Prof G Markets - Trump’s Economic Playbook Is Failing

Episode Date: March 30, 2026

Scott Galloway and Ed Elson break down the key ways consumers actually experience the economy, from groceries and gas to housing, and how those everyday touchpoints have deteriorated under this administration. They then discuss a new proposal to ban sportsbetting on prediction markets. Finally, they unpack the result of the Meta and Google social media addiction trial and consider if it could be a turning point for accountability in big tech. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets newsletter  Order "Notes on Being a Man," out now Note: We may earn revenue from some of the links we provide. Subscribe to No Mercy / No Malice Follow the podcast across socials @profgmarkets Follow Scott on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram, X and Substack Send us your questions or comments by emailing [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from Virgin Atlantic. A lot of people dread flying. I've been on some bad flights and I've been on some truly miserable flights. But it's a whole different story when an airline shows up for you and the crew treats you like a VIP. Virgin Atlantic offers warm one-on-one service from the moment you step on board. Its upper class cabin features four-course meals, fully lay flat seats, and drinks delivered on demand. Make the journey as exceptional as a destination when you fly Virgin Atlantic. Go to virgin Atlantic.com to learn more.

for the show comes from VCX, the public ticker for private tech. The U.S. stock market started history's greatest wave of wealth creation. From factory workers in Detroit to farmers in Omaha, anyone could own a piece of the great American companies. But today, our most innovative companies are staying private longer, which means everyday Americans are missing out, until now. Introducing VCX, a public ticker for private tech. Visit getvcx.com for more info. That's getVcx.com. Carefully consider the investment materials before investing, including objectives, risk charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the funds perspective at getvcx.com.

This is a paid sponsorship. 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 175. That's how many days open AI. SORA app lasted 25 days fewer than Quibi. Ed, what did AI say after crossing the road? What? I have no fucking idea, Ed. That's not that funny. Hold on. How does AI identify? How does AI present? If then. That's not bad. That's not bad. All right, bitch, you tell the joke now. I do. Three days a week. You do a joke?

Oh, wait, that's right. I've watched the show. Those are jokes. Yeah, those are jokes. I thought those were clever British Princeton twists of phrase. Indubidably. My jokes are good. My jokes are, and they've gotten better.

That's because I spend hours late at night trying to figure out what to say. Have you guys heard about the new AI robot that can take off all your clothes and then give you a whole new outfit? No. I've seen it change people. Thought it was going dirty, but it didn't. Yeah, no, it was good. Clean. I think I like the if then.

I think that's good. It's a good nerdy joke. It's a dad joke. It's like kind of slightly, maybe politically incorrect, but not really. It's perfect. It's exactly what we need. Well, you know male AI units, their reputation for when they have sex, they just nut and bolt. So that, it's interesting you mentioned that joke, because that,

is the joke that got you canceled from Bloomberg. They got me canceled. They got me canceled from Bloomberg television. Tell the story, Ed. Tell the story. Your favorite. A favorite story. Everyone's waving her hand.

Everyone's heard the story. Really? That's good. I'll give the five second summary. That was the joke that Scott told when we were producing a show for Bloomberg. Bloomberg heard it. Didn't like it. Canceled the show.

End of story. That's right. We are who we are. What's going on with you, Ed? Let's see. I'm in New York. I'm doing a panel tonight with Chris Evans, who you may know as Captain America, which I'm pretty excited about.

He has this new organization, and they're going to have me in to talk about affordability issues for young people. So I'm going to meet Captain America tonight. I'm very excited. I'm not sure, but I think I peed next to him at the Oscar party. I'm serious. Ask him. I complimented him on his jacket.

I think that was Chris Evans. Handsome guy, movie star. Handsome, very tall. I mean, exactly. Yeah, in all seriousness, I think we peed next to each other at the Oscar at the party. Well, that will be my opening line. You peed next to my boss. Say the guy who complimented your coat in the men's room, which is a little strange.

I generally try not to initiate a lot of banter in the men's room. But say, that's my colleague and my co-host. I will let him know, and I'll let you know how he responds. Your job is to bring this panel back to me. Yeah, so how are you doing? What's going on with you? I just did a wonderful pocket. I love Dan Harris from 10% Happier.

He gave me therapy. He's, like, so comforting him. He's like human Xanax. I just feel my blood pressure just comes down. He interviewed me about my book. And, yeah, it was, yeah, what else? to add lunch with someone who's doing a financing, and so I advised her. That was rewarding. You know, I'd like to give back, Ed.

Well, we have a lot to get into here, but before we do it, I am excited to announce that it's starting next week. All of our Profi Market's YouTube content will go to its own ProfiMarkets YouTube channel. So if you watch on YouTube, we're spinning off from the ProfitjPod channel. We're going to have our own channel. So if you want to go subscribe to that channel, please click the link in the description. And you will get all of our episodes on that channel starting next Monday. So please do it. Very important that we really smash it coming out of the gates here.

Otherwise, I don't know, Scott's going to fire me or something bad is going to happen to us. He's going to fire Claire. Unlikely. You have any exciting thoughts on our new YouTube channel? I'd be honest. I didn't know we had a new YouTube channel. But it's going to be great.

Yeah, we're spinning out. So the whole point is, I just like to bring this back to business, you want to have diversity of revenue streams, you want to have enterprise value, you want to have multiple assets. And one of the ways that have multiple assets, or the ways of creating different distinction between your products, is we put them initially on the mothership on our RSS feed of Prop G, which gives them sort of gets them from A to call it GFAS because it gets people show up to the YouTube channel and the RSS feed, they automatically get the stuff downloaded or they get it sent to them. And then once something has its own momentum and its own identity, we spin it out and try and create it as a distinct asset.

And that's what we're doing here. The now property markets has a big enough following, such that it should have its own enterprise value, its own branding, its own YouTube channel. That's right. It's very exciting. Really exciting stuff. Okay. Well, I'm going to move us along to our show here. Today we're discussing Trump's economic problem, prediction markets, legislation, and the results of the meta-Google social media trial.

So let's start with our first story. Now is the time to buy. I hope you have plenty of the world at all. The U.S. economy might look strong on the surface, but that strength isn't translated to how consumers actually feel. There are only so many ways people actually experience the economy, and in the U.S. economy, most of those areas, the trend is moving in the wrong direction. Just to name a few, people are struggling to buy homes. Mortgage demand fell 10% last week, and refinancing dropped 15%. People are struggling to find jobs. Jerome Powell said the job creation in the private sector was, quote,

effectively zero, and just 28% of workers say now is a good time to find a quality job, down from 70% in mid-2020. And even everyday costs are rising, as we've discussed, gas prices have jumped 30% since the start of the Iran war. So, Scott, I think this is quite an important point here, especially when it comes to Trump and his approval ratings and the polling that we're seeing, which is, as we will get to, it's sort of tanking right now. But it seems that there are two different ways that you can kind of, there are two categories of economic data.

There's the economic data that technically matters to economists and to analysts, things like GDP growth, things like stock market growth. And both of those things are pretty good. GDP grew more than 2% last year. S&P rose around 15% last year. And these are things that the administration is really talking about. They're also talking about these investments that they're getting from other nations. It's not actually clear if that's really happening.

But those are the kinds of things that the administration likes to brag about right now, the kind of macro stuff. But on the other hand, you've got this real problem, which is that all the ways in which regular Americans and voters actually experience the economy, through their job, through their housing, through the price of groceries, the price of gas, etc., all of those signals are flashing bright red and it is getting quite dark. To the point where we are seeing real issues in terms of Poland, it's going to have ramifications probably in the midterms, perhaps in the next election cycle too.

what do you make of what's happening here in the economy, specifically the economic touch points that consumers and voters are actually experiencing? The way I would describe it is how William Gibson described the future, and that is prosperity is here. It's just not evenly distributed, and that is the top 1% now owns 32% of total U.S. wealth, and that's roughly equal to the bottom 90% combined.

So the top 1% versus the bottom 90% And my favorite stat that I keep talking about is a genie coefficient. When it's in zero, it means everybody has the same amount. When it's in one, it means one person owns everything. And when France was at 0.83, they started separating people from their heads, and we're at 0.85. So GDP growth, yeah, it's strong. There's prosperity. We've had what is still historic gains in the stock market.

I still think we're only about 4 or 5 percent off of highs, which means it's incredible. but the top 1% since 2016 have captured 33% of the total wealth gains, and the bottom 50% have only captured 6%. So they aren't even beating inflation, and essentially the top 1% have gained more than 100 times more wealth than the median household, and the top 0.1% gained nearly 1,000x more than the bottom 20%. And the problem is the bottom 99.9 are reminded 210 times a day via notifications on their phone that they're not in the point one. And look how amazing the life is for the point one. And also I think there's just a disparity in life now in a capitalist society. And that is when I was a kid growing up, my dad's boss had a, you know, he had a like a Cadillac and we had a Grand Tarino. We had a three-bedroom house. He had a five-badroom house, but it was in the same neighborhood.

We were all members of the same country club, and they used to golf together, went to the same schools. Now, if you're in the point 1%, you have your, you have first, you live in a different planet. You're not subject to health care or health care debt because you can afford it and you have a private concierge that maybe comes to your house. You don't have, you have your own security. You probably have a doorman and live in a. area that is over-policed or that has security cameras everywhere. You're not subject to the fears around teachers not getting paid enough and the eroding quality of our public education system because your kids are in private school. There really is a sub-state of America that is

the most prosperous country offering the most unbelievable services in history. And essentially, the bottom 99, I would even describe the bottom 99 percent are nutrition. for the 1%. So the top 10 U.S. billioners gained $700 billion in a single year last year. And effectively, what we have is that in 1989, the top 1% used to have 23% of wealth globally. Now it's 31% and it's even more skewed in the U.S. And even when we talk about, not even about assets, but income, the top 1% income is up 162% since 1980. It's only up 36%. Now, so it leads a notion, a very real notion, that the system is rigged. And what the incumbents will claim is that its network effects and are most talented. No, these are decisions that we have consciously made through legislation. Mortgage tax, interest rate deduction, capital gains favor treatment are all conscious decisions we have voted through or that have been voted through by a passive minority

ruled by special interest groups who get one or two centers to block legislation and money has... Here's a stat, 300 people, 300 billionaires are now responsible for 20% of all political giving.

And not only that, they can be, that doesn't even tell the story because that 20% has way more influence because a PAC representing, you know, unions or services workers, they have to give their money

to certain people who are focused on certain issues, Whereas billionaires can be much more flexible with their money and give it strategically on a specific issue for a specific vote coming up. So what we've lost is that lawmakers used to take very seriously the following truth or punctured. They'd never bought the myth that the far right or the right will tell you. And that is that the middle class is a self-healing organism. And if you just let the market run, the middle class will be fine. No. When the market is left to its own devices, a middle class goes away. It is the greatest

innovation in history, but it requires constant investment, and let me use the R word. It use constant. It requires constant redistribution. And wealthy people and corporations have gotten in the way of that wealth redistribution, and we are actually moving back the general law of the jungle, the way the majorities of societies have been to the majority of time, and that is more and more capital and opportunity aggregates to the top 1%, and then at some point the bottom 99, see above, 0.83, genie coefficient, rise up and get very, very angry.

Yeah, I think that this is indicative of the problem here, which is you have the people who are in power right now. The fact that they are bragging about things like GDP growth right now is an indication that they don't understand the severity and the significance of those economic touchpoints that most Americans are actually experiencing. Like, you know, housing prices continuing to rise. The fact, the mortgage demand is falling.

Those are things that the very wealthiest who are generally in power at this point, I think this is kind of the point you're making, those are economic touch points that they don't really feel because they're generally price insensitive. Gas prices rising 30%. Again, not really a problem for the people in power.

airline tickets rising 20%. That's what the United CEO told us because of what we're seeing in the price of oil. Again, that's not going to be a real problem. The TSA line lasting four and a half hours, which is the highest wait time in TSA history, if you're extremely wealthy, if you're someone like Trump,

then that's probably not going to be a problem for you because you're going to fly private and you're going to fly Air Force One. And you made a very important point yesterday, which I think is worth mentioning, which is if all private air travel were forced to be grounded today, this TSA funding issue would probably be resolved within 24 hours.

You'd figure out some way to get the funding to the DHS such that we could reopen air travel once again and figure out this TSA problem. But the trouble is there are two different classes of people, and it seems that the people in power don't really experience all of the things that the rest of Americans actually experience. And this is true of many...

I mean, we're just talking about TSA lines because it's a very obvious example. We're literally experiencing it on the ground right now. But inflation is another important one, like grocery prices, which have risen faster than pretty much every other category over the past year. That's another thing that the people in power

don't really feel, so they're probably not going to get that worried about it. And I want to play you a clip from an interview with Kevin Hassett, who is the director of the National Economic Council. he's really in charge of a lot of the economic policy under President Trump. They were asking him about what this war does to the economy and how it might affect American consumers, basically just regular American people.

And he essentially said the quiet part out loud. So let's play that clip. If it were to be extended, it wouldn't really disrupt the U.S. economy very much at all. It would hurt consumers, and we'd have to think about, you know, if that continued what we would have to do about, that. But that's like really the last of our concerns right now because we're very confident that this thing is going ahead of schedule. He essentially says, I mean, not essentially, he does say, if the war hurts consumers, that will be the last of our concerns, which seems to be literally

the policy from this administration right now. Don't worry about all this stuff that's affecting your life. Don't worry about the gas prices. Don't worry about the food prices. Don't worry about any of that. The stock market's up and GDP grew because we're building a shetown of AI data centers. Meanwhile, we're all sitting here like, who cares? I can't afford anything. What did you make of that clip? That was just plain stupid. We don't care about consumers. We're in a consumer economy. Two-thirds of our GDP is from, if consumers aren't doing well, the consumer economy isn't doing well. I think if I think he'd have a lot more credibility if the Dow went down 10,000 points and he said, look, the majority of 10% of the stockholders own 90%, the bottom 60 through 90,

own 10% and the bottom 50 owned debt. So a recalibration of the markets and the wealthiest among us in corporations losing some equity, that's not a big deal. But to say that we don't care about consumers. And just going back to the point of this kind of vibe session, if you will, the way people evaluate or feel their own success or lack thereof, it's, Relative versus absolute, and that is people don't evaluate their lives in a vacuum. They ask themselves, how am I doing relative to others? Not relative to how I was doing 10 years

ago, not relative to a 26-year-old Princeton grad in 1945, right? They say, how am I doing relative to others? And I think we underestimate the impact when everybody has an incentive to vomit a foe, much wealthier fake version of their life out to everyone 24 hours a day, it's just impossible not to think, wait, how on earth did she get to Micanos on a private jet? And I'm struggling to figure out a way to get, you know, to Ron Concoma for a weekend at the beach on the subway. So you don't, people don't think that way. Telling people, G.D. is up, you actually things aren't that bad. What they see is my success relative to others is, it feels like I'm failing. Even though my life might be, you could argue that young people's lives

have tangibly increased over the last couple decades, certainly over the last several decades, but they don't see it that way. They see it as they should relative to other cohorts. And when they look up and they see that people, a lot of the people in their 40s and 50s own a home, and they're like, there's no way I can own a home. I'm killing it and I still can't own a home, right? That one relative to previous generations has gotten worse, just flat out. I mean, previous generations of my age were able to or approaching being able to buy a home. That's not the case now. The average age of a first-time buyer is now 40.

It was literally 31 just 10 years ago. I'll use a personal example. When I got out of business school in 2002, 92, I was offered a job for $100,000 at a consulting firm, and I bought my first house with my partner in Petrero Hill, San Bruno, and 18th, for $285,000. $2.85 times first year salary out of business school. Now the kids at Haas,

average first year salary is around $200,000. grant. That's an exceptional living. The average home in San Francisco is 2.1 million. So it's gone from 2.8 to 10.1 in San Francisco. And I think that's largely indicative of what's happened across the U.S. And what's interesting is that I did a deep dive on our substack around declining birth rates. For every increase in housing prices of 10 percent, birth rates decline 1 percent. And that is, it ends up that increasing home prices are effectively birth control. And think about it. If you, you and Claire are in relationships, you don't realize how powerful a means of connection and path towards commitment, monogamy, and children, saving for, buying a home, painting a room,

blue or pink in case a little one comes along, getting a dog, you get on a path towards commitment and forced savings. And when you're saving for a house, you stop doing stupid shit like going to Vegas or spending money on a new pair of shoes. No, you know what I mean? Yes.

It creates a saving for a home is a fantastic motivator on guardrail. And I worry that a lot of people your age have just given up, just totally given up on that notion. There's like, there's no way I can find the 20% I'm going to need. And also, not only as,

it an incentive, it's like a prerequisite for having a kid. If you're going to need, you're going to need a place to live and it's going to need to have another room or not, but that's, I mean, it's, I mean, it seems very, very simple and logical. Like, not only is it a motivator, it's like, you need to have the ability to get your hands on property and make your life, make it easier to actually build a family. The other thing you mentioned there is like, this idea of the vibe session, which has been a really interesting point that Kyla Scanlan came up with our friend Kyla, and it's become very popular. And it points to this idea of like there's a divergence between the way that the economy is actually doing versus the way that people feel about the economy. And that is an interesting and fair point. But where it gets into trouble, I think, is when people start to say to, to,

to voters and to consumers, like, you just have high standards. Like, you think that your life is bad, but your life is actually good. Trust me, I'm looking at this data here, and I can tell you, and I'm going to wag my finger at you and tell you, your life is actually good. And in the world, I mean, if we're talking about the world of politics, which we are here, that doesn't work. Like, you can't just tell someone that their life is actually great. and then point at a GDP growth chart

and then point at, you know, the price of a smartphone today versus the price of a smartphone 30 years ago and say, see, your life is good actually? Because that's not giving nearly enough credit to the person themselves who's probably evaluating all the things in their life and they're making the call themselves.

Actually, this isn't working out for me. This doesn't work for me. And, you know, you can make the argument, yeah, but you can order Uber Eats and you couldn't do that 30 years, ago, it's like, well, is that really changing fundamentally the way people feel about their lives? The fact that they can order food and it gets delivered to their door at a slightly cheaper price than 10 years ago? Or do we need to think about the more fundamental things, the ability,

as you say, to be able to get your hands on a home and build a family, the idea that you could really build up a career that can build an actual asset base from which you can then launch your life. Like, these are the things that actually matter. So I think it gets, it's not going to work, essentially, as my point, when the administration says, yeah, but look at GDP growth, look at the stock market. That's not going to fool people into being convinced that actually their life is the way they want it to look when they're literally telling you, no, it isn't. Yeah, people don't optimize for GDP growth. They optimize for security, progress, emotional health, and also in relative standing. I also think there's something to the notion that I don't think young people just have as much fun and joy in their lives.

I don't think they have a sense of community. They're not going to religious church attendance is in an all-time low. Sports, being outdoors, being in the company of strangers, drinking is at an all-time low. I just don't think, quite frankly, people of your generation are having that much fun. And then when they do have fun, they feel as if they need to, like, work and post it. and, you know, thinking, okay, let's show how much fun we're having. Let's not eat the food.

Let's take pictures of it. And so I did, and then constantly being reminded that they're, that they're falling behind on a relative basis. And just think it just attacks their emotional well-being. And the thing that there's a study that came out that when daughters hear their mother's voice on the phone, almost immediately their blood pressure goes down. When do young people's blood pressure go down? When are they in the company of strangers? When are they with friends?

When do they unplug from a cycle of dopahit from their phone such that they can just sort of relax and experience joy and fun? I think it's tough. And to tell them that, wait, but you actually on a lot of levels have a better life than most people. I get it. Everyone's freaking out about a 10% youth unemployment rate. That's not actually historically. That's about average. But again, that's not how people think.

People think in relative terms, not in absolute terms. I think it would explain the approval ratings, which are now for Trump, some of the worst approval ratings we've seen. His approval rating has hit a 36% low. And most of it is about the economy. Only 29% of Americans approve of his handling of the economy. That's one of the lowest ratings ever. It is now lower.

than the really bad lows that we saw during the Biden administration when we saw that historic inflation coming out of COVID. And his worst issue is inflation and prices. Net approval's down to negative 39 and continues to decline. Seven in ten Americans say the cost of living is not very affordable or not affordable at all. 61% say the economy is not working for them personally, and that is up from 57% in May. So people, I mean, we could tell people, oh, your perception's wrong, but that perception is all that matters here.

At least if you're trying to get votes, if you're trying to win a political body, you can't just tell them, don't trust your own thoughts. You have it wrong. Things are great. They will decide that for themselves, and they've decided that things are not working out right now. We'll be right back. And for an exclusive live stream on the science of storytelling from our research. lead Mia Silverio, sign up for our Substack at profitingmedia.substack.com. She will be going live with paid subscribers tomorrow. It is an excellent presentation. Don't miss it. Subscribe now.

Support for today's show comes from Framer. Let's say your marketing team wants a new landing page, so the design team mocks it up, and then your engineering department, who's already got too much on their plate, responds with, yeah, we'll get to it. Thousands of businesses from early state startups to Fortune 500s are choosing to build their success. in Framer, where changes take minutes instead of days to solve this very problem. Framers Enterprise Grade No-Code website builder are used by teams at companies, including perplexity and Mero, to move faster. With real-time collaboration, a robust CMS with everything you need for great SEO,

and advanced analytics that include integrated A-B testing, your designers and marketers are empowered to build and maximize your dot-com from day at one. So whether you want to launch a new site, test a few landing pages, or migrate your full.com, Framer has programs for startups, scale-ups, and large enterprises to make going from idea to live site as easy and as fast as possible. Learn how you can get more out of your dot com from a Framer specialist or get started building for free today at Framer.com slash markets for 30% off of Framer. That's framer.com slash markets for 30% off.

Framer.com slash markets rules and restrictions may apply. Support for this show comes from VCX, the public ticker for private tech. For generations, American companies have moved the world forward. to their ingenuity and determination. And for generations, everyday Americans could be part of that journey through perhaps the greatest innovation of all, the U.S. stock market. It didn't matter whether you were a factory worker in Detroit or a farmer in Omaha. Anyone could own a piece of the great American companies.

But now, that's changed. Today, our most innovative companies are staying private rather than going public. The result is that everyday Americans are excluded from investing and getting left further behind while a select few reap all the benefits. Until now. Introducing VCX, the public. ticker for private tech. BcX by FUNRISE gives everyone the opportunity

to invest in the next generation of innovation, including the company's leading the AI revolution, space exploration, defense tech, and more. Visit getvcx.com for more info. That's getvcx.com. Carefully consider the investment material for investing, including objectives,

discharges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the fund's perspective at getvcx.com. This is a paid sponsorship. This is advertiser. Brought to you by Virgin Atlantic Ed, a couple weeks back. I got you a birthday gift not to pat myself on the back, but it was a pretty good one. It was indeed.

You surprised me with Virgin Atlantic upper-class tickets to London. So tell us all about it. It was pretty incredible. From the moment I entered that upper-class cabin, I have to tell you, I felt like a VIP. Anything I needed, a drink, snack, assistance with the seat. Flat seats. Flat seats. That's the key.

Flat seats, exactly. had the four-course meal, got my champagne, very delicious, enjoyed the food. And the journey home? The journey home was great. I went to the Virgin Atlantic LHR Clubhouse. That's the Heathrow Clubhouse. Heathrow Clubhouse was awesome. Got myself a coffee, headed over to the meditation pod that they call the Somer Dome.

Kind of felt like a sort of spaceship where you relax and think nice thoughts. So I did that for a little bit. Then we went over to the wing, which are these acoustically sealed. booths where you could do some work. You could even record a podcast. I didn't do that, but maybe I should have. It was a very enjoyable experience. So, Ed, the real question here is, what are you planning to get me for my birthday? See the world differently with Virgin Atlantic. Flying should be more than just transport. It is part of the adventure. Go to virginatlantic.com to learn more. Tickets and lounge access provided by Virgin Atlantic.

We're back with Profi Markets. A new bipartisan bill could shake up one of the fastest growing corners of finance, prediction markets. Two senators introduced legislation that would ban sports-related betting on CFTC-regulated platforms such as Kalshian Polymarket. It would also prohibit them from offering casino-style games in the future. That includes everything from slots and blackjack to video poker and bingo. Notably, this is the first bipartisan Senate effort aimed at regulating prediction markets.

So, Scott, this new proposal, it's called the prediction markets are gambling act. Just a quick summary of what it would actually do, it would essentially just ban all forms of sports betting on these prediction markets. That's the main event. It also says it's banning these prediction markets platforms from hosting games like casino-style games like poker and blackjack, bingo, all this stuff. I think that's a misleading provision because none of these platforms actually host those games. They're not, you can't play blackjack on Calci or any of the other platforms. But they're basically saying you can't do that in the future. So the real meat of this proposal is no more sports betting, which has become a very significant market on these platforms.

So I guess we'll just start with your reactions here to this proposal. proposal that is bipartisan. So first off, I should disclose just before I make my comments, the KAL-She is a data provider for Prof-G. We absolutely love their data on economics and earnings predictions and geopolitics. With respect to this legislation, this is a tough one because putting the opportunity for wagering in a more risk-aggressive, less developed prefrontal cortex, we've seen how that can go wrong.

I think the challenge is parsing between these different segments. There's gaming, quote unquote, traditional gambling, there's the prediction markets, and then there's options contracts. And effectively, what the prediction markets are doing is they're offering what feels, smells, and looks like an options contract. And that is, you're paying for a certain amount on an outcome against someone else who believes in another outcome. So what will be interesting is if, I mean, my viewpoint is whatever legislation they should have should apply to all of it, right? Something I would like to see.

You can't, my 15-year-old is dying to go to Vegas with me. I'm not sure it's going to be that much fun for him because you can't be on a casino floor if you're under the age of 21. I would like to see age-gating across all these things. I'm not sure a 19-year-old needs to be playing options, zero-day options. Zero-day options are gambling. I, you know, 80% to 90% of stock market purchases and sales are effectively speculation. You're not investing for the long term. And then there's no getting around it. If you're on betmGM or in certain instances on these prediction markets,

you are essentially trying to get a dope a hit on a belief that you want to have insight into something and you're trying to make money and the risk of winning or losing creates a hit. The question is, should there be legislation disparate by market? Because I don't think the options markets would want age-gating at 21. I think you'd see stock exchanges or stock market platforms try and fight against that. So the question is, what I'd love to see is, look at those three categories. What is the ramifications on the mental health and the rates? of addiction across those three categories.

And does it warrant distinct or different levels of regulation? And if not, why wouldn't you just have one set of regulation around age-gating certain limits on how much you can spend or not being able to use your parents' credit card, whatever it might be, or have certain AI-driven prediction algorithms that say, you need to take a break, or we've shut down your account, whatever it might be. but this is definitely going to be a very interesting period because you know who's most scared of the regulation of prediction markets is the options markets because the options markets are looking at this and going, okay, how are they going to be regulated and then how are we going to say we're different? Because our contracts look shockingly similar.

I mean, you started with this is a tough one. And then I think you actually did the tough part, the hard part of the task year, which everyone's been talking about, which is, I mean, the question is, where do you draw the lines? Like, how do you categorize these different things? But you did that, and in my view, you did that correctly. And that is, you said, there's sports betting,

which is a form of gambling, and there's options and futures trading, which you could maybe say is kind of like gambling, but we both probably agree, it's different from betting on the outcome of sports games. And, you know, this is the, that I think some of the slightly facetious pushback that we've gotten from the prediction markets players, they say, how are you supposed to draw the line here? Where do you draw the line?

And my favorite line from John Oliver, the great John Oliver, he said, where do you draw the line? You draw it somewhere. So what we've done here and what you've just done is you've drawn a line, which I completely agree with, and that is that there is sports betting, which has its own form of regulation and it has its own federal framework. Most of the regulation does happen at the state level. And depending on what state you're in, there are different laws. In some states, there is an age requirement. You have to be 21. In other states, you can be 18. Most of the states have similar rules around how to gamble safely. You have safe advertising rules. You have rules on displaying resources for problem gamblers. There are all of these

different rules, but you need the framework, you need the lines and the boxes to be drawn in order to start regulating this stuff, which we have done with sports betting. And it doesn't work totally, but it gets us somewhere. Then there's options and there's futures trading. And currently, we treat that legally as a different thing. This is where you bet on the price of stocks, going up and down, you bet on the price of commodities. It's regulated by the CFTC. The minimum age, as you mentioned, is 18. Maybe you could have an argument as to why you might want to make it 21. But the point being, the framework is there and it's in place, and it is different from sports betting. And so I think what we have here is actually a good piece of regulation. I was thinking

that maybe regulators would go overboard and say ban prediction markets entirely. They're all bad. It's all gambling. No. Instead, what they've decided is they said, hey, a lot of people are betting on sports on these things. That looks a lot like gambling, and it does look a lot different from the stuff that we actually like on this program, which is the financial events contracts. The contracts and the prediction markets which say, what's going to happen to interest rates, what's going to happen to inflation, what's going to happen to gas prices? To me, that's basically options trading, that's basically futures trading. Yes, it's risky. And yes, you could make arguments that it's similar to gambling, but it is far and away a different thing from betting on the outcome of the Super Bowl

or the World Cup or trying to figure out who's going to be in the Sweet 16. Those are two separate things. So I think this is actually sensible here. It's like, look, keep trading these financial contracts because what we've learned is they're actually really great for predicting things about the future, better than Wall Street in a lot of cases. They're also really helpful for understanding the news. That's why we use that data all the time, because if we want to understand how did this big event affect what is going to happen in the future, we often look to a market, a platform like Kalshi, and we say, okay, yeah, the probability of interest rates coming down or going up has gone up X, Y percent. And that's a useful thing. But you have to start drawing the lines

and figuring out what is the category of each different thing. And once you do that, then you can start to reach some semblance of sensible regulation. But if you keep saying, oh, it's all too blurry, it's all gray zone, you're never going to get anywhere. There's two ends of this. There's the consumer, and then there's, I don't know, the B-to-B side. We, so federal reserve economists have said that Kalshi is better than professional economic indicators of predicting inflation and Fed fund rate decisions.

This data has real value to media companies and analysts, you know, like ourselves. Cali has a perfect forecast record on Fed rate decisions. Perfect. So far, they're batting 100% on Fed rate predictions. And also, it's not just macroeconomic data. Cali's earnings predictions are as accurate as Wall Street's. Now, the question is, all right, on the sports side, we don't care, nor do we talk about what the odds are of, you know, the Rams winning NFC playoffs, right? We don't care. That's not the business we're in. Should it be more difficult for a 21-year-old to bet in Las Vegas or bet on a prediction market on a sporting event than it is to go to Vegas or a Native American reservation and bet on sports there? I mean, why are these guys, and maybe they're just being subject to the same things, but it strikes me, I struggle with the line between infanticizing people. and also recognizing there's real potential for harm here. And I imagine that's what the regulators were struggling with. But when you were in Vegas, you could bet on sports, right? Oh, yeah, for sure.

So what's the argument, I'll just, Straw Man, what's the argument or steel man is what's the argument for why you shouldn't be able to do that on the predictions markets? I think you should, but it should be regulated like gambler. I mean, that's basically it. If it's gambling, regulate it like gambling. So, I mean, I think the real problem for these companies is the workaround that is beneficial is that if you're regulated not like gambling and you're regulated like options, which is what the current laws are, then you're not subject to any gambling regulations, which means that you can operate in states in which sports betting is illegal. So that's a problem. That's a fair point.

So for me, it's just like, okay, the stuff that's gambling, regulate that like gambling, you shouldn't be trading sports events contracts in states in which they've decided that sports gambling is illegal. That shouldn't be happening. But in states where it is legal, let them have it. Another question. You're betting on the Green Bay Packers, right? You're betting against someone who thinks they're going to lose and you think they're going to win. Zero-day options.

I'm betting Apple stock's going to go up. you're betting it's going to go down, you're writing, you're writing the contract, I'm buying it. Is one more or less gambling than the other? Yeah, I believe that the sports gambling is more gambling than the other. I think the other, I think the zero-day option makes a case. It's pretty close to gambling, but again, if we're drawing lines, which I'd like to do, I think that's a pretty easy line to draw. One is about a financial product.

What if the Apple analyst puts on? on a helmet and a jersey. I don't see the difference. I see zero-day options by that definition is gambling. Then we just throw our hands up and say, okay, let them all have it. I mean, we have drawn a line already in our regulation where we say, if you go on draft kings and you bet on the game, that's gambling. If you go on your Robin Hood and you bet on options, that's something else. When I saw zero-day options and I went on a platform to look at it, to me it was just, It was Vegas with a strong Reddit component. And so I don't see much of a difference.

Totally agree. The people who are actually the most nervous here, the prediction markets are phenomena. They're exploding, right, across a number of dimensions. I think the people are most nervous here, or whatever it is, the CFTC, the governing body of options contracts. Because where they have gone with zero-day options,

it's getting awfully close to gambling. And I think they're going to have a difficult time saying why we should be subject to different regulations and other things deemed as gambling. What I think we need more of is research on the effect and the impact this is having on people. You know, there's some research saying to gambling, once gambling is legalized in a state,

bankruptcies immediately go up, right? that's a negative. What's happening specifically to young people? What's happening to their mental health? What's happening to their financial well-being? So, look, it feels like there needs to be more research across these categories and a really solid justification for if and how we create a distinction that warrants different legislation across these categories. I don't think we need to complicate things that much. Like just by saying, yes, that's, gambling doesn't mean that you're just saying you're not allowed to do it anymore. All it's saying is you should be regulated like gambling now, which means, yes, you won't be able to operate in this number of states where this thing is illegal. But of course, you go set up camp in Nevada and do the sports betting there. But let's just regulate the things for what they are. One thing

is more similar to options trading. One thing is more similar to sports betting. We'll be right back after the break. And if you're enjoying the show, please follow our new ProfG Markets YouTube channel starting next week. That is where you will find our content on YouTube. Support for the show comes from SOFi. To stay ahead in this economy, your number one priority should be staying on top of your finances. With inflation and market shifts, you can't afford to be passive. You need to be proactive about where every dollar is going. And part of that is having a bank that actually works for you. Enter SOFI. SoFi Plus is a premium membership, a smart way to get more for your money.

SoFi Plus is packed with benefits and unlock a thousand or more in annual value with qualifying activities. Values including a competitive APR on savings and investment match for your IRA and access to one-on-one sessions with So-Fi wealth financial planners. You can get started for $10 a month. And if you join SoFi Plus between now and April 15th, you'll have a chance to win over $75,000 in cash. SoFi is also giving 20 individuals $1,000 in cash prizes and 50 winners, Brees, So-5 Plus memberships for a year. head to sophy.com slash Scott G to enter. Terms and conditions apply to learn more about SOFi Plus. Head to sophy.com slash sophy-hifun plus.

There's basically been one guy in Republican politics who's argued for regime change in Iran for years and for America to take a proactive military role in making it happen. Ambassador John Bolton, President Trump's former national security advisor. But now, even Bolton says Donald Trump is messing it up. As far as we can tell, he did no preparation of the opposition actually inside Iran. No coordination, no effort to see what they would do, no effort to support them, to provide resources,

money, arms, if that's what they wanted, telecommunications, just no coordination at all. And they don't seem prepared for it. How Trump lost the Republican Party's biggest Iran Warhawk. Today, explain, every weekday and on Saturdays, too. Hi, I'm Brne Brown. And I'm Adam Grant. And we're here to invite you to The Curiosity Shop. A podcast that's a place for listening, wondering, thinking, feeling, and questioning.

It's going to be fun. We rarely agree. But we almost never disagree. And we're always learning. That's true. You can subscribe to the Curiosity Shop on YouTube or follow in your favorite podcast app to automatically receive new episodes every Thursday. We're back with Profi Markets.

Two major court rulings last week could mark. a turning point for social media companies. First, a New Mexico jury found META had violated state law by failing to protect its users from child predators. META was ordered to pay $375 million in damages. Later in the week, a Los Angeles jury found META and YouTube liable in a social media addiction case, concluding that their platforms were intentionally addictive

and contributed to a young user's mental health issues. Meta has to pay $4.2 million in damages and YouTube must pay $1.8 million. The trial is the first in a wave of more than 1,600 related cases brought against these social media companies. Many are calling the decision a bellwether, saying it could open the door to a surge of new lawsuits focused on user well-being.

Scott, this is basically the first ruling we've seen of its kind against Big Tech, a subject you have been railing against four, many, many years. It was literally the subject of your first major book. And they ruled in favor or they ruled against big tech in both of these trials. What do you make of it? Like, this is a big deal. And it's not the beginning of the end, but it's the end of the beginning is the way I would describe it. And that is typically with harmful substances or practices that have an externality that really damages the public, it takes, we usually feel. We usually feel, figure it out. It took 30 years of tobacco, it took 20 years with opiates, and if you look at

when social went on mobile in 2013, it looks like it's going to take about 20 years. I do think that these companies are now facing juries, and these juries have children who have gone through phones, smartphones with social media, and they've seen firsthand just how damaging it is, and they feel lied to. When I wrote the four in 2017, the argument was over whether these companies were bad or not. It was who was going to be president, Jeff Bezos or Cheryl Sambert. I mean, the affection for these companies, these innovators and these tech executives, was extraordinary.

And social media was helping connect parents of kids with childhood, strange childhood diseases. It was reconnecting your friends from, from college. I mean, it was all like rainbows and unicorns. And when I initially started writing the book, it was a love letter to these companies. And then as I really started looking at data,

I'm like, okay, this doesn't, something's wrong here. This feels, this feels, this feels, dangerous. And slowly but surely, and over the last nine years, they have weaponized government, created unbelievable tactics around delay and obfuscation, leveraging citizens United, and exceptionally start PR people, exceptional comps people, exceptionally charming and likable executives from Nick Clegg to Cheryl Sandberg to, you know, I forget his name, Evan, he's super likable, had a snap, I forget his name. And the reality is our kids started self-harming.

And we started not liking each other. And we started believing that the enemy wasn't Russian troops pouring over the border in Ukraine. It was our neighbor with the wrong presidential sign. And we started attacking each other online. And then outside actors with who couldn't be this economically or kinetically took advantage of a poorest shareholder-driven platforms to start planting incendiary content that got us I don't think Americans are actually divided, but we have people dividing us. And these companies are the agents for it. And now there's this, this enormous economic incentive to create a serious set of content, much of which is useful, much of which is benign, but some of it just gets you

angry at yourself, angry at others. And going back to the last story about why young people feel bad, even though maybe they've made modest gains, they're told every day that they're failing, that they're not hot enough, they're not wealthy enough, they're not impressive enough. And these firms, what came out in this trial, which was so incredibly disturbing as the New Mexico Attorney General created an account posing as an 11-year-old girl. And almost instantly, the account got bombarded with explicit images from known sexual abusers, from kids praying on kids. So let me get this. You can serve me, you can tell when I'm at a Beyonce concert and serve me an ad for a ride home from that location. Or you know when my kid's about to turn, get his learner's permit and start serving me ads for auto insurance for a kid in Florida.

But you didn't know this? You didn't know this was going on? And what this shows, the discovery here is going to be so horrific for these companies. Because the reality is they knew what we were. was going on. But anything that introduced friction to the business model, they ignored. And I want to be clear, I think these companies are a net good for society, except for meta. I think meta has jumped the shark and is now a net negative. But big tech is a net positive for society. The problem is with the word net, and that is we're net beneficiaries from pesticides and fossil fuels, but we still have an EPA

and emission standards. We have no regulation around these companies. And they have five, They pretend to give a flying fuck about children with child safety features that are impossible to navigate and figure out. And then, of course, the people who've really paid the price here are low-income households because I have the resources to try and make my kids, try and keep my kids off screens. I have the money to pay for after-school stuff. I have the time and attention to be at home to ensure they can't go into the room alone with the screen, which is a rule we have. when I was growing up, you know, my mom was out of the house before I got up, sometimes didn't get home until after I was asleep or later. If I'd been at home bored with an iPad and, you know, YouTube and Instagram and You porn and Reddit and Discord, I'm not sure I would have ever left the house. and then my brain being rewired as I'm going through puberty around a constant need and access to

doper right away whenever I wanted to squeeze it. I think this generation, unfortunately, my kids at 15 and 18 had to endure this bullshit. I don't think you're kids, I think we're going to I think we're figuring it out. And I think in three to five years, it wasn't the fines that are the big deal. It's the fact that now the other thousands of lawsuits against these companies have legal precedent to go after them. And last interesting feature that our old colleague Maria Petrova highlighted to me is that the insurance companies meant to insure these companies against this type of liability are saying that they're not going to pay, that they're not covered because they intentionally did this. They knew they were doing it and they intentionally did it. And if the

insurance companies had known they were intentionally breaking the law, they couldn't insure them. Now, far be it for any insurance company to actually, you know, insurance companies are famous for trying to get out of when you actually calling them to pay for it. But this is, this is that big tobacco moment. I forget it was 1991. I forget what it was. But this is that moment. So again, I don't think social media is going away. But this is the end of the beginning.

This is the end of the Wild West when these companies could operate with total immunity. So I'm, I think this is a big moment. I'm excited about it. I've said that before. I've been disappointed. But I think this is different this time. And the fact that both these cases came down with the same verdict within hours of each other also says something. This is a pattern here. And it's going to give a lot of plaintiff's attorneys and a lot of parents newfound mojo. And by the way, the market agrees. And that was the big standout moment for me. Meta actually fell on Thursday down more than 5% 10-month low. So that's the market telling you actually, yes, this does have teeth, this is a big deal. And I just want to go back to a point you made at the beginning there about the fact that this was a jury trial. So both of these trials were ruled by a jury. And it was decided in both cases that what big tech was doing was illegal. But most of the major big tech cases that we've seen have been benched trials, they've been decided by a judge.

So in the FTC versus META trial, that was a bench trial. The judge ruled in favor of META. We had the DOJ versus Google trial, which was decided on again by a judge. Judge Amit Mata said that Google actually was a monopoly. They were operating this monopoly. But when it came time for the penalties and the remedies, he said, actually, we're not going to issue any remedies. We're not going to issue a penalty because Open AI is coming up and coming and it's going to

start to eat Google's lunch. And so that would be unfair to Google. and then what do you know, Google starts to crush opening eye with Gemini. So that argument didn't make any sense. But too late, the decision is made. We had the same thing coming up in 2026, in the FTC versus Amazon case, which will also be decided by a judge. So usually these cases haven't been decided by a jury.

They've usually been decided by a judge. And I think that is something that Big Tech really likes, because I think that they would prefer to not have these issues adjudicated by the democracy, by the people. By parents. By parents. It's basically the judge's job to remove all of the emotion out of the equation. This is literally what they get trained to do

and get really into the minutia of all of the statutory elements, and that's what you have to focus on overwhelmingly. But when you open it up to the people, as you say, whose children have gotten addicted, whose children have engaged in self-harm, all of that starts to build up, and it means that eventually you're going to say, you know what, I'm not going to go lenient on you guys.

I'm not going to give it, I'm not just going to play it so easy and roll over so easily here. I'm going to be very, very harsh, because the things that you have done to my life, the things that you have done to our society at large are egregious, and they need to be punished. And that's something that I think these big tech companies

really don't want to see, which is why I think it is so notable that it was a jury in both cases. I believe one of them, the decision was unanimous across all of them, because there is so much pent-up anger and frustration among the American people right now against big tech. And that actually matters. It actually is important to have a moment of catharsis, where you can actually express, look at all of the wrongs that you have done to us over many, many years. And yes, we are going to use this moment and this trial as our moment to express that to you and say, actually, this isn't okay. So I hope that we will see many more jury trials. And I think that what we'll find

is that the more jury trials that we have, the more they're going to be ruling against Big Tech. Whenever anyone says the time on screens is about bad parenting or good parenting, that's a tell that they don't have children. They get their homework on their screens now. This is how they communicate with their friends. And Adam Alter, a colleague at NYU, doesn't get nearly the recognition because he's overshadowed by Jonathan Haidt

and anyways, other profs that are more retail whores would start multiple podcasts. He wrote a book called, what was it called, addicted or relentless? Anyways, he wrote a great book about the addiction of, of these products.

And he said that the really sad thing is if you don't have a collective ban, if you take your kid, if you tell your kid you can't be on Snap and you can't be on Instagram, they're more depressed because they're isolated socially. And so unless there's collective bans,

unless there's, I mean, for God's sakes, these counts will claim that it's hard. And my favorite is when Mark Zuckerberg claimed to give a flying fuck about a 14-year-old's First Amendment rights. Yeah, I bet he wakes up at night thinking 14-year-olds need free speech. I mean, he literally used that as an excuse

that they were worried about their First Amendment rights a ninth grader. But unless, I don't see why we have, I mean, a simple one, age-gating. I think that's coming. I don't think there's... I don't think there's any reason anyone at the age of 18 should ever be on a social media platform.

And I get it. Maybe they can learn from YouTube. Maybe they can learn how to do algebra. It's not worth it. Or you have the cleanest G-rated version. And what Jonathan Hyde says is just go to China and see what they're serving up on their social media platforms.

It's like kids running around and doing dances in front of the flag about how much they love China and the CCP. And then the other example Jonathan uses is if you go to the wealthiest high schools in Silicon Valley, they literally have no screens. They don't. And so it is nearly impossible to keep your kid off of this stuff.

And there have been so many horrific stories about self-harm and you, kids and that meta knew about this stuff, the discovery here is going to be a horror film. When they see the emails and the research and when we find out what we knew, you know, what we knew was going on. And I always go back to, I don't think these are, I do think Mark Zuckerberg and Shell Sandberg have made more money while damaging more young people's lives and arguably any people in modern history. But we're the ones that are ultimately culpable because we have to elect people who have the backbone and the domain expertise to regulate these companies.

And General Motors would still be pouring mercury into the river if we didn't have regulation. Because if they didn't, they would be to cost a disadvantage to Ford and Stalantis who continue to pour mercury into the river. So we need to remove Section 230 for algorithmically elevated content. We need to age gate, and we need to break these companies up. And we need, and this fourth leg of the stool, if you will, of the chair has happened, is civil liability. because if these cases stopped, if this was it, nothing would change. Because this amount of money is chump change for these guys. This really is an incentive.

I also think we need to move to a civil penalty construct where it's a percentage of market cap. So when Elon Musk is found guilty of market manipulation for saying I'm, you know, funding secured to take the company private, he's fine. I figuring that it was $200 or $300 million. That's like you or me being fined $8. It's not a disincentive, right? If you have a parking meter in front of your house, the ticket is 25 cents and it costs 10 bucks a day, you're gonna break the law.

My first boss at Morgan Stanley, Carter Corderner, used to talk about occasionally, you know, you're always commuting in your car. And a lot of time, back then, cars broke down. Cars were not very good. And a car would break down and you'd either traffic would be backed up on the four or five, and you'd go by and you'd see a car with its hood up

and steam would be coming out of it because cars were shitty back then, mostly American cars. And his idea was, any time you break down on the road, you're charged 10% of the value of your car. And you watch, you're going to see maintenance standards go way up. So I think we have to start finding these companies a percentage of their market capitalization or their revenues. Otherwise, the incentive is just to continue to break the law and throw lawyers at the problem until there are so many lawsuits that represent so much capital that they finally have to, you know, they have to change their work.

ways of doing business. But let me finish where I started. This is a big moment. But a good place to start is just charge them anything. And I think that is kind of what's striking here. I mean, the penalty for meta here is $4 million. That's literally like a fraction of a percentage of what they pay AI engineers these days. Like, that's literally nothing. And yet, the stock fell more than 5% on the news. So I think what that is telling you is like, this is the beginning of a very large chain of lawsuits that are coming. and it also shows regulators and it shows prosecutors that actually like you can do something

if you simply apply a penalty, as opposed to what we saw with Google where you say, yes, you did something illegal, but we're not going to punish you for it. Final start, I just want to mention here because it blew me away. I learned this from a former meta-employee on a CNN program.

He said that one in eight children on Instagram have received unwanted sexual advances. And this was, I think, the point that you made that the Attorney General made, this is like an unbelievable level of exposure and just, I mean, it's hard to put words to it, how bad it's gotten, the fact that we are putting children out there. And you've made this analogy before, which I think is a very good one. I mean, how would we feel if a bunch of kids were playing around in a playground and then a bunch of old men, in some cases, just showed up naked and started looking at them

and trying to talk to them. That's literally happening every single day on these platforms. It's happening to one in eight children on Instagram today. I don't think that we fully appreciate how bad it's gotten. It's not just that kids are lonely and they're spending too much time on their phones. It's like we're literally exposing them to sexual prediages. every day and it's now become normalized. Well, it's worse than that.

What if you, what if the park said, hey, you'll be really popular with this park and your friends will be impressed if you show up in a thong and a bathing sit. Yeah. We're gonna sexualize you. Oh, and then strange men can speak to you. Or, hey, I'm gonna talk to you.

I'm the algorithm. Oh, you're not feeling good about yourself? Why aren't you feeling good about yourself? Oh, really? Wow, are you thinking about self-harm? Well, this is how you do it. This is, here's what a razor looks like. Do you know how to cut yourself?

Oh, wait, you know, the mom's pills? Here are some images of nooses, razors, and pills. That's what was sent to a 14-year-old girl who started talking about suicidal ideation. She got an email saying, here are some images on self-harm we thought you might find interesting. I'm not suggesting someone at Meta, I think it was Pinterest, said, I want this girl to self-harm.

What they did is said, No, we have a business model where when we pick up on certain words, we just automatically send images and we haven't put in any safeguards because that would slow us down and get in the way of our profitability. So we, Jonathan Heights got this perfect. We overprotect our kids offline. Right. My kid, I used to leave my mom's house at 8 a.m. or 9 a.m. on a Saturday morning with a Schwinn

bike and Abbasabbar in 35 cents. And I'd get home at like 10 p.m. when maybe she'd start calling the neighbors. saying, if you see Scott tell him to come home, gone for 14 hours, you know, rabid dogs, 14-year-olds who'd beat me up, break into the school, because for some reason we thought it was cool to break into the school on a Saturday, you know, just all kinds of havoc and whatever. My kid's 10 minutes home, 10 minutes late from school, we call MI6. We're guilty of this. But what is happening on a screen? And we install all these monitors and everything, and then my kid figures out a hack around them.

But we vastly underprotect them online because we don't understand these technologies. But the key here is that we now have juries that are going to be made up of parents or people who know people whose kids have really struggled here. And our biggest regret, I still think our biggest regret isn't,

I mean, I think Trump is a stain on the American experience, but my thesis is in 20 years, our biggest regret isn't going to be income inequality or climate change. We're just going to look back. back and go, how the fuck did we let that happen to our children around social media? I don't think, I think the combination of COVID and device addiction and an unfettered social media platform of people who are really have just ignored the Commonwealth for shareholder value,

I think these kids, I think we're going to see so much addiction that can be reverse engineered to setting up a constant at a very critical age when their brain was being wired, the ability to squeeze at any moment and get dopa. I think we have literally, we are flushing tens of millions of youth into our society that demand constant dopa and don't have the skills for focus,

attention, investing in long-term relationships, or even just having the ability to sit through a movie, much less sit at a desk and get shit done. And just to clarify, Met is actually now down 8%. So this is just the beginning. Okay, let's take a look at the week ahead.

We'll see earnings from Nike. We'll also see consumer confidence and the employment report for March. Scott, do you have any predictions? So I love Nike. I think it's one of the great brands. I think it's arguably one of the most impressive advertisers in history, and they've built an incredible direct-to-consumer unit. The stock is now at a 10-year low.

And the revenue is actually, versus 10 years ago, the revenue, the revenue was 30 billion, and this year revenue will be fiscal 20, 25, revenue will be 46 billion. So despite the fact the top line revenue has grown 50%, and this just goes to the notion that the market values growth and hates decline, and basically the company is struggling under profitability and margin compression, but despite the fact it has a 50% bigger top line, it's trading at the same levels it was when it was growing at 30 billion, which just speaks to the notion that, you know, if you just get an entirely different multiple when you grow. But the thing that I dug in on around is that from 2020 to 2025, they went from 75,000 people to 78.

So they've actually grown their employee base 3% since 2020. So I think what you're going to see here, given the basically what is just an unbelievable, staggering fall. In five years, the company has lost almost two-thirds of its. its value. In the last year, it's lost another 21%. You are going to see an activist come into this stock, and you're going to see massive layoffs. And if the massive layoffs don't, you know, unless the massive layoffs come first, but this company, quite frankly, this company needs to massively right size. It's lost its growth, and investors are going to demand that it starts growing EBITA again. And in my estimation, they have not made the hard decision.

they need to make around employment. So you're going to see an activist, and you're going to see, my prediction is you're going to see 10 to 20,000 people laid off from Nike in the next two to three years and or an activist show up. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss

and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Jorge O'Carthy. Our research team is Dan Shlon, Isabel Kinsel, Chris Nodonoghue, and Mia Silverio. Jake McPherson is our social producer. Drew Burroughs is our technical director. Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to Profugee Markets from Profitue Media.

If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and tune in tomorrow for a fresh take on the markets and also subscribe to our new Profitrii Markets YouTube channel.