calling the Texas Institute of Tech tits, like when only one in five of your employees are SpaceX are female. It's like, okay, women are supposed to make progress in this environment? Yeah. He's a problematic hero, as they say, or hero or someone to look up to. Is all of this going to result in equal pay for women? I don't think so.

I think it creates this fraternity-like atmosphere and this level of exception for really powerful men. And they're always the same person. I think that's where you put your hands on it. And my second part is he's constantly in the news for things that people should stay out of. It's enough. It's enough. And he's always, he's blaming the media. He's blaming this. And he should put the blame on himself. You know, he's always like, the journal has done this. And then he did a lecture on how reporters should behave. And I'm literally like, listen. Are you going to tell us how to behave? He has no right to tell anyone how to behave. Yeah, exactly. So I think those are the two things. One is he's attracting undue attention

to himself that's really quite distasteful. Finally, it's finally become truly distasteful. And the second thing is unchecked power really does result in distasteful behavior over time. Power corrupts. It's like as old as time. I mean, if you read, if you didn't know this person and you just read all these things, you'd be like, next step, rehab. Yeah. It literally feels like he's off to rehab when you read about him.

I want to be clear. I have no evidence of that. And I don't think it's going to happen. I don't, I'm not saying anything about him. But when you look at all these actions, it sounds like someone who is literally spinning out of fucking control and has no friends to sit him down and say, boss, dial it back. Well, apparently Sergei is still his friend, according to Elon. They were at a party together. Sergei's a very unusual and he's a very poignant figure in a lot of ways.

He's also a great kisser. Just letting you in on that. I always liked Sergei, but felt like he was sort of drifting and troubled in a lot of ways. His first wife, I know very well. And she started 23andMe. She's a gangster, right? Super smart.

Yeah, she's terrific. She's terrific. I really like her. I think it was, and she's the sister of Susan Wojcicki, who runs YouTube. There's a lot going on here, right? Like she's, think it was, and she's the sister of Susan Wojcicki, who runs YouTube. There's a lot going on here, right? And the place they started Google in her garage. They start in Susan's garage. So the whole thing, in any case, it's like a shitty version of Succession. I don't know how

else to put it. It's a shitty version of Succession with all these people running around. And they all have interpersonal relationships, this and that. I just wish they were hotter. It'd be so much more interesting if they were all much hotter. That's what I'm saying. That's right. Even the succession people are hotter. Anyway, today we'll talk about real tremors at Google and actual business tremors and a collapse at Snap. Also, the January 6th committee has the goods. And we'll talk about the crypto scammer on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list with author and podcast host Jamie Bartlett. But first, California's state Senate passed a bill last week that would require employers to include pay ranges in job ads if passed. The bill would apply to California companies with at least

15 employees, so every tech company except Fandango probably applies. The bill still needs to pass the California House and get the governor's signatures, but could it help narrow pay gaps? I don't think it did before when some of it was revealed. The AFL-CIA reports pay disparities between men and women in STEM fields. It also found that Asian and white people made more than Hispanic and Black people, no surprise. And so I don't think this will matter. I think they've tried this a million times and been sued a zillion times. And what do you think about this? So there's a couple of things here. There's just, it's really, it continues. There was a study that just came out that showed that contract workers, that male contract workers asked for like 40% ask and are paid some ridiculously

greater amount per hour that women, and a lot of it was, they couldn't figure out if it was the market discriminating or if women, for whatever reason, because women grew up as pleasers, aren't as aggressive, aren't as inclined to ask for compensation. I will say that if somebody, I've noticed this, it's a sexist statement. The people who are almost always in my ear about being underpaid tend to be males in their 40s. All the same experience. I was going to say that. I, as someone who managed for a very short amount of time, always the guy who didn't deserve it.

And your job as a manager is to try to reverse squeaky wheel. And that is really appreciate the people who aren't in your ear bothering you aren't the people who are being overpaid. They're people who aren't in your ear bothering you aren't the people who are being overpaid. They're people who aren't complaining. And you really have to be disciplined because the temptation is to go, oh, so-and-so is happy. We don't need to give him or her a 20% raise. And so-and-so is complaining so much and he or she is good, so we need to give them a bigger raise. That's exactly the wrong thing. You have to make it clear that I'm complaining for you.

There's someone in my head saying this person is doing a great job and needs to be paid more. Because unfortunately, there's just no getting around it. There is a correlation between people who you think might leave and your likelihood to pay them more. And the way they communicate they might leave is they complain a lot. And your job as a manager is to go absolutely the other way. So, but pay in the workplace. And then the other kind of interesting thing here is that when I do, especially my other podcasts, I talk about actual money. When I say I bought this share, I'll say how much I invested, how much I made, how much I lost. And it's considered uncouth

to actually talk about money. There's a statement in The Godfather where this guy talks about a success in front of The Godfather. And he said, I don't mean to be arrogant. He's like, no, he's like, people not talking about money is a complexion or is a certain decorum that's been promoted by the rich to keep the poor people poor. Because if they knew how much money other people were making, they wouldn't stand for it or they demand more. And this has been happening in corporate America for the last hundred years. And that is you are basically told if you reveal your salary, you could get fired. That's a fireable offense. Yeah. Remember Erica at Google, she had compiled a number of lists. I've interviewed her many times and got in trouble for it but was trying to show people to fill it in themselves. There were moves at not just Google but a number of companies.

But the reason they discourage it is not because it's uncouth or it's tacky. It's that the asymmetry of information creates or leaks advantage to the person that has the information. That's right. that has the information. That's right. And so the employer might say, okay, all the women or all the people in this division are making 30% less on average

than all the people in this division for whatever reason. And this would cause a lot of headache for us and we might have to raise the pay because there's absolutely no justification. So what do you think of this bill?

Does it matter? Because there's been attempts at this in various ways, not legislative. I don't think it works. I don't think putting in the pay range, and it doesn't mean they can't go outside the pay range. It doesn't, I don't see what this accomplishes. Definitely. I definitely had the same experience managing men and women. All the men were the more aggressive by far and more incompetent,

by the way, the more aggressive and the more, it was really fascinating to watch. And even with myself, I'm somebody who does ask for a lot of money all the time. And I, two experiences, one is someone said, you're the highest paid person here. And I was like, I don't care. Like, why are you telling me this? Is this going to hinder me from, pay me or not, but don't give me, they'd like to give you information without giving you information. And so it's a way, there's all these mind games around. But I just want to talk, I do want to spend a minute on this because I do think people look to us for career coaching. And that is you don't want to be – you want to complain once a year in your review. And what you want is you don't want to complain.

You want to have credible threats of leaving. And that is every two or three years, I think people should investigate other opportunities. every two or three years, I think people should investigate other opportunities. And that is have lunch with a friend, return a headhunter's call, find out if the firm you're interested in is hiring, and then go in and have a very honest conversation with your boss around, I like it here. I need to make more money, or I think my market value is greater. Every two or three years, I used to get an offer from Wharton or Columbia or Cornell Tech.

And then when they were coming in to talk to me, they'd be like, oh, well, it's really hard and we don't like clinicals, so we're only giving you a 4% raise. I'm like, I get it. These are all good reasons. I have an offer from this university at 1.4 times what I'm making here. I would like to stay here. I was very transparent, but this is my market value. And they'd hum and haw and act all disappointed in me and like I was being a traitor. And then they'd come back and match the offer. Yeah. And I would encourage everybody to do that. But don't complain every fucking week.

And don't make comments about your compensation. Don't roll your eyes. You complain once a year, if at all. And if it's a good employer, they will almost meet your expectations. People always have outsized expectations. But a good employer will either almost meet them, meet them, or exceed them. If they're not, then you should, regardless, every on a regular basis, every two or three years, check your market value. Because companies have a tendency to look at you through the lens which you came in through

and not appreciate how much you've progressed. 100%. The Washington Post treated me like that for many years after I'd excelled. You know what I mean? Like I was still the kid who started in the mailroom. Just very briefly, South Carolina bill would ban websites that tell users how to access abortion. The bill would make it illegal up similar bills whether or not this one passes. Also, CBS is asking pharmacists in a few forced birth states to confirm that customers aren't using the medications to end pregnancies.

This is just bullshit. This is literally, these people have gone far, far. Of course, they're going to press farther because this is what they're like. They're like, they're religious and they're intolerant and they're fascist.

I don't know what else to say. You've already seen Facebook take down posts that offer abortion pills. They're going to try everything to make abortion illegal across the country by any means necessary. And this is the first pair in this fight. I don't know what tech companies are going to do here. What are they going to just turn off Google or what? Well, first off, good luck with that. I mean, it's going to be impossible to enforce too.

There are a few things you can do to damage a brand more in a single stroke than what South Carolina has done. South Carolina has basically raised their hand and said, we're just back assward. You should not locate your business here. You should not move here. If you're a young woman graduating from Georgia Tech and thinking about, you know, an interesting place to live. And South Carolina has some of the most incredible lifestyle and beautiful cities in the nation. But they basically said, no, don't come here. Think about somewhere else. This is just – this is stupid economically. Texas Republicans are suing a law firm for giving people money for going out of state.

Texas is a much more complex brand, though. Texas – a lot of people think Austin is a very progressive city. South Carolina, people don't know anything about it. And then they see this. Texas is a much more complex brand, though. Texas, a lot of people think Austin's a very progressive city. South Carolina, people don't know anything about it. And then they see this. It's the first time it's in the news, and it's in the news for the wrong reasons. And there's also Professor Samuel Perry wrote a great piece about what he refers to as imposter Christianity. And that is this fascism, this war against women, this misogyny is being couched in religious nomenclature. Marjorie Taylor Greene just said that we should be a Christian nationalist nation.

I mean, and it's like, this is, you know what? This is the last way Jesus would behave. Jesus started with love the poor. Jesus wouldn't say cut food stamps. I mean, it is literally the people who use and invoke Jesus the most, he would track them down and find their desk and puke on it. And this kind of this wrapping it in these Christian, these January 6 rallies where they start with prayer, it's so disingenuous and so contrary.

I'm looking forward to the return of our Savior. Anyways, this imposter Christianity I thought was a really interesting concept because a lot of Christians, a lot of our clergy are so horrified by what's going on and they feel powerless. They're letting them – well, they are powerless. Yes. In any case, this is really – you're right. From a business point of view, you're putting a big sign on your door that says, please don't move here unless you want to live in a hellscape of anti-women, anti-everybody thing. Anyway, we'll see how that goes economically. That's where it's going to really, where the rubber's going to hit the road, of course. But let's get on to our first big story.

Tech and the economy. The Fed is expected to raise interest rates on Wednesday. Again, we'll get earnings reports this week from Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet. And you will be talking about them, not with me, because I will be in Scotland. This is our last show before Scott Free August. I can't believe you're actually taking a day off. That's not like you. I am taking a day off. But Katie Tour is going to be your co-host.

Oh, my gosh. My first choice. That's really good. I wish I hadn't announced that because there's a decent chance her agent's going to call her and say, we should talk about this. No, no, no. She's going to love doing this. We should. Anyway, there's a lot of earnings coming out.

So a lot of these people are going to be at our code conference, which will be interesting to talk about, both Amazon and Alphabet, for example. What are you most excited for? Because Alphabet, there's a story, no one's getting hired at Google. The tech giant has been hiring for two weeks, as reviews had count. What are you most excited for? Because Alphabet, there's a story, no one's getting hired at Google. The tech giant has been hiring for two weeks as reviews had count. Google reportedly hired almost 10,000 employees in Q2 alone. They're a big hire. Recent weeks, the company has hinted at slower hiring

and CEO Sundar Pichai, who is coming to code, has said Google needs to be, quote, more entrepreneurial. This is something Mark Zuckerberg said at Meta. Some of you shouldn't be here. It's a problem that plagues big companies. So what do you think about the earnings that are coming out, which have been pretty good, but not for all, and what you're looking for in these things? I'm excited because I usually, and probably incorrectly, jump to a conclusion, and I think I understand what's going on. And around recession or not and what's going on. And around recession or not,

and what's going on in the economy, I am totally flummoxed because interest rates going up this fast, inverted yield curve always leads to a recession. At the same time, we've never had a recession when unemployment is slow. And this weekend, and you talked about this, I was with my boys, we went to the Color Factory, which took us, we had to reserve tickets way in advance, 140 bucks to roll around in a ball pit and find out that I have a color that speaks to my soul. It's called Imperial Gazpacho. Who would have known that? Who would have known that? Really?

Oh, it's hilarious. They do such a great job. I'm convinced. It's a bunch of graduates of the ITP school at NYU. They take like 40 pounds of edibles and they come up with an experience for children. And it's amazing. And they are making millions and you know what, they deserve it. I love those kind of places. It feels very COVID-y, but I love them. Go ahead. I went to the on-running store, Align, the Stussy store, Align, this place called Pharmacy.

All around Soho, every other store, there was a line to get in and spend money. Yes, I agree. And I'm like, wait, we're supposed to be going into recession? I agree. We go to this great ice cream shop. We go to our favorite restaurants. It's maybe just in the big cities. Lure, Jack's Wife, Frida, Baltic.

They're packed. Right, big cities. So what I do think is fairly evident, though. So 17% of the S&P has reported their earnings, and two-thirds of those who have reported have beat their earnings. So corporations have not received a memo yet regarding this recession. Now, having said that, a precursor to a recession is that the easiest thing for a corporation to cut back on when they start feeling insecure is advertising. It's much easier to cut advertising than it is to fire people or stop slowdown projects.

And we're seeing evidence that there's a real slowdown in advertising. Because if you look at Snap's earnings, it is. Get this. A year ago, Snap was worth $116 billion. Now it's worth like 15. It's gone down 80%. Just so you know, it says it will slow hiring following poor earnings report last week. Shares dropped nearly 40% following that news. It was already down. Analysts downgraded Snap stock as well. Snap continues to blame Apple's 2021 advertising update and the rise of TikTok, among other causes. But I think you're putting your finger on a problem. And your secret lover, Evan Spiegel, by the way.

You know what was weird in the earnings call? He's not my secret lover. Come clean, you little saucy minx. Anyways. No. In the earnings call, he didn't show up. Yeah. No comments, no explanation.

Just wasn't there, which is strange. But in addition, the next data point is Twitter. And distinct to the Elon shit, their active users, their monthly active users were up 16%. Yet the revenues were flat to down, meaning that their ability, their ARPU, their revenue per user has declined dramatically, which means the demand for advertising is going down. So the most illuminating earnings report is going to be Google to see if this ad recession is impacting the biggest advertiser in the world. And Meta?

Meta too, I suppose. Is Meta this week as well? Yes, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet. Yeah. So, I'm really interested to see if this ad recession, or is there a consolidation or flight to quality where Meta and Google will be fine? Typically, when people rein in their ad budgets, they cut Pinterest, they cut the little guys, they cut Snap, they cut all the like experimenting fun stuff, and they just rally around the must-dos. But if Google reports misses, then you're seeing the tip of the spear of a recession because advertising is usually the first to go and it snakes down to the rest of spending. Right. And the hiring pause, I mean, I think is smart and getting more entrepreneur. These big companies have a very hard time as they

hire so much doing this. So we'll look at that. We'll talk to Sundar Pichai code about that. Why is why is not finding it so difficult to compete with TikTok as our others? It has creators content, large user base that weren't using Facebook and Instagram. Obviously, Facebook has unveiled a new design that's more TikTok like good luck with that. As you said, and I think I agree is the acquisition of Snap seems likely. It's the stock down so low. It's a very good company. And like Pinterest, you had talked about three of them, Pinterest, Snapchat, and Twitter as acquisition targets.

Yeah, Snap. You'd think something would happen with Snap. There's such an X factor, though, because it's a dual-class shareholder company. And by the way, they put in place a new stock compensation model that really benefits the founders. It's really kind of obscene what the shit they've been trying to pull in terms of corporate governance. And it really says that their board is not representing all stakeholders. But the problem with a company like this is Snap should absolutely be acquired or make dramatic moves or acquire other companies. But the problem is the guy, there's a 34-year-old or whatever he is who has total voting control. So he can just decide not to sell.

He can say, well, it might be good for the sector. It might be good for employees, but I don't care. I don't need to sell. I've already taken my billions. I think he would sell if he thought it was the right thing. I don't necessarily. I think he's the one that has to decide whether they're going to sell. That's the thing.

He has control. He has control. Even though he doesn't own over 50% of the company. That's correct. But that's how they let him do it. Let's be clear. Well, it started with Google, actually, and then everyone else followed. Facebook. But it's going to be very interesting to see what the earnings are across the ad ecosystem.

Also, Evan Spiegel's coming to code also. So we have lots to ask these people, Scott. I'm going to have you in on that interview, I think. Lots to ask. All right, Scott, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, the January 6th committee may call a big name witness and we'll speak with a friend of Pivot, Jamie Bartlett, on the missing crypto queen and the OneCoin scam. Fox Creative.

This is advertiser content from Zelle. When you picture an online scammer, what do you see? For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting crouched over their computer with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle of the night. And honestly, that's not what it is anymore. That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter. These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists. And they're making bank.

Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion. It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built to facilitate scamming at scale. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world. These are very savvy business people. These are organized criminal rings. And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better. One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other.

We need to have those awkward conversations around what do you do if you have text messages you don't recognize? What do you do if you start getting asked to send information that's more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim. And we have these conversations he fell victim. And we have these conversations all the time. So we are all at risk and we all need to work together to protect each other. Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com slash Zelle. And when using digital payment platforms, remember to only send money to people you know and trust. only send money to people you know and trust. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Out. Uncertainty. Self-doubt. Stressing about not knowing where to start.

In. Plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done. Out. Word art. Sorry, Live Laugh Lovers. In. Knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today. Scott, we're back. The January 6th committee may subpoena Ginny Thomas. That's according to Liz Cheney, who also says that her work on the committee is worth losing her seat over. Cheney currently faces a primary challenge from a Trump Act candidate.

Last week, the committee heard testimony that Mike Pence's Secret Service agents were calling their family as the mob descended on the Capitol. The committee also released footage of Senator Josh Hawley running away from the protesters that he had cheered on earlier in the day, which became a fantastic meme. Haley running away from the protesters that he had cheered on earlier in the day, which became a fantastic meme. You know, Liz Cheney appeared on a lot of channels Sunday, including Fox News, which was fascinating. And essentially, she is a ninja warrior about these things. She is a, I don't know, a weapon of Trump destruction, because one of the things she pointed out when Brett Baer was pressing her on the Capitol Police problems, she's like, maybe they had problems, but let's focus on the mob. She's so smart. But then she said, and in any case, your boss, essentially, Murdoch papers are the ones that are saying how bad he is, including the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. So she's informing a Murdoch-owned property that Murdoch is done with Trump, which I thought was on many levels of Spock chess.

In any case, what do you think? The impact continues to be very strong around this. Now, the Gin Thomas things, this is a wife of a sitting Supreme Court justice. Obviously, Steve Bannon lost his case, his contempt of Congress case. What do you think? What do you think? I think you were right on this. I thought I said a week ago they should bring it to a close, and it just keeps getting better. It has turned into must-see TV. And I think Ginny Thomas, if based on her previous comments, I think she'll handle herself poorly. And it's so frightening how high up it goes. And I think we're all just totally shocked at just how fucking crazy this shit is.

Yeah. And how wrong it is. I mean, I was trying to think about, say one CEO got kicked out for another. Say Bob Iger got kicked out and he showed up with a mob of angry employees and with a noose and threatened to physically harm Chapik. He'd be in jail. We wouldn't accept this anywhere. We wouldn't put up with this shit anywhere. We would not.

We would not. And for some reason, we've decided we should be more lenient with the president. Shouldn't the standards be higher? Absolutely. What has gone on here is so insane. And I do believe that the country is going to have a difficult time healing until we say our institutions matter. We have rule of law. We're indicting

this individual. We're telling this guy he's got to close his transaction. I think the rule of law has to step up here. Absolutely. I think which is something that Cheney is not backing down from. This is really, her performance yesterday was brilliant, all over the map. I was sort of like, whoa, this woman can think in full legal paragraphs that are understandable to average people. The fact that she was on Fox News was very important. I thought she was on Brett Baier's show, even though I didn't agree with him attacking the Capitol Police the way he did. She really did get all her points across, which I think was the point, right? It's the shift of Fox News away from Trump towards DeSantis, et cetera. But you know who the wizard behind the curtain around all this shit is?

Who? Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney is, whatever you think of the guy, was one of the most brilliant strategists in the history of politics. You can bet he's on the phone. For Liz Cheney. Yeah, they talk a lot.

She's, come on, she's pretty good. Oh, I don't doubt it, but she has the brightest strategist, political strategist in the world going, this is your moment. Come out against Trump. It's the right thing to do. You'll be seen as a hero. Look, Liz Cheney is now a viable contender for the Republican nomination for president.

People think that the party might come to her. I was thinking of it. She did what Colin Powell didn't do. Remember, Colin Powell had that opportunity to stand up to a lot of the stuff, and then he sort of went along. She did not go along, but actually, she's comporting herself. She's very clear. She's very, you know, it's not emotional. It's very more like, but just the facts, ma'am. But she's also very likable, actually. All these Democrats are going gaga over, and I'm like, if you look at her policies, they're not very friendly to the Democrats. But nonetheless, appealing in every way. I think it's really interesting. Now, I don't think it's just appealing to Democrats. I think it's appealing to independents. Everyone's like, oh, now Democrats like her. I think most Democrats understand Liz Cheney's politics. But for sure, she's a worthy opponent, right? That's at least that's the case. And secondly, I think it brings into stark focus the

contrast between her and Trump. And she is, you know, he always complains about women, you know, that nasty woman. And I'm looking forward to him doing that again. But boy, she's got his number and is dialing it over and over and over again, just constantly. And it's fantastic to watch, I have to say. She's put on a master class in terms of how to communicate effectively. She's not upset. She's not complaining. She just kind of says, we had a mom that was motivated and incited to violence by the president. And she just says it very matter of fact. And over and over again. Yeah. And I'm disappointed, but here are the facts.

Right. And I agree with you. There were some security problems, but, and then she goes right back. She's very good. Watching her was brilliant, and actually, she has every right to be worried because she does think we're on the edge of an abyss, and I think some reporting by Jonathan Swan at Axios was astonishing. The Trump administration is planning to radically reshape the next, if they get in office, reshape the federal government via an executive order called Schedule F. The plan could lead to the removal of thousands of civil servants and the installation of Trump lawyers in their place. It's crazy. It's an Orban-like takeover who is also appearing on conservative conferences. Is this like when they killed the Jedi? It's like Order 19 or whatever it's called?

Yes. Yes. Mm-hmm. Order 12. All the Star Wars geeks will literally fill up my Twitter feed right now because I got it wrong. Yes, now they will. But let me just say, they have plans. Don't pretend they're feckless fucks. They are feckless fucks, but they're also it's order 66, says Evan Engel. Evan, you shouldn't have owned up to knowing that. Yes, nonetheless, good reference on your part. In any case, there's plenty of reason to worry. These are not these are people people still continuing their quest.

They fucked up, they fucked up, they fucked up. They kept trying all the way to the insurrection, and now they're still doing it. So I think that's one thing Liz Cheney is reminding us. There's a reason for what she's doing, which is that it's a problem. In any case, Liz Cheney, you get the branding of the week, I have to say.

I'm consistently impressed with her, and it's not someone I would be normally impressed by. And I'm not in love with her. Like a lot of people say, oh, now, like the left's like, now you love her. I don't love her. I admire what she's done here. And you can do that and have policy disagreements. In any case, keep going, Liz. I love the show. But you know where Evan found out that information on Order 66? What? He found it on Wookieepedia. Get it? Wookieepedia? I'm sure there is a Wookieepedia. There is. There is. Oh, is there? All right. In any case, let's bring in our friend of Pivot.

Jamie Bartlett is an author and bestselling book, The Dark Net, and the writer and presenter of the number one podcast, The Missing Crypto Queen. His recent book, The Missing Crypto Queen, The Billion Dollar Cryptocurrency Con, and The Woman Who Got Away With It is out now. It's a fascinating book. I can't wait for the movie, let's just say. Welcome, Jamie. Thank you for having me. First of all, give us a rundown on who the crypto queen is and how she ended up on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list. on who the crypto queen is and how she ended up on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list.

Sure. Her name is Dr. Ruja Ignatova. She is a German-Bulgarian businesswoman, who a brilliant mind, Oxford educated, PhD in comparative law, who in 2014, basically told the world that Bitcoin's brilliant, it's going to change the world, it's going to revolutionize finance, but it's complicated. It's for nerds. It's for geeks. And it's already very expensive. So I, she said, have created a new one.

It's called OneCoin. It's simple. It's for the masses. It's easy to use. It's centralized, unlike Bitcoin. So if you forget your password or have your coins hacked, I'll be able to get them

back for you. And it's very cheap now. So get in early. And within 18 months, so by sort of early 2016, something like a million people had invested up to 4 billion euros from 175 countries in OneCoin, thinking they'd bought the next big thing. And the price of the OneCoin they held kept going up in value on the website that they would visit to check, but they could never actually sell it. It was always next month, next year. And then in October 2017, Dr. Ruzsa boards a budget airline flight from Sofia, Bulgaria to Athens, Greece, and is never seen again. The whole thing is essentially a very old-fashioned scam, a pyramid scheme, really, with a cryptocurrency

twist, which is why it took off. And she's been missing ever since. She kept missing that she's alive or missing that something happened to her? What is the thinking? Well, this is still an open question, although I don't think that the FBI would have put her on their most wanted list if they had information that she were dead. But certainly, I mean, I've been looking for her now for over four years

and have received a lot of tip-offs, a lot of sightings. I certainly believe she's alive. She has, however, a new face, new identity documents, uses a new name, and disappeared with at least $500 million of investors' money and probably significantly more. More, exactly. It's possible to stay on the run for a while, not forever, but for a while with that sort of money. Well, a lot of people do with much less money. So how do scams like this impact the crypto market? Obviously, the crypto market's in a freefall, including Bitcoin. There's been so many, especially in the early days, grifters and con artists, etc. So what is the impact?

Even things like Celsius going bankrupt, the whole patina of this area is really bad. And when there's stories like this, it gets even worse. Yeah, that's right. I mean, the crypto market and the hype of the crypto market bears some responsibility for scams like OneCoin being able to thrive in the first place. Because the whole of the OneCoin promise was predicated on absurd returns are not only possible, you're an idiot if you don't get in on it now. Which is the appeal, right? Yeah.

I mean, it was only really possible because investors into OneCoin didn't really understand the technology at all. They just kept seeing the numbers on Bitcoin going up and up and up. And she played to that very cleverly. So the crypto market, when it's doing well, bears some responsibility for scams following in their footsteps because these scammers target retail investors six months later saying, you heard about the price of Bitcoin. Well, this is the new one. And it's not going to go up by 20% or 50% a year. It's going to go up by 1000%. And every time someone would say, be careful if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

The scam artists would say, yeah, well, that's what everyone said about Bitcoin. And guess what? Your friend Dave's now driving around in a Lamborghini. So they bear responsibility on that side. Scams more generally now, I think are, I mean, especially with what happened with Celsius, that felt like quite a pivotal moment because the one coin scam essentially was a bit of a weird one because it really is a multi-level marketing scam. I mean, the whole thing was actually a multi-level marketing company with a crypto product that they were selling that was totally fake. But over the last two to three years, certainly in the UK and elsewhere, it's ordinary

people who are now pouring their money in, having seen that hype in late 2017. So we now have 2.5 million investors in the UK in crypto assets. I would say 95% of them do not understand it at all, have got in because the price skyrocketed late on. They got in late to the market and now the price goes down because so many companies turn up promising the world, get these absurd spikes in value and then crash because often they don't deliver anything. I think scams are really undermining the market generally because a lot of these companies,

even the legitimate ones, seem to be based on sort of promised, guaranteed annual returns based on quite risky investments. So you had said it was a pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes will give some people money back to create the illusion of prosperity. Like a made-off. Was there ever a liquid market in one coin, or could you not sell? Yes, you're totally right. So it's a pyramid scheme because the way that money was made, and there was money made, was that investors would become recruiters.

So investors would buy, say, €5,000 worth of one coin. They would then sell €5,000 worth of one coin to their brother, their mom, their sister, their cousin, and receive around a 10% cash commission for that. They would then recruit those people to sell to their friends and family and would receive a percentage for that. Now, only those at the very, very top would ever sell enough or have a large enough downline to actually make any proper money from that. So money was made through commissions, something like 30% of all money put into one coin, I've estimated, was paid back out in commissions, but nearly all to the top 1% of promoters. The product that they were selling, the coins that they thought were going up and up and

up in value that they were sitting on and waiting to turn back into real money, no, they couldn't. There was no liquid market for that. They ran their own tiny boutique exchange site, which allowed some investors periodically to turn maybe 1% of their holdings into real money. But that was essentially a Ponzi payout just to get them to believe and to recruit the next wave of investors. They always

promised that very soon one coin would be listed on Kraken or Poloniex or one of the big exchange sites. But of course, that never materialized because they never really had any technology behind any of it. So I've usually found that in these types of scams where you have someone very credible, they start with, I don't want to call them benign intentions, but they don't, it's sort of an incremental path to criminality. And that is they start thinking this is a good idea, this is legal, I can make money here. And then something happens and they start making a series of justifications or rationalizations, and they end up in criminal activity. Do you think Dr. Ruzsa, from the outset, was trying to execute a scam? It's a very insightful comment, because I think you're actually right about this. I think what happened was, in 2014, Dr. Ruzsa,

she'd been for five years a consultant at McKinsey's. She's a very legitimate, very, very good consultant in finance. I think she was always obsessed with getting rich. And I think in 2014, she saw cryptocurrencies and thought, this is the way I can do it. I think she hoped to blend in with other ICOs at the time, sort of promising possible future enormous gains. If it fails, it fails. Don't blame me. It's a risky venture. She never intended to be a multi-billion dollar scam in the way that it turned out, I don't think. I think she started out actually with a fork of the Bitcoin technology that was mining coins at, let's say, 10,000 coins per 10 minutes. But the multi-level marketers that

were promoting the coin for her were selling millions and millions of coins a day, more than she was ever able for her blockchain to mine. It was sort of outpacing the mining rate. able for her blockchain to mine. It was sort of outpacing the mining rate. By a year later, she had sold over a billion coins that didn't exist anywhere on any technology. So she started saving them on essentially an SQL database. And she could have tried to have stopped then and said, my goodness me, I'm sorry, everyone. I'm going to wait for my coins to catch up to mine coins until we reach the number that I've sold. But she just pushed on regardless, because the whole company in multi-level marketing was dependent on this constant selling cycle.

And so I think she was sort of drifting more and more into the gray area. And when she realized that she'd outsold by an astronomical number the coins that she had, that's the point at which I suppose she tipped into more outright criminality. This is my theory. There's still a bit of mystery around this because it's still an sort of open subject. The FBI may disagree with me on my interpretation of this. Right. Why did she stay under the radar so much? Others didn't. Elizabeth Holmes didn't.

And was she acting alone? I think the reason she stayed under the radar, I think she kind of slipped between two worlds. The multi-level marketing world, the investors in this were really all from multi-level marketing or the friends and family of multi-level marketing. That isn't a subject that is much covered by most mainstream outlets. But I think a lot of mainstream outlets looked at OneCoin, thought, this is a complicated crypto company. I don't really want to have anything.

We don't really understand it. The crypto specialist press looked at OneCoin and thought, this is a multi-level marketing pyramid scheme. It's nothing to do with us either. And it wasn't really picked up anywhere. And I think I was personally quite surprised when I was leaked accounting documents that showed just how big this was. Because I'd covered cryptocurrency for a long time. I'd never heard of it. I'd never heard of it. I'd never heard of this company. And I think it was because it was in that multi-level marketing world.

But it was using the branding, the hype, the language of crypto. A lot of people did that. That's not, that wasn't fresh, right? Right, yeah. So who should be responsible for stopping it then? If she falls between the cracks with coverage, who should be stopping crimes like this from happening? Well, it's tough.

I think journalists, well, I think we journalists sort of failed a little bit. We were slow off the mark with this. And the thing with pyramid schemes in particular, they really do travel like a virus. I mean, it's sort of exponential growth because it's two recruit two recruit two. And so within six months, it had gone from Dr. Ruge's brain in Sofia to tiny villages 400 miles west of Kampala in Uganda, where everyone had invested in one coin. So the speed before the regulators even knew it was happening, it had reached every

corner of the globe. And that makes it very difficult. And no single country really took a lead on this and not Bulgaria, because I mean, Bulgaria is the most corrupt country in the EU. And I'm not just saying that, I mean, multiple surveys and studies find that. She was very well connected in Bulgaria. So I think she was a bit of a safe haven for her, which meant that the company could and still is open in Bulgaria, which made it hard for the regulators as well, because they would say in the UK, well, this is really a Bulgarian company with the holding companies actually in Dubai, but they're not doing anything about it either. So no one really did much.

And it was really only the US authorities that actually started to crack down on this because they launched an investigation into OneCoin and into Dr. Ruzsa. They ended up arresting quite recently her brother, her lover, her investment manager, her co--founder and as of three weeks ago she's on the fbi's top 10 most wanted fugitives they're gonna get her they'll get her yeah well they will now i hope but it was only i mean everyone complains about america but they're the only country that

actually can ever do anything to stop this stuff that's true that's true so um uh where do you think she is right now i i have received over the course of the last four years of doing this, but especially since the FBI notice, probably hundreds of absolutely certain tip-offs. I've seen her at Heathrow Airport. It was definitely her. She bought a car. So I've had to try to sort of work out which ones tally up, which one works with her lifestyle. All right, give me your best guess. She, as I believe, she is currently most likely to be living on a, believe it or not, on a super yacht in and around the Mediterranean and Black Sea, periodically going back to Bulgaria. Wow.

It's actually Scott Galloway. I'm just turning him in right now. As long as I could get Ari Emanuel to hose me off. So, I'm fascinated by the notion of disappearing or trying to disappear. Do you think it's possible? What are the best practices here? Is it paying off a country? Is it giving Pakistan $100 million and then retreating to the hills and having the government try and hide you? Can you disappear? Are you planning to... Yeah, I know. It's like, do you have a go bag, Scott? I just find it fascinating.

Scott has a go bag. You know he does. But not only that, I mean, just to talk about it, I can't imagine it's a very nice life sleeping with one eye open all the time. I think it would be almost as – I mean, not as bad as being in prison, but it's a fascinating thought that you think, I'm out. And this is a woman who was going to be rich. She had – she might have gotten rich slowly, but she was going to be rich. McKinsey, PhD. Bulgaria. You know, it was going to happen for her.

Yes. Well, we actually got a private investigator involved who specializes in finding people who have gone missing, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. And for those who intentionally disappear, everything is about planning. So she had multiple passports. She had a safe house to go to at a moment's notice because she left Sofia, Bulgaria, with just a passport, a handbag, and a bodyguard. Went to Athens, was met by two people in, I think, a black Range Rover or one of those kinds of 4x4s. And it was all planned out in advance. So it was a phone call probably on her encrypted line that was the prompt to get all of that sorted out she booked more than one flight as well when she disappeared so everything had been planned quite carefully to sort of cover her tracks the but the the private investigator

told us everything is about lifestyle people cannot cannot ignore or cannot sort of um cannot ignore or cannot sort of... Keep a low profile? They can't do it? Well, they just can't change their habits. They are accustomed to a certain style of life and a certain type of restaurant and a certain type of clothes. She likes a Gucci bag.

You will end up making a mistake and going back to that. Yeah. Sank on Sank in Saint-Tropez, yeah. Precisely, precisely. This is one of the reasons why in and around the mediterranean but she has to be very well she's very very well connected and she needs a lot of money because the fbi is offering a hundred thousand dollars for information for her arrest information that

would lead to her arrest which i think is probably targeted at bodyguards, porch officers, chefs, drivers, her entourage that she needs. So she's got to keep them happy. And it would be a golden cage. It really wouldn't be an enjoyable lifestyle at all. You'd be extremely paranoid. But that's one of the reasons I think she might spend quite a lot of time at sea. Let me just say, we got to go, but this sounds like a Bond movie, honestly, or Mission Impossible.

Oh, it's definitely on Netflix. Who's going to play her? Funny enough, there is a movie in the works, and one of the Scottish investors that we interviewed in our podcast, Jen McAdam, who'd invested €10,000, but also got her whole family to invest as well. Oh, no. She is being played by Kate Winslet. Oh, well, there you go. Oh, wow. Kate Winslet. Kate Winslet is playing, is the victim. As for the woman herself, I don't know. We don't know yet. Jamie's new book, The Missing Crypto Queen, the billion dollar cryptocurrency con and the woman who got away

with it is out now. I suggest everybody read it. It's a really it's a gripping tale. Thank you, Jamie Bartlett. Thanks. Thanks, Jamie. Good luck with the book. Cheers.

I'm going to start calling you Crypto Queen, Scott. That's going to be my new name for you. Just call me Queen. That's true. All right. Well, one more quick break. We'll be back for predictions. Okay, Scott, we're back for predictions. Before we do that, I have to make a correction from last week. Adrian Owen, who runs Forward, wrote me a note, a text just now saying, stop calling us

concierge healthcare. We're literally less expensive than using your deductible, even better. Almost half of our members are uninsured. The cheapest ACA plans are twice our price. You're killing me, Adrian. All right. It's a nicer version of One Medical is what we said. I don't think we called it con... Maybe you did, Scott.

It wasn't precisely concierge medicine. It was a nicer... Having used both, Forward is nicer than One Medical. So I'm not sure what to say, but there you go. You're not concierge medicine. Sorry. He must be a friend of yours. No, he's just someone who used to work at Google. He showed me Forward. I thought Forward was fascinating in many ways. But predictions, Scott, predictions. I think this One Medical Amazon thing is huge. And I think that Amazon is going to use smart speakers and the information they have, credit card information on your purchases, around food, around lifestyle to create a digital corpus.

And I think the first entree to gather more data will be preventive care. But I think the industry that is almost the ripest – so healthcare is the ripest industry in the world for disruption, but it's a $3 trillion industry. And within that industry, the ripest of ripe for disruption will be the second place they will go, and that is insurance. Agreed. And if you ever meet somebody who's not that intelligent but likable and makes half a million dollars a year, chances are they work in insurance. This is any industry that has a lot of golf, any industry that has a lot of like former fraternity rush chairman, 45 cents on the dollar in insurance goes to profits and administration. They will at some point in the next 24 to 36 months, you will walk in and Alexa will say. Healthcare insurance. Swisher family.

Healthcare, not car. Healthcare insurance. Well, they could go there as well, but I think they're going to say, Swisher family, are you interested in cutting your healthcare insurance costs in half? If yes, say, Alexa, tell me about Amazon Prime insurance. This is, they're going to be able to create the ultimate actuarial table because they'll be able to look at your zip code, your relationship status, how old you are. They'll know your body mass index from the clothes you order. They will get information on your health and your diet

habits, and they'll be able to say, the Swisher family, without running commercials, we can insure the whole family and we'll be able to reduce their health care with offensive preventive care using one medical. And we'll go into the businesses that are profitable vertically. We'll go into dermatology because it's profitable. Pediatrics, we'll just put on our platform similar to where they go into profitable businesses and retail. And then they just charge unprofitable businesses to be on their platform. But here comes Amazon. I think it's going to be, and what's interesting, what would be really interesting, and I'm doing it right now for my No Mercy No Malice blog this Friday, is if you look

at the 10 most valuable retailers 20 years ago, it's changed dramatically. Only like two of them are left. It's going to be really interesting to look at the top 10 most valuable healthcare companies right now and imagine what's going to happen to them over the next 20 years. And by the way, Walmart's going to get in here. They're building their own. I don't know if you realize that. Well, they have dental clinics. They're going to absolutely get in here. And by the way, speaking of Adrian and Forward, they're going to get bought. Everyone who's been in this is in a great spot because all these big companies like Walmart. I invested in a company called 98.6 just because I thought eventually these companies are all going to get bought.

But Walmart's going to go low and Amazon's going to go high. People make the mistake of thinking that Amazon is kind of a value retailer. Wealthy people love Amazon. Wealthy households. Yeah, they trust it. Let me just say also, Lena Kahn is going to come for them on this one. I don't see how she can stay out of this one. I have heard so much noise about this this week from people in DC, is if she doesn't go for them, she doesn't go, you know what I mean, for this one.

I'll take the other side on this. And I'm someone who thinks Amazon should be broken up. I think that AWS should be spun because they shouldn't be subsidizing a retail platform with profits from another division. I don't think they should be advantaging their own products on a platform. But when it comes to an industry that has not enough competition and where consumers have paid outrageous rents, I'm all for Amazon coming into those sectors. People think I don't like Amazon or hate these companies. That's not true at all. I like competition.

And if Amazon with their deep pockets and excellent execution and data and technology can come in and fuck up the healthcare industry, I'm down with it. See, I find that it'd be more interesting for them to go into logistics. I just had a go around with UPS that was literally, their website is unusable.

Their information is unusable. I had to call six different people about picking up three packages at my house. It was crazy. And someone said, well, you're going to have to call Amazon on this. And I said, once again, it's not an Amazon issue. I want you to pick up packages at my house. And I said, if it was Amazon, it would be resolved online easily. And I was sort of thinking they really need to get into, you know, the logistics business. But, of course, they face – even if you don't think that they should be in this competitive space, I also think the MGM thing shouldn't be a problem either because I think there's plenty of competition in Hollywood. They need a headline. And this is it.

This is it. Like, healthcare's scary. Amazon. I think they're going to go here. I think they can't not do that. That's, you know. That would be interesting. Because the other approaches to Amazon are harder. The other approaches, the much harder cases, the marketplace, which are the real cases, which is competing in a marketplace against other

retailers, much harder to understand. Everybody gets this one. I think they're going to be here. I just do. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the talk of the town. In any case I think they're going to be here. They just do. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. But that's the top of the town. In any case, that's a great prediction, Scott. We'll see where it goes. Okay, Scott, that's the show.

I'm going to bring this to a close right now. We'll be back on Friday for more where you will be hosting with someone else because I will be in Scotland where you're from, right? Is that correct? With Louis Swisher and the young kids. The last season. Yes, yes. That, yes. All the kids. We're going to be doing falconry. We're going to be doing haggis. Anyway, we'll be driving around the locks. That's all I know. Anyway, please read us out. Today's show was produced by Larry Naiman, Evan Engel, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Andrews dot engineer this episode. Thanks also

to Drew Burrows and Miel Severo. Make sure you're subscribed to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thank you for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. Are you a big tech executive? Then I'm single.