Prof G Markets - How the Big Beautiful Bill’s Passage Will Reshape the Economy

Episode Date: July 7, 2025

Robert Armstrong, U.S. financial commentator for the Financial Times, fills in for Scott. He and Ed unpack what the GOP tax bill means for the economy now that it’s law. Robert argues we’re playing chicken with the debt and says markets are still operating in “greed mode,” not fear mode. Then, they check in on the broader economy. Ed questions when inflation might resurface, while Robert says the latest jobs report helped rule out worst-case scenarios. Finally, they tackle the rise of the “inheritocracy.” Ed advocates for a higher inheritance tax to promote a more equal society, while Robert makes the case for a targeted wealth tax to unleash capital for more productive use. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets newsletter  Order "The Algebra of Wealth," out now Subscribe to No Mercy / No Malice Follow the podcast across socials @profgmarkets Follow Scott on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram and X Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for this show comes from Indeed. So you just realized you need to hire someone yesterday. How can you find amazing candidates fast? Easy, just use Indeed. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed. And listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash Vox Business.

Just go to Indeed.com slash Vox Business right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash Vox Business. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need. Support for this program comes from FM. Established nearly two centuries ago,

FM is a leading mutual insurance company whose capital, scientific research capability and engineering expertise are solely dedicated to property risk management and the resilience of its policyholder owners. These owners, who share the belief that the majority of property loss is preventable, work with FM to better understand the hazards that can impact their business continuity to make cost-effective risk management decisions combining property loss prevention with insurance protection. At FM, we see what others don't, so we can help protect your business in ways others can't.

Learn more at FM.com and browse Site Unseen, our new microsite with opinion, research, and podcasts about hidden risks facing your business. Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start? Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin, or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates,

and read reviews all on the app. Download today. Today's number, $2,380. That's how much a single meal costs at Sublimotion, the world's most expensive restaurant located in Ibiza. A very specific number to start the show, but not without reason, because as we speak, my co-host Scott Galloway is partying in Ibiza. That's right. Proffchi is still on vacation. I don't know if he'll be dining at Sublimotion tonight, but I do know that with all these grooms ads I'm selling, he certainly can. ["Supremotion"]

Welcome to Profgy Markets, I'm Ed Elson, and today we have got the one and only Robert Armstrong on as my guest host. Robert, great to have you on. It's great to be here. I'm just trying to imagine what a $2,800 meal is like. Is it just, is it everything just covered in gold? I've heard it's 20 courses. I probably lost seven hours. I mean, it's just such a crazy number. I just don't know what happens. I mean, I must include wine.

The wine must be just outrageous. Certainly a great, great wine program. Well, I hope that Scott is enjoying it. Maybe he'll get to dine at Sublimotion. We'll see. Today though, we will be discussing the big, beautiful bill and its passage through Congress. We'll also be discussing some new jobs data, what that means for the economy and

also the great generational wealth transfer. And I just want to say, Rob, this is the very first time on this program that I am wearing a tie. And I did it for you, because I know that you love ties. I know that you are upset that people aren't wearing ties anymore, but here you are on the podcast and you're not wearing a tie. I know it's casual Thursday because Friday is a holiday and so casual. And I also just got out of the car and was in a rush to get started. So I'm sorry that I'm dressed up as you and you are dressed up as me. That's a good dynamic.

It feels good to be dressed up as you. Okay. I love it. So there's so much to talk about today. I feel like it's, it's been amazingly busy holiday week in some way Exactly, and we we we don't we don't like holidays here at Proffjie media. We like to work all the time So that's what we're gonna do today. Let's start with our first story It's time to cry. I hope you have plenty of the well-as-all.

President Trump has signed the GOP tax bill into law after the House narrowly passed it with a final count of 218 to 214. The bill will fund several of Trump's top priorities and include an extension of his 2017 tax cuts. It also includes major cuts to SNAP and Medicaid. According to the CBO, it will increase the deficit by $3.4 trillion over 10 years.

The motion is adopted. Yeah! USA! USA! USA! Rob, this big, beautiful bill, which we've discussed for many weeks now and which Scott and I have at least been very critical of, critical of the deficit spending, critical of the tax cuts, which as we look at it will only make rich people richer, critical of how those tax cuts will

be paid for with the deficit spending, as I said, but also all these cuts to these programs that primarily help poor people like snap, like Medicaid. And now here we are. Your initial reactions. You know, the most consequential feature of the bill is the deficit part. The relationship between budget government, budget deficits and markets is really interesting. And it's really interesting because it's non-linear.

In general, markets like deficit spending. When the government borrows money, especially money from abroad, and pushes it into the economy in whatever way, that money, just as a causal regularity, tends to end up on the balance sheet of American companies and It tends to end up in investors pockets and they put it in the stock market and the stock market goes up but and I think we've talked about this on the show before it's a matter of

markets liking deficit spending until they really really don't Which if you get to some point where the debt becomes unwieldy, the government's interest rates go up, the government is forced into either austerity or to inflating its way of its trouble, and then the wheels completely come off all at once. So there's a kind of game of chicken aspect to deficit spending like this.

You always wanna do a little more, you always wanna do a little more, but then at some point, you know it's all going to go terribly wrong. You just hope that point happens when someone else is in office and you are retired and, you know, keeping bees or doing whatever retired senators do. I saw this great chart from the Yale Budget Lab, which basically just maps out what this will do to GDP growth. It perfectly summarizes what you said, basically just maps out what this will do to GDP growth. And it perfectly summarizes what you said. Basically, just to describe it, you initially have this little bump

where GDP goes up 0.5%. And if you were to just look at that little timeframe of a couple of years, you'd think, okay, this is a good thing. But they extend it over a long period, they extend it to 2050. And after that bump, suddenly the line starts to go down and down and down. And by 2050, you've got negative 2% GDP growth.

Yes. And any projection like that, a huge amount of assumptions goes into, and the most important assumption is, what is the interest rate on the debt gonna be do you know what I mean so at what point so there's there's two actually moving pieces here one is when the interest on the debt becomes just a drag on the economy right that you're just it's like a slow burn thing where the the interest payments get higher and higher, it's like a slow burn thing where the interest payments get higher and higher.

And it's just like a household. At some point, you're just spending all your time maintaining your debts and not like buying things that are fun or useful or interesting or make you happier. The second point is that the tendency of these things to turn into a crisis, which is suddenly the deficit and the debt spiral out of control the bond market rebels and it's it you have a financial crisis and Those wouldn't happen. I'm often asked by readers when I talk about this well, how do we know when it's gonna happen and the whole point of it is

That we don't know when it's gonna happen If we knew it if we knew where the line was where it is that we don't know when it's going to happen. If we knew where the line was, where it was too much debt, then we just wouldn't cross that line and life would be easy. We would know what to do. But because you don't know, crises, part of the thing that makes a crisis a crisis is that it's unpredictable, right? And you don't know when you're going to hit it. So we're just playing chicken with the national debt.

And some countries can get away with it for quite a long time. Japan, as a percentage of GDP, has much more debt than they do, and they just keep cruising along fine. Maybe we're like Japan and we can get away with this irresponsibility indefinitely, but what if we're not? It seems that that is... If you just look at the stock market's reaction, Wall Street kind of likes this. And that, I mean, NASDAQ, S&P both climbed last week.

They both hit record highs. And I think that sort of reflects your point there, which is actually, yeah, we're playing this game of chicken or kicking the can down the road or whatever we're doing to the debt. But in the short and medium term, what this basically means is trillions of dollars in spending that's going to be injected into the balance sheets of those US corporations. So for Wall Street, it seems like, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but for Wall Street, they kind of go, maybe we're a little frightened by this whole debt situation and we know that it's real and we understand how financials work, but ultimately, this is going to be

a good thing for XYZ company and so we're okay with it. I think I agree with you all the way except that word ultimately. I think you have to always be thinking about how far ahead markets are thinking and although in our finance textbooks we're told that financial markets discount infinitely into the future, we know that that's not true. Not at all. As my friend Al Husseini, Ed Al Husseini of Columbia Threadneedle likes to say, ultimately you have to remember markets exist to satisfy people's greed. And, you know, and greed goes up and down and ebbs and flows and,

you know, sometimes fear is stronger and sometimes greed is stronger, but we're at a greed moment right now. And there's just, we're in that, we're in greed mentality, not fear mentality right now. And that stuff can change quickly. And, you know, we've been in greed mentality, not fear mentality right now. And that stuff can change quickly. And you know, we've been in greed mentality ever since kind of the middle of April, which was when we were, we were in the beginning of April, we were really in fear world hard, which was that you remember that was liberation day. And the president comes out with the insane poster board number thingy in the Rose garden.

And it's like, we're taxing the penguins. Ah, the most expensive poster board in history, history. And it's like, everybody's like, this person is insane. There is no adult supervision. Uh, you know, cats and dogs living together, everything else. Happily in the following weeks, there was an incredible amount of walking all that stuff back.

And ever since the massive walking back or tacoing of everything, however you want to describe it, the Wall Street vibe has been, the bark is not as bad as a bite, everything is cool, he's not going to do anything stupid. Scott Besson is sensible. He is going to get us out of trouble. And it's been in greed times.

I mean, the, the run we have had since April has been incredible. Historic. Yeah. My favorite, uh, way to measure how, how greedy a run is, is to look at Kathy Wedwood's ETF, the, uh the ARK ETF, which is like- Is it on a tear right now? A rip! It's at a three-year high!

People are loving it. And that's like your spec tech or junk tech or whatever you want to call it. It's the bleeding edge of tech stocks. And it's been roaring and outperforming the market and it's at a three-year high. And what that's telling you is Greedets in the driver's seat right now. We'll be discussing that more in our next segment where we'll talk about the economy, but just to break down some of the winners and losers here of this bill. I mean, the, the sectors that will be directly impacted.

I'm just going to go through some winners and losers that I've compiled and let's get your reaction. You can say disagree, agree or chime in. So first off, uh, clean energy, obvious loser. I'll disagree already. Okay. Uh, I don't know the details, but, uh, the very worst stuff, the very worst adjustments to the tax credits were taken out at the last minute.

Yes. So like I'm looking right now at the stock of first solar and it's up 8% today. I mean, it was down before, but it's recovering some because the very worst didn't happen. Like I think the rule now is like, if you start your project before 2027, don't quote me on this anyone, but the date at which you can still take advantage of the tax credits was pushed back, et cetera, et cetera. So it wasn't as awful as it could be, but on net, of course, negative for green energy, infrastructure, all of that stuff. I think the reality being that the markets were pricing in such an obvious feeling of pain in the

industry. I mean, we had people on who said this is going to basically kill the industry. That that's not going to happen, but certainly, uh, this is going to. Cripple the industry in a, in a material way. No question. So I think what's happening is now that the markets are kind of like ripping, well, correcting back up as they realize, okay, this maybe isn't going to be as bad. Yeah. We're being hit in the head with a slightly smaller hammer than we thought before.

So I would describe it. Yeah. Moving along here, oil and gas winner, less investment, um, to clean energy, which is obviously going to be a boon for, uh, fossil fuels. You have looser regulations on fracking and drilling. Healthcare is a loser because of the Medicaid cuts. Drilling, healthcare is a loser because of the Medicaid cuts. And you wrote about what is happening in healthcare land in a recent newsletter.

Do you have anything you'd want to chime in on there? There is a small subset of healthcare companies that specialize in serving Medicaid patients. Centene is one of them, Molina Health is another one. These are insurers that have programs that help people with who are on Medicaid benefits. I mean in general though the larger health care problem is not just Medicaid but like this administration's whole approach to health care. So like in the long run the cuts to the National Institutes of Health are probably more detrimental

to the country's health than anything in this bill. But look, they're making it so that the poorest have less access to healthcare. The market aspects of that are of course the least important. I always struggle with this because we're a you know, we're a markets show and we're supposed to be covering, okay, what happened to stocks, but then, you know, we have this other data here on what these Medicaid cuts are going to do. Nearly a trillion dollars are going to be cut over the next decade, but here are some pretty crazy stats up to 16 million Americans by 2034 are expected to lose their health insurance. And then the most damning stat is that this is projected to result in 51,000 preventable

deaths in America per year. So those are the kinds of things where I hear that. And it's like, we're busy talking about, oh, what happened to United Health? Yeah, no, it's absolutely right. Maybe we're focused on the wrong thing, but I mean sometimes sometimes, you know You got to realize you know, like I often joke with my you know, we're kind of in the toy section, right? That's the part of it You know it's like obviously the stock market is an important part of our Capitalist economy and our capitalist economy is great an incredible human prospering and so forth but there is a point at which you can't you you do take

the stock market too seriously but if you wanted to be totally cold-hearted and sort of money focused about this you know we want a workforce that's well enough to go to work right you know and especially if we're going to turn off the immigration flows, we're going to want, you know, prime aged American men and women to be able to show up to work. And, uh, if they're too sick, they ain't going to do that. And that, that doesn't seem like a very good bargain to me. Well, this is the great thing about AI is it doesn't get sick. Well, you know, we'll see. You don't have to pay for the health insurance. That's why I love AI.

Just going through the list here. So defense, another winner, we're going to increase defense spending by $150 billion. Also have luxury stocks, just, you know, general rule, rich people are getting a lot richer from this. You're going to have a lot more money to play with. Um, and then I've also got gold and Bitcoin down here as winners. Um, and I'd like to get your thoughts on this because, you know, my view, my personal view is that these are actually quite useless assets ultimately. But I think the reality here is that the story that drives the value of gold and Bitcoin, that story is very much aligned with what is happening right now.

And that is increased deficit spending, a general erosion in faith in American credit, increased debt burdens, possible runaway inflation, all the things that the Bitcoin maxis warn about and talk about. I don't think Bitcoin is an actual solution to these things, but that's the thesis. And therefore, I would think that this is kind of a win for Bitcoin, at least in the medium term. I think that's probably true. Although it's interesting, we were talking about how greed is in charge in Wall Street. Bitcoin's actually been going sideways for a while, which I think

is kind of interesting. I'm really interested at those moments where Cathie Wood is going north and Bitcoin is going sideways. I don't know why that is. I don't understand Bitcoin very well. I'm just pointing that out as a fact, but where I strongly agree with you is we're entering a world, not just in the United States, but I think globally where, and we, you know, I think we're going to talk about inflation later. I don't get too into it where you need to take inflation more seriously in building your portfolio and you know, how you want to express that view, that inflation is going to be a bigger risk

to your wealth in the next 20 years than it was in the last 20, you're going to want to express that view somehow. And whether that's by owning precious metals or some weird bit of code in a computer somewhere, I wish you the best of luck, but you got to think about it. What are some ways to express that?

Because I feel like this is what has been, this is what has made gold and Bitcoin for the past few years such a winner, is it feels like those are the two assets that specifically tell that story. But it seems to ignore the possibility that if we live in this world of runaway inflation and massive debt to GDP and interest payments or taking up the largest share of the federal budget, there are just a lot of other what-ifs that you have to answer that can't just be solved

with, oh, Bitcoin. The beautiful thing about the low inflation regime we lived in for most of the last 20 years is that in a low inflation regime, if your stocks in your portfolio are going down, your bonds are probably going up. In other words, if the economy looks bad, then your people are going to be going to treasuries and your treasury holdings are going up. So you

have your bog standard 7030 portfolio, and you have negative correlation between those two chunks of your portfolio, and you rebalance and it is a machine that works beautifully. When you are in a high or higher inflation regime, that trick no longer works. In a high inflation regime, that trick no longer works. In a high inflation regime, you can have economy bad and nobody wants to own treasuries because they don't wanna take the inflation risk.

So you don't have that negative correlation. So the first thing you have to do is take a long hard look at the fixed income part of your portfolio. Maybe you wanna own tips, inflation protected treasuries instead, they have, that's a problematic asset class in its own way, but Maybe you want to own tips, inflation protected treasuries instead. That's a problematic asset class in its own way, but maybe you need to do that. Maybe you want to own less bonds altogether.

Maybe you want to own real assets. Maybe you need to think seriously about the real estate part of your portfolio. I was always jealous of my my sort of stepfather-in-law I guess he was because he inherited an apple farm in Ohio and I always thought who gets to have an apple farm And what a great asset. It's a great asset You can grow whatever there it's always gonna be there Ohio farm land is brilliant And so maybe part of the solution is like, you know, have a little cornfield

somewhere, nothing realer than real estate. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, exactly. So just, I mean, you mentioned that the, the bond allocation, obviously, like 60 40 has been the way people have done it. I mean, if we were to run with this thesis about American debt, and maybe we should ground this in some numbers and some projections. We recently had the president of the CRFB on the program and they put out some numbers

and they found that this new bill will actually be worse in terms of deficits than the original House bill, which is already crazy considering the fact that the House bill was proposed. To your point, you had all of these Republicans, well not all of these, a few Republicans saying, this is a terrible idea. Look what it's going to do to the deficit. It went to the Senate. They rejigged it and now it's even worse, which is just hilarious in and of itself and scary Yeah, it tells you something about our process that these things get worse as they go exactly and then only

As you budge up against the deadline suddenly all the people who said no to it the Thomas Massie's of the world They they say okay. Well, I don't really have a choice here. But regardless of the politics They say, okay, I don't really have a choice here. But regardless of the politics, it's going to increase debt to GDP to more than 125%. We're currently at 100%. It's going to increase interest payments as a percentage of GDP from two and a half percent, that's where we're at today, to six percent. So if we were to just run a long way with this thesis, this is unsustainable. Yeah, yeah, this is unsustainable. So let's deal with the non-crisis circumstances first.

I mean, let's just say we're in a world where not only the US government, but a lot of governments do this, that we're in a spendier world in terms of governments. We already see this, for example, in Germany is loosening the belts. The famously austere Germans are like, God, we need some tanks over here, et cetera. So that's one aspect of it. We're also in an aging world, which means we have the workforce as a percentage of the total population is getting smaller. That's inflationary too, right? You're going to have to pay, there's going to be more competition

for workers, higher wages. We're cutting down on immigration, right? For in our case, that will be inflationary. So let's just imagine crisis or no crisis, the world of one and a half percent inflation. Let's just say that's over. Is it over? Can we say that? I want to say it's over. We're in a world where governments spend more, we're getting older.

And also here's another very important, when you're talking about the end of deflation, there was a massive exporting of deflation from China to the rest of the world in the last 30 years, right? As they like became the factory of the world and made all this cheap stuff and we spent less on everything, that's kind of over now too, right. Globalization is kind of ending and it's also just kind of a one-time effect in general, right. We don't get to have China again. So I mean my core, my main hypothesis would be we're gonna be in a higher inflation world. We ain't we ain't going home again

But the example of Japan always bugs me. They have really high deficits. They're a really aging society, etc, etc, etc And if anything, they've had deflation problems. They may be the exception that proves the rule their situation is very special They have a dip a special kind of economic culture there But they're the they're the one that bugs me that, maybe we will get into a deflationary slump. And of course, the easiest way to kill inflation is just to have a huge recession. So if you really care about it, just tank the economy and problem solved. Maybe that's what we need. Maybe that's all part of the power plan.

Yeah. Trump seems to think it is. So anyway, in that world, I think, um, you still want to own bonds in your portfolio, uh, government bonds. I think they still have a special role in a portfolio, but I think you probably want to have you mix in some other stuff and just in general, anybody who had anything in a portfolio in the last 20 years has done awesome.

And for planning purposes, don't plan on that keeping on going. We have probably just lived through the good old days. And it's not to say the future is going to be bad, but we're not going to be ripping off tickets at 10% on the equity markets and like four and a half percent on the bond markets and just laughing our way to the bank and moving to Florida. It's going to be more historically normal returns in the next 20 years than in the last 20 years. Do you think that the US versus foreign markets story has a part to play here. I mean, we're sort of framing it as if we're living in an inflationary world, but it could be, you know, we might be living in an inflationary America.

It's true. And the historical returns in the US will look more like what they looked like in Europe and the rest of the world. American returns have been so good. Most foreign markets haven't had returns nearly as good. Just because it's simple enough for me to understand, I'm really into mean regression. If something is really high, it'll probably get a little lower next and vice versa, right? So and I like that as a as a justification for the international strategy

The other side of me though is that the plain hard fact You and I can sit here and moan all we want about the dysfunctionality of the American political process and our addiction to debt and everything else. But the fact is our economy grows faster than the other developed economies. We are still, I think, a more innovative economy. We are a more flexible economy. People move more easily here.

People change more jobs here. We have a great job system. So part of US outperformance is undergirded by the fact that we have a great job system. So like part of US outperformance is undergirded by the fact that we have a superior, a structurally superior economy to most of the rest of the developing world. And that's, I don't see that, I mean, barring stupidity on a previously undiscovered level, I don't see that changing. We'll be right back after the break with a pulse check on the economy. If you're enjoying the show so far, be sure to give Profit Market a follow wherever you get your podcasts.

Support for the show comes from Vanta. This message is for startup founders, engineers, IT professionals, and business leaders who need to prove trust and manage risk efficiently. I know we have those people in the audience, so pay attention. Vanta is a trust management platform that helps businesses automate security and compliance. Demonstrating trust to customers and prospects is critical to closing deals, but it can also be costly, time-sensitive, and complex. Vanta helps companies of all sizes get compliant fast and stay that way, with industry-leading AI, automation, and continuous monitoring. So, whether you're a startup tackling your first SOC 2, ISO 27001, or an enterprise-managing

vendor risk, Vanta's trusted management platform makes it quicker, easier, and more scalable. Vanta also helps you complete security questionnaires up to five times faster so you can win bigger deals sooner. The results? According to a recent IDC study, Vanta customers slash over $5,000 a year in costs and are three times more productive. Establishing trust is an optional. Vanta makes it automatic. Visit to sign up for a free demo today. That's vanta.com slash markets. Fox Creative. This is advertiser content brought to you by CVS. One way to understand how vaccines work is that they're kind of like practice tests

for your immune system. I'm Dr. Holly Phillips. I've spent years helping people understand how vaccines can help protect us. I'd say one thing to really keep in mind about vaccines is that timing is everything. Babies and kids, they get that series of vaccines, but protection from those childhood vaccines can start to fade over time. So some vaccines actually need boosters in adulthood. Our seasonal vaccines we need every year. It does not matter what stage of life you're in, we should all get our flu vaccine and earlier in the fall is

better. And also don't forget about the updated COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it's totally fine to get most vaccines at the same time. CVS offers 14 no-cost vaccines that are covered by most insurance plans. So head to cvs.com slash vaccines to book your vaccines. Or you can stop by your local CVS pharmacy today. Support for this show comes from Quince. Their lightweight layers and high quality staples can become a part of your everyday essentials. Quince has the kind of stuff you'll actually wear on repeat, like breathable flow-knit polos, crisp cotton shirts and comfortable lightweight pants that somehow work for both weekend hangs and dressed up dinners. And

the best part? Everything with Quince is half the cost of similar brands. I've tried out Quince, I got a very nice linen shirt. I think every guy needs to make sure they have a linen shirt, especially going into the summer. Plus, Quince says they only work with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices, which is great. Stick to the staples that last with elevated essentials from Quince. Go to quince.com slash markets for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's q u i n c e dot com slash markets to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash markets. We're back with Profit.G Markets. Let's take a pulse check on the US economy. The employment report came in stronger than expected last week with the US adding 147,000 jobs in June, but other indicators suggest that the broader economic picture looks more

mixed. Manufacturing activity contracted for the fourth straight month in June and the dollar is hovering near a three-year low. So Rob, let's just start with this jobs data because this surprised all of us. Me for sure. I was like, it's going to be 75 and everyone's going to freak, you know, and it was twice This surprised all of us, I think. Me, for sure. 147,000. You, okay. I was like, it's going to be 75 and everyone's going to freak, you know?

And it was twice that. You had your takes ready to go. Yeah. Got to shift them. Exactly. So 147,000 new jobs in June. Economists expected 110,000. I think it's fair to say that this kind of blue past expectations.

Yes. So going off of that, the economy maybe is in pretty good shape, but there are also just these other signs floating around that would be contradictory. Almost every indication of the job market shows this incredible resilience and steadiness. We've had all these shocks and it's tariffs and it's this and that and whatever, and the job market just churns along, creating jobs, beating expectations in an incredibly steady way. And if you look at other job market indicators, how many people are quitting jobs, how many people are getting fired from jobs, et cetera,

all the sort of sub-indicators are also this incredibly steady picture. If you want to nitpick, however, about the jobs market, here is what you say about it. It is not very dynamic. Not a lot of people are getting fired, that is good. Also, not a lot of people are getting hired, that is not good. So you might like more of both of those things at the same time, right? Because that means people are like, oh, but there's a better job

over here, there's different opportunities, I can afford to quit, or the company can afford to let me go because I'm, you know, and it's all. So there's something a little bit static about it. And the one official statistic that does not look good right now is continuing jobless claims. That means people, not people who are just entering the ranks of the unemployed, applying for unemployment insurance, is people who have entered and are staying. Right. They still can't find a job. And the trend in that number looks notably bad.

However, the numbers are low. So it's not been enough of those people to make the overall kind of sum numbers, the aggregate numbers, look bad. But the trend in people who have lost work and can't find new work is a bit alarming. So there is something, again, it feels slightly stiff, the job market, you know, so don't

get fired at that's my, don't make too many of those jokes about the professor. Dispatching jokes. I can't help myself. Yeah, yeah. So that's a thing. Yeah. So that's a thing. We also saw this other data from the ADP, which I can't really figure this out. It said the exact opposite.

I mean, ADP measures private payrolls and it found that the private sector lost 33,000 jobs in June. And that came out a day before we got that official government data, which found that we added 147,000. There was a lot of state and local employment in the plus number on the official payrolls report. So that helped, but it wasn't the whole story. People in general like to hate on the ADP report. They think it's not very reliable and very volatile. Okay.

And I, but I don't think the differences are particularly easy to understand. I guess it's just a good point to remember that we are measuring something very big and very dynamic and very hard to measure. Right? and very dynamic and very hard to measure. So it's not like some person has gone out there and literally counted every single job in the economy. It's sampling and you're depending on the quality of the data and you're using different information sources. And so you can't, one month is just one month, as we like to say. And the reliable thing is to look at the three-month moving average, the six-month moving average,

so these little bits of variation wash out, as it were. Just to go through the jobs data by sector, as you said, we saw this big increase in state and local jobs. Government added 71,000 jobs. And that was the biggest increase of any sector is government jobs, which is so interesting. After we've seen this, we're gonna make the government smaller. Yeah, but state and local though.

Yes. Yeah. Other big increases were in education and health. We added 51,000 jobs and also hospitality, 20,000 jobs. Where did we see decreases? We saw decreases in business services, minus 7,000 jobs, and also, and I think this is probably the most important,

manufacturing, down 7,000. So I'd like to get your views on what this says about the tariff inflationary environment in general, because a lot of people look at this data and they say, oh we're great, unemployment's down, we're ripping, you know, tariffs aren't gonna be a problem. And my whole thing has been, well tariffs aren't here yet and we're only gonna start to see signs very slowly and the first place you see those signs would be manufacturing. Okay. I do not want to join you and the president, by the way, in the general

fetishization of manufacturing. Right. There is, we all have sort of romantic feelings about the good job, the good union job down at the mill kind of stuff. And like, you know know we live in a technological world we don't I don't want to get all misty-eyed about manufacturing manufacturing report you want to make stuff etc. etc. it's one sector among many I would rephrase your point slightly to say where are the cyclical

industry jobs where are the jobs jobs for industries that are economically sensitive? Where are those jobs? So that's, you know, hospitality, that's manufacture, that's construction, that's, etc., energy industry, etc., etc. So if the economy was great, you would see people in cyclical industries adding jobs, not just healthcare and government and etc. etc. And I don't see a lot of that here. So it's hard to argue that this report screams that we're in a cyclical upswing. I think the kind of consensus view that we are in a very, we are in a kind of slowdown from a very extreme cyclical high still holds and is totally consistent with what we see in this report. You know, if I'm worried about anything in this economy, it's not manufacturing, it's like housing and construction. The housing market is a bit of a shambles right now and that is a super

cyclical part of the economy and when the and it's not a huge part of the economy but it's like a big swing factor for the economy. It's really bad when the economy is bad and it's really good when the, and it's not a huge part of the economy, but it's like a big swing factor for the economy. It's really bad when the economy is bad and it's really good when the economy is good. So it can have a big influence on the cycle and, uh, the housing looks bad. And that has to do with high rates and a lot of other stuff. It feels like one of the things we're grappling with here is can you make any conclusions from this report? Correct. And a lot of what you're saying is not really because it's kind of soft.

You really want to look at the three month averages. Some of these things are more cyclical, but yet it's Jerome Powell's job to look at this data and draw a conclusion and then come up with a decision. Look, it does rule out the worst scenarios. Like, there's no way to make this report look awful, right? And if the number had been 50, we'd all be having kittens. And that didn't happen. And once again, despite all the uncertainty and the bad sentiment reports and everything else the number is fine it is solid so we cut the sort of.

Horrible right tail off and that's a good thing to do where we are to the left of that in the good tail is definitely very much open to debate I mean there's no question I mean if you look at the odds the futures market is putting on a rate cut in July after this report those odds just fell through the floor. We're not getting a cut in July. And by the way we shouldn't. The economy just created a hundred and fifty thousand jobs in a month. You know we uh, we, we are worried. We should be worried about tariff inflation and we shouldn't have a rate cut. The economy is doing pretty good. We don't need to be in a rush to cut. Powell is right and Trump is wrong.

Exactly. It's like not, not a complicated situation at all, you know, and if, and if things slow down next month, there's always, you know, the next, the September meeting or whatever. We should talk about what this means for the Fed and for Jerome Powell, because yeah, as you say, the probability of a July rate cut, which by the way, a couple of months ago,

it was at around 80%. We're down to 5% after this. Everyone agrees this isn't gonna happen because to your point, the bogeyman for Jerome Powell is low employment and employment numbers are fine. But if you're Trump and you see this data, which I mean, it's a tough thing because for Trump, he probably wants to say, everything's great. Therefore stop freaking out Jerome Powell. But at the same time, there's the argument of everything's great.

Therefore, why should we cut rates? He wants to celebrate how great his America is and he wants rate cuts. And he cannot have, he cannot have both in this circumstance. I have a bit of, of course, as you I'm sure have talked about on the show, we've had a lot of noise from the White House and its allies. Jerome Powell is screwing us all. He's doing a lot of damage.

The guy who runs Fannie and Freddie is going after the chair of the Fed. Besson is on TV going after him. And I actually think this is fine. Because the superpower of Jerome Powell is being dull. And he's like this guy who sits there and says, we're following the data. Here's what the data says. And here's what we're going to do. See you next month. Right? And you have these, you have Trump and everybody else. You're a terrible podcaster. Yeah. You cannot do our job. We're not going to be replaced by him. And he just is like,

and you can say, oh, he screwed up at the beginning of inflation. Fine. We can have that argument. Maybe you did. Great. But at this time, he's just saying, we have a job to do, it's to balance our two mandates, here's how we're doing it. And the more Trump and his minions scream and yell, to me, it underlines the independence of the Fed rather than, it's like, oh, that's the reason we have to have an independent Fed because of those guys, right? And I'm sure other people don't have the reaction I do. I'm a markets nerd.

I'll look at it differently than Joe or Jane Public will. But I just feel like we're having this great civic lesson in why an independent Fed is good and how an independent Fed should behave. You know, Jerome is not out there. Jerome Powell is not out there being like, oh, Trump is stupid and this is an outrage. He's like, it's really not my job to think about what the president says.

I just follow the data. I guess the thing that kind of upsets me about the Powell bashing is the possibility that people hear what Trump is saying and they agree with him. And maybe fewer people than I think are actually in agreement with him. But for me, it's upsetting because I'm like, this is the guy who a few years ago, everyone was saying was going to crash the economy with his high rates. I mean, I remember vividly reading this Bloomberg article, which said that the odds of a recession in the next 12 months were a hundred percent. And it was a survey and everyone said, I mean, he was getting criticism, not

just from Trump, but from everyone. And he said, no, we're going to stick with it. People said soft landing, not possible. He got the soft landing. Here we are. Yeah. And I guess it just upsets me to then have the president saying, this guy's doing a terrible job.

He's too late. If Jerome Powell's superpower is being boring, Trump's superpower is not being boring. Right. And his superpower is like making you feel strong emotions. The yin and yang of boredom. Yeah. Right. He like, he, whether you like him or you hate him or whatever,

he draws these powerful emotions out of us. And so my attitude is like, it's my job as a citizen and as a journalist to just be cool. I'm not going to be emotional about stuff the president says because we need more people being cool on all parts of the political spectrum. I just want to shift us to how the markets are reacting to all of this because we've got all these underlying economic indicators, which to be honest are not great.

I mean, you've got GDP contracting and it was just revised lower in Q1. You've got all these manufacturing indexes, which are shrinking. You would argue whatever, but I would argue that's the first place you look for inflationary impact in terms of cash. You also got the dollar which is falling. It had its worst start to the year since 1973. Yes, we got this jobs report, but aside from that, it doesn't look incredible. And you could also add on the wars that are exploding all over the world as a reason to be worried. And yet, to your point,

from the previous segment, stocks and riskier assets are exploding. And you've got all of that happening. Meanwhile, the underlying indicators are telling you this is a little bit scary. What do you make of that? I'm slightly more glass half full on the economy than you are. Job creation is there and GDP, although it's decelerating,

it's still growing at a pretty good clip. The economy of the United States, I don't know where like the Atlanta fence GDP now is right now, but we're in, I think we're above one and a half percent anyway, and we might be a kind of one and a half percent real GDP growth economy. So we might actually be growing above potential

a little bit here. So I think the economy is actually okay. Now, there is the bad stuff that you're talking about. But here, and I think we may have discussed this on earlier parts of the show, one of the most salient and interesting features of the economy we have right now is the big division between hard data and soft data. So if you look at hard data which is

like actual transactions, who got hired, who got hired, what profits are companies reporting and so forth, real facts, economy looks like just I said pretty good but if you ask people how they feel they tell you they feel bad and that goes for investors, consumers, CEOs, everybody. We're dealing with this uncertainty. And so the factory contraction you're talking about, that I assume you're talking about the ISMs. Yes. And what that is, is you go to the factory manager and you say, do you think business is expanding or contracting and do you expect it to expand in the next three months or to contract and? The factory guys have been saying I expected to contract I expect to hire less

I expect to do less capital expenditures, but output is not as bad. It's not great, but it's not as bad. So It's almost like the tariff thing. When does this bad sentiment? But it's not as bad. So it's almost like the tariff thing. When does this bad sentiment Come to roost and I think we know why there's bad sentiment. There's two reasons one Within the last five years we had an incredible economic shock Which was the pandemic and then the inflation and so people are still finding their feet and number two We don't know what the heck the president's Economic policies are from day to day, tariffs being the most important one. So you're like, I don't know, what's going to happen to my business?

You know, what am I going to have to pay for inputs? Like factories in America import tons of shit. And there, you know, we know for a fact that people who run factories, to say nothing of farms or whatever, are worried about immigration and tariffs and they're feeling like crap. But for now the factories are still cranking stuff out, people are still buying stuff, consumption is good, but you know it's weird that the sentiment is so poor across the board. And while the sentiment is somewhat partisan, in other words if you ask a republican how things are going there

they are gonna be a little bit happier sounding they're still were trending the wrong way to right and so i don't know like at some point if this cloud of uncertainty doesn't clear, I would have to imagine that bad soft data turns into bad hard data. That's exactly, that's the question that I, when does the soft data become the hard data?

I'm convinced it's, I'm convinced it's coming. And the Fed would agree with their projections, specifically with inflation too. Right. So let's get your prediction, if you're willing, on inflation. I keep on saying it's coming. Do you think it's coming? No, I don't think we're going to get another spike. My prediction is we're never getting sustainably to 2% in the foreseeable future. We're gonna go along and it's gonna like be bad one month and it's gonna be kind of in that 3% range and bouncing around. It's gonna be basically just high enough to make your bond

portfolio not work. But know what I mean? But because I think we just had this terrible experience. So Trump rattles on about how he's a low-rates guy, and the chair of the Fed is selling out the country. I don't think he's going to screw around. Right? Whoever his guy is in the Fed, if this happens after May, if we get an inflation spike, I don't think the president is in the Fed, if this happens after May, if we get an inflation

spike, I don't think the president is going to stop, stand in the way of the Fed, snuffing that shit out because he just saw inflation destroy Joe brought Biden's set term and his legacy. I don't think he's going to touch the stove. Right? I mean, unless he's, yeah, unless he's a lot stupider than I think he is. Uh, I just don't think he's going to do that. So, but I think for the kind of systemic long-term grinding reasons we have, we're going to be kind of, it's going to be like having a low fever where you're like well enough to go to work, but you're like, I don't know, I'm like feeling kind

of cruddy and it's going to be like that. Sort of like how we all feel all the time. So, and you know, that'll have some upsides, like the economy is going to be a little bit hot. Employment will probably stay good, but I think we're going to be struggling with this because of low immigration, because of tariffs, and also like, tell me what the tariff policy is. We had this experience yesterday. I was working with one of the young people I work with, Hak-Young Kim,

we just hired, he's great. And we were just, I was like, Hak-Young, all I want you to do in this piece you're writing for tomorrow is give me a general sense, give the reader a general sense, within an order of magnitude, what the tariff on the average American car is going to be when this happens. And I thought- Yeah, you need to hire like a team of analysts. Yeah, I thought we'd be able to get within five or $10,000 one way or the other, like, you know, close enough for hand grenades.

Well, the US government couldn't do that. They tried to do it with the billboard and they couldn't do it themselves. And it's like, okay, it's the steel and aluminum and then the tariffs aren't stacked. So does the steel and aluminum count against the imported parts? Do those net out? But how would that work? Because where does the aluminum get imported? And then there's this other thing and the trade deal with Canada and Mexico, how do

those adjustments play in? And you're like- How is a store manager supposed to figure it out? Yeah, yeah. And I wonder if the people who are running the car companies are like, I don't know. And if that's true, that helps to actually explain why we're not seeing the inflation yet,

because they don't know. That's what I think it is. Yeah. So they're not gonna raise prices when they don't know if there really are tariffs yet because they don't want to lose market share. That's why my view on this is, this is going to take a long time.

You know, you need everything to funnel through and you also need, I mean, Jerome Powell needs to have enough data to make an informed decision, which is why I predicted July red cut would not come. But I think the same thing is true of every business. You're not going to raise your prices, especially after we've already had such massive inflation. You're not going to do it until you absolutely know what the hell is going on. And yeah, this is the question we're all arguing about. When is that going to happen? And all my predictions have been wrong up until now. So I'm going to abstain from predicting, but I agree.

The logic that you lay out, Ed, I think is the right logic. We'll be right back after the break with a look at the great wealth transfer. If you're enjoying the show so far, hit follow and leave us a review on Proficy Markets. I'm Dr. Ruth Jabarta-Willians, and I'm here to talk about the most underrated product in your skincare routine, sunscreen. Let's start with the basics. SPF stands for Sun Protection Factor. It measures how well a sunscreen protects you from UVB rays.

These are the rays that primarily cause sunburn and can lead to skin cancer. Contrary to popular belief, SPF measures the amount of UV radiation that is blocked and not exposure time. UVA rays have a longer wavelength and penetrate deeper into the skin. That's why you need a broad spectrum sunscreen,

which means it protects against both UVA and UVB rays. My pick is Vacation Classic Lotion SPF 30. Darker skin has more melanin, which offers some natural protection, but it's not enough to fully prevent sun damage, hyperpigmentationmentation and skin cancer. For those of us with deeper skin tones, I love Black Girl Sunscreen SPF 30. So as you can see, no matter your skin tone or the season, SPF is a non-negligible.

And CVS makes it easy to stock up on all your sun protection products. Head to your local CVS or CVS.com to grab the sunscreen that works for you. Support for the show comes from Mint Mobile. If you're looking for ways to save money this summer, you're not alone. You can start by saving on something you might be overpaying for anyway, your phone bill. Mint Mobile offers premium wireless service at an affordable price. All of their plans include high speed data delivered on the nation's largest 5G network, plus unlimited talk and text.

And you won't need to give people a new number either. When you switch, you can bring your existing phone number plus all of your contacts. With Mint Mobile, you can say goodbye to your overpriced wireless plans, jaw-dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages. Get three months of unlimited service from Mint Mobile

for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com slash markets. That's mintmobile.com slash markets. Upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month. Limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Whether you're a startup founder, navigating first audit or a seasoned security professional scaling your GRC program, proving your commitment to security has never been more critical or

more complex. That's where Vanta comes in. Businesses use Vanta to build trust by automating compliance for in-demand frameworks like SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR, and more. And with automation and AI throughout the platform, you can proactively manage vendor risk and complete security questionnaires up to five times faster, getting valuable time back. Vanta not only saves you time, it can also save you money. A new IDC white paper found that Vanta customers achieve $535,000 per year in benefits, and

the platform pays for itself in just three months. For any business, establishing trust is essential. Vanta can help your business with exactly that. Go to Vanta.com slash Vox to meet with a Vanta expert about your business needs. That's Vanta.com slash Fox. We're back with Profit Markets. We're in the middle of the largest generational wealth transfer in history with $6 trillion set to be inherited this year alone. In 2023, 53 new billionaires emerged

just through inheritance, and in the next 25 years, more than 83 trillion dollars will be passed down through inheritance as well. Meanwhile, the big beautiful bill includes a provision that will make it even easier for ultra-wealthy families to pass down their wealth tax-free. The estate tax exemption will be increased to $15 million for individuals and $30 million for couples. In other words, you can give your kid $30 million and you pay nothing in taxes.

So Rob, this is a sort of larger, more generational story that Scott and I have talked about for a while, but that is now Starting to appear in headlines. Baby boomers are dying. That's what the that's the summary Exactly that that that is Actually, yeah, that is what is happening. The baby boomers are dying and as we know The baby boomers have done very well. The richest people in America are generally speaking the Baby Boomers. And the wealth inequality has gotten insane.

And just to go through some of the numbers, the top 10% of Americans own 93% of all US stocks. The top 1% control $25 trillion worth of equities. That is roughly half of the market cap of the entire S&P 500. There are now 902 billionaires in the US, up 800% since 1990. In sum, a handful of extremely rich people, and the majority of them are quite old and just about now they're dying and they're giving it to their kids. And it is creating what some people are calling the inheritocracy. All of that wealth that was collected by the small handful of individuals is now being passed on to their children. So Rob, just very general reactions. If America's becoming an inheritocracy, what does that mean? What does that mean for the economy, for society

and for investors? The rich have a lower marginal propensity to consume than the poor. So you give a rich person the next dollar, they invest it or save it, you give a poor person the dollar, they spend it. And without going through all the mathematics or whatever, that means unwildly unequal societies grow less quickly than they otherwise could. Right? Because you're not feeding the real economy, you're feeding the financial economy at some point. And in theory, the financial economy should feed the real economy. But for reasons that are not well understood, the savings in America in particular, doesn't go to productive

investment in America, it becomes debt of poorer people or whatever. So that is bad and agnostic to how you think we ought to solve this problem. I think it's important like I'm I feel uneasy about redistribution. I'm a real capitalist. I'm agreed as good guy but massive inequality makes our economy less healthy than it otherwise would be it reduces opportunity and dynamism and all of that stuff so it's bad on a psychological point I Don't think it's fun to be the kid who inherits all the money and then never has to do anything for the rest of life Like I know a couple of those people and it's actually not that cool a situation to be

You know, you know what I mean? Like you want to be rich enough. So like your parents pay for your college and maybe get you your first car, but you get a lot richer than that and it's like, you know, therapy and drug rehab and Scott would say a Range Rover and a cocaine habit. So I don't think it's socially all that good. Now one interesting question, and I'd be interested in what you feel about this, are the baby boomers, the money goes from them to my generation, the exes, or maybe it skips a generation and

goes to the millennials or something, do they behave differently as rich people than the boomers did? That is the question. And I have no idea. I mean, I have never really thought about that. I mean, let's just put some numbers to it. So, as I said, in advanced economies, $6 trillion will be inherited. As I said, 53 people became billionaires in 2023 because of inheritance.

My favorite stat, by the way, those people represented 40% of the newly minted billionaires in that year. So if you ever meet someone who just became a billionaire, basically now the chances that they got that money from their parents is 40%. Well, all of them are going to be in that restaurant that Scott is eating tonight. And so he'll be able to do a sort of sociological study, talk to them all, you know. Exactly.

See what they're all about, yeah, yeah. And to that point, that is what I think will likely happen. It'll be like the Gilded Age, where these people who inherited the money, they don't actually understand the value of the money because they didn't earn it, and they'll be spending it at Sublimotion buying $3,000 dinners. I think that the money, just based on those psychological reasons that you just described, the money is going to be spent

completely recklessly. It'll be crazy, crazy spending, which in a way, maybe that's a good thing because that's your redistribution mechanism. Look, somebody has to build the yacht. Somebody is the welder who builds the yacht or flies the helicopter to the yacht or whatever, or is the person with the fan fanning the person while they're eating grapes? Yes, exactly. Someone has to hold the grapes. I'm not holding grapes. Yes, exactly. Someone has to hold the grapes. I'm not holding them.

God, no, it's not exactly the society we dream of. Right. Exactly. You know, it is to these two sides for me. I think that, you know, I'm a big believer that capitalism is kind of the best idea anybody ever had and that it just like, you know, if you go back to pre-industrial times, we were all dead at 35 and we had bad teeth and everything sucked right and what got us out of that is two things the idea of constitutional democracy and the idea that you ought to leave people alone and let them be greedy and get after it

right so and I feel great about that stuff I love commerce I love success stories you know it's like I could sum this up in one person. Like I think Jeff Bezos, what he has done with that business is so awesome. Like the way he thought about it, the way he built that investor base, the way he thought about how to finance it, the way he talks about the business, what it's achieved in terms of like helping people and making our lives better. I love all of that. I totally agree. And then he like rents Venice and like has the biggest, and it's just like the vulgarity of it all. It's just like his wife was basically married in a dress made of diamonds.

It's just like his wife was basically married in a dress made of diamonds. You know what I mean? And it's like, what are you doing, dude? You know, come on. So I love the Jeff Bezos who built Amazon and thought about Amazon. I could talk for hours about the different choices he made. And then it's like, this is how you act? He lost all of his sophistication in a heartbeat. Yeah, on the way out the door. It's like, what are you doing, man?

You're acting like a clown here. And so that sort of sums up my split thinking about this. Loving capitalism and thinking away, there's got to be some kind of golden mean or balance or something that we can achieve. You know, I love your point. And it is true about what happens when the rich get, get really rich. Is you, I mean, it's, it's sort of the lie of trickle down economics where you're so rich that actually you don't spend and, you know, maybe you say, oh, you're investing in, in, uh, businesses that businesses that maybe will become productive. But as you say, the stock market is becoming so incredibly financialized.

It's often not actually an investing event. This is just trading events. And meanwhile, you've got things like Bitcoin and gold, which are skyrocketing. If your money's sitting in Bitcoin, that's not doing anything productive for society. No value is being created. It's negative value because of its environmental impact. Exactly, and it's just wasting all the energy to keep it on.

Exactly, I mean, gold is better because you can just put it in the vault and it doesn't take away. But I think that is very true. And just some data here from the IMF, which validates that point. An increase in the income share of the bottom 20% is associated with higher GDP growth. An increase in the income share of the top 20% is actually associated with a GDP decline

over the medium term, which I think really proves that point. So that's sort of the issue. And to me, it's all about how do you unleash the greed of human beings to create more value and expand the pie? That's sort of the question. And the trouble for me is when all of that value is being plowed into massively unproductive ventures. I would say that that's why I don't like gold. being plowed into massively unproductive ventures. I would say that that's why I don't like gold. I think gold is an unproductive venture. I don't

like Bitcoin. I think it's unproductive for similar reasons. I also think a $47 million wedding in Venice is an unproductive venture. I think a yacht and taking apart a bridge to get the yacht through the bridge, unproductive. And so this big question is like, how can you unleash all of that capital to be put to productive ends? And is it a problem that all of that money is going to go to these young people who will, let's face it, spend it on drugs, on yachts, and champagne? I think it's a really hard question and the only, you know, I don't know what to do about it systemically. Like, do we need a new tax regime or do we need a different treatment of things or a new way of accounting for this stuff?

I'm not sure about any of that, but I was actually talking about this very topic with my wife as we were driving out to where we are now, and we were talking about as a person, we all kind of fight this battle within ourselves. And what I mean by that is you have to know when is enough or you're never going to be happy, right? You can, we all get caught in what they call the hedonic treadmill, which is like, if only I get one set of nicer things, if I go on one more nice vacation, or I have one more pair of shoes than the pairs of shoes I have now, or one more picture to hang on the wall, then I'll finally have enough and I'll be happy. And then you get the next thing, and you start running towards the next thing. And at some point, each of us has to step off the

hedonic treadmill and be like, look, things are cool. You know, my family's cool. I'm cool. I've got books to read. I've got plenty to eat. I got a warm, dry place to sleep. I live in a beautiful city. It's enough. Right. And that's a hard that's a psychological challenge. That's kind of an analog to the economic challenge that you just described. I feel a little sappy even saying that out loud, but here I am. I've said it now and I'm out there in the world.

Let's just talk about the, I mean, in terms of what could be done about it, my view is you go after the inheritance tax. I mean, that's why I was so shocked to see in this new bill that has just passed in the House that we are increasing the estate tax exemption. We're saying that $27 million tax free to your children, that actually isn't enough. And what's hilarious is the reasons they've ascribed to increasing it to 30 million. It's farmers, right? They always talk about the farmers. Sorry, yes, farmers, but also because farmers need to pass on their businesses. Inflation. They say, well, inflation has happened. So now we need to compensate for that by, you know,

upping it from 27 to 30. It's like, hold on, inflation's also happened to the poor people. And it's happened to the financial assets that the rich people have. That's why they're doing this. And to me, when I think about how do you address this problem, how do you redistribute without pissing people off too much, the best time to do it is when the guy's dead and you do it and it goes to their children. I think you have a very good case there, but the right to pass on what we've earned to our children really strikes at people's emotions and their heart. They're not thinking when they hear it about what the number is and how it will never

apply to them. Like you get to the point about it was 27 million now it's 30 million that's like what they hear is they want to take your money away that you want to leave to your kids. So it's very politically a tough one. You know what a lot of people economists talk about is a wealth tax rather than an income tax because what we're talking about is not differences in income. We're really talking about differences in wealth. And if you could tax wealth, that would solve part of the problem. And I think that you could maybe sell that politically more.

We're not going to increase your income tax. We're going to say people who have over $10 million are going to pay a little bit more And if you don't have over ten million dollars your your pay Maybe your paycheck will get bigger because we're gonna lower that marginal income tax rate and we're gonna do the wealth tax The problem is that wealth is hard to measure You know the your income is right there on your pay stubs and the government like okay, 35% of that. No, no wealth. It's like Where is it?

How do you value stuff? How do you, you know, where, where, how do you prevent people from hiding it or putting it somewhere else or putting it in some weird tax structure? It's like a technical problem of instituting a wealth tax. One solution that I've thought about is a borrowing tax where, you know, a lot of these people, the way that you subsidize your lifestyle with cash is you just borrow against your holdings and that's sort of how they don't pay taxes because there's no liquidity event. But if there was some sort of tax where it's like, okay, if you're going to borrow this

amount, which you're literally going to use to buy your car and consume, then we're going to force you to pay a little bit more in tax. And maybe that results in you get to borrow less cash than you had originally hoped. Does that work for you? Yeah, no, I like that. And I mean, again, questions of structure, but it's very sensible. You know, what, of course, you wish as a capitalist is that organically somehow you built companies where the wealth, it expanded wealth at more strata of society. Like it's always by the time you're talking about redistribution, I'm already cringing a little bit, not to say that I'm against it at the end

of the day, but you just wish that the economy itself was structured so that more workers got a bigger share of it. And but I don't know. I mean, it seems like with technology, we have a very technologized economy and technology is set up to provide extreme rewards to a small number of people who own equity in a piece of intellectual property, basically. And so it's not, you know, that's, I don't know how you get to the economy that is organically redistributive as it were, you know, that would be the dream. Well, maybe the answer is that we need to just let the kids have it and let them spend it like idiots. And that's how you do it. Yeah. Maybe that's the best we can do. You know, we got to get into the limousine business and the helicopter business and the yacht business

and all of that. I'm telling you. You and me, we are going to sell it. We're getting into the luxury goods business. We're giving up the podcasting game and we're going into luxury goods. I am very bullish. Okay, Rob, let's take a look at the week ahead. We will see the minutes from the Fed's May meeting. We'll also see the monthly US federal budget. Rob, this is the moment in the show where I ask Scott if he has a prediction. Do you have a prediction that you would like to share

as we wrap up this show? I've already made one, which is that life back at the 2% inflation target is over for the foreseeable. I will actually take the other side of your luxury goods trade. I think the luxury industry has pushed their luck a little far. And, you know, I look at the luxury industry quite a bit at the FT. We have the big, I go to the big FT luxury conference every year. And this was actually a topic of conversation there. Like, have we pushed prices too far? And they, the industry is really reckoning with that.

Have we, have we gone, are we too vulgar now? And I actually think maybe the Bezos wedding in Venice was like the conspicuous spending peak. And now people are like, ew, we gotta try something else. So I don't know, I'm going to predict that there's reconsolidation in the luxury industry. I like that take. I would only amend that the question is, was Bezos' wedding true luxury? Was the leopard print skin tight dress trend, the Dolce and Gabbana dress, is that luxury

or are we going to see like a rise of the Lora Pianas and the morece & Gabbana dress, is that luxury? Or are we gonna see like a rise of the Laura Pianas and the more tasteful, elegant sense of luxury? Like three years ago, everything you would read in the style section of the FT was about quiet luxury. Quiet luxury. Yeah, yeah. And that trend seems to have stopped for now, but I think it's coming back.

It's coming roaring back, okay. Coming roaring back, yeah, quietly I think it's coming back. It's coming roaring back. Okay. Coming roaring back. Yeah. Quietly. Rob, this was wonderful. I think Scott is going to get a little, a little anxious is my guess. Yeah, man. Yeah.

Maybe he's the one who, maybe he's the one who's going to be unemployed. Good luck to him. That'll show him. That'll show him. Rob. Thank you. Thank you so much. And let's, let's direct, or, or listen to some of your stuff.

Unhedge newsletter in the FT. Unbelievable newsletter. I highly recommend it. And you also have your podcast, Unhedge. The Unhedge podcast, twice a week. That's free. You can find it wherever you find your podcast content. Rob, thank you so much.

This was a lot of fun. And I can't wait to have you back again soon. It's always fun being on the show. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producer is Alison Weiss, Mia Silverio is our research lead, Isabella Kintzel and Dan Chalon are our research associates, Drew Burrows is our technical director and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to ProfD Markets from the Vox Media Podcast Network. Tune in tomorrow for a fresh take on the markets. You held me in kind reunion

As the world turns And the dove flies in love. With LPL Financial, we provide the services to help push you forward. When it comes to your finances, your business, your future, the only question should be, what if you could? Paid advertisement. Anikentric is not a client of LPL Financial LLC and receives compensation to promote LPL investing in false risk, including potential loss to principal LPL Financial LLC member Finra SIPC. Support for this show comes from Ring. A good defense matters on the court, on the field and in your home. From video doorbells that let you see more at the front door to security cameras that help protect inside and out. Ring can help give you security and peace of mind wherever you need it.

With Ring doorbells and cameras, you can play defense from anywhere. Learn more at ring.com. This episode is brought to you by On Investing, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. I'm Kathy Jones, Schwab's chief fixed income strategist. And I'm Lizanne Saunders, Schwab's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. And I'm Lizanne Saunders, Schwab's Chief Investment Strategist. Between us, we have

decades of experience studying the indicators that drive the economy and how they can have a direct impact on your investments. We know that investors have a lot of questions about the markets and the economy, and we're here to help. So download the latest episode and subscribe at schwab.com slash on investing or wherever you get your podcasts.