The Pomp Podcast - The Fed's Latest Move Just Changed Everything | Darius Dale

Episode Date: July 30, 2026

Darius Dale is the founder and CEO of 42 Macro. In this conversation, we break down what the Fed should do next, how money printing quietly erodes your purchasing power, Kevin Warsh's plan to reshape the Fed, what history says happens to economies as K-shaped as ours, and what gives Darius hope for the future. ====================Arch Public is an agentic trading platform that automates investment strategies across Stocks, Commodities, ETFs and Crypto. Whether you’re rotating into AI & Gold, allocating to the S&P 500, or accumulating Bitcoin, Arch Public executes your plan 24/7 without ever taking custody of your assets or funds. Sign up today at https://www.archpublic.com, and start your FREE automated trading strategy! ====================Uphold is the easiest way to buy and sell crypto unlike any other platform allowing you to trade in just one step between any supported asset. Check them out at https://www.uphold.com/pomp/ This video includes a paid sponsorship with Uphold. I’m compensated by Uphold for promoting its products and services and may receive commissions from referrals. Terms apply. Not available in all jurisdictions. Digital assets are risky and may result in the total loss of your capital.====================Simple Mining makes Bitcoin mining simple and accessible for everyone. We offer a premium white glove hosting service, helping you maximize the profitability of Bitcoin mining. For more information on Simple Mining or to get started mining Bitcoin, visit https://www.simplemining.io/pomp====================0:00 - Intro0:56 - What the Fed should do vs. what they will do7:19 - Dollar debasement: pricing assets in "units of dollars"11:29 - Kevin Warsh, ending forward guidance, & AI-driven disinflation18:29 - Red states vs. blue states: fixing the K-shaped economy26:53 - Explicit vs. implicit socialism & the Wealth Pump theory32:01 - What gives Darius hope for the future

And so when you start to invert things and start pricing them in units of dollars, like instead of saying price of S&P in one dollar, what's one dollar's ability to purchase one share of the S&P? What is one dollar's ability to purchase one banana at the grocery store or one gallon of gas? And you invert those prices, you really see the structural multi-decade decline in our purchasing power that's been masked by these academic arguments that money supply has no impact in the real world, which again, sorry for me using this word again, What's going on, guys? Today, we've got a very special treat. We've got my friend Darius Dale. He's the founder and CEO of 42 Macro. And in this conversation, we talk about the plight of the

people, how there's so much socialism going on, both implicitly and explicitly, and why that impacts your portfolio. And then last but not least, he gives some really nuanced, insightful thoughts about what's going on at the Fed, how Kevin Warsh is changing things up, and what he thinks that Kevin Warsh should be doing that he's not. All that in this conversation with my friend Darius Dale. All right, Darius, we are recording this right before the Fed's decision here for July. But I want to understand from your perspective, before we know what they do, what is your read as to what they should do? And what is the data that's backing up that thought process? Oh, that's a deep question, man. And thanks again for having me. Always a pleasure

to be with you and your audience, my brother. So what they will do, in our opinion, is very different from what they should do. What they should do is tighten with the balance sheet, shrink the balance sheet, scare the market into believing that they are serious with regards to their price stability mandate, but ultimately leave the policy rate alone. And the reason we say they should leave the policy rate alone is because we have this big multidimensional model that essentially tries to ascertain what the Fed should do over the near term and over the medium term based on its, you know, the trends and key economic variables, as well as the deviation from the Fed's various mandates. And that model is essentially saying the Fed should, on net,

remain on hold now and stay on hold over the medium term. Now, going back to where I started this answer, the reason we think the Fed should tighten monetary policy over the near term, it has nothing to do with what's happening from an economic standpoint. So in our opinion, we think this is all about signaling. We think the Fed, as we talked about the last time I was on your show, we think the Fed needs to play action pass to set up the run, with play action passing being tightening cyclically and setting up the run with the run being easing structurally. It's our belief that once we get the advent of the five task force findings later this year, early next year, that the net recommendations from those task forces will be extremely dovish

and that it's not priced into financial markets. And so if the Fed pivots from today's inflation problem to a series of extremely dovish policy recommendations, ultimately that has risk that pose a significant risk to the bond market, the long end of the curve. And so ultimately, we think they should take a step in between of tightening policy just to regain some credibility on inflation fighting. What's fascinating to me is I think if you go back to 2019, inflation has been compounding at about 4% a year. So if you include all the ups, downs, there's about 4% compound annual growth rate to inflation over six, seven years. At the same time, inflation has been all over the place when it comes to the last, I don't know, eight months or

so. During that period, even with the inflation spike, the Fed continues to expand their balance sheet, which kind of feels like it's the opposite of what you're saying. So what is their logic? What would they defend themselves by saying that that was the right thing to do? Yeah, well, look, there's two schools of camp on the balance sheet. And one school of thought is a very self-serving, Wall Street focused, quite frankly, I would say insidious school of thought, which is the balance sheet has no impact on monetary policy or on the real economy. It only matters from the perspective of financial plumbing, which is the repo market and all the transactions that take place in the overnight and near overnight cash market. In our opinion,

we think that market is the very backbone of a market, a modern market economy. And so to suggest at all that what's happening in the repo market, the reserve managed purchase program that the Fed is currently engaged in has no real impact on the real world economy or inflation, in our opinion, in the context of a $7 trillion balance sheet, in my opinion, I think that's, you know, for lack of a better word, it's bullshit. It's bullshit, you know? When you see that, what is the data

that they're looking at that they would use on the defensive side? Like part of this to me is not just like, they're not licking their finger and sticking it in the air. Like they have all their academic theories and all this stuff, right? So like, is there anything that they're looking at

that you're like, okay, I see where they're coming from, I just disagree? Or do you think the whole thing is just they've lost their minds? Yeah. And so where I would point you to is the concept that money supply has been de-anchored from the real economy and inflation. And that is largely true because we've seen so much growth of money supply not go into the real economy in recent decades. That's part of the reason why labor share of national income has declined so much is because we're finding more and more clever

ways to extract rent from the economy. Not we, the corporate sector, has found more and more clever ways to extract money from the economy, whether you think about globalization, whether you think about, you know, forcing, busting, union busting, you know, pushing people to define contribution pensions as opposed to define benefit pensions. There's been all these sort of, you know, regulatory, you know, dynamics that have caused, you know, sort of the growth rate of money to wind up less and less in the hands of small businesses, less and less in the hands of median households and less and less in the hands of sectors, emerging sectors in the economy. It's really all going to high gross margin, high profit companies where most of that income winds

up in the capital markets. It doesn't wind up in the real economy. The velocity of money has slowed tremendously in recent decades. And so that's kind of the academic argument that they would make, which is saying, hey, we can take our balance sheet up to an infinite number because the reality is most of this money is just going to wind up in the stock market. They won't say what I just said about the stock market. But that's the truth, right? We're just this money is just going to wind up inflating assets over the long term. It's not going to have a material impact on inflation. But as we talked about, you and I talked about last time there, that is not a costless exercise. There's something called the Cantillon effect that no academic wishes to touch

because they understand that if we if they bring the phrase Cantillon effect into the public sector lexicon, then everyone will realize that when the stock market goes up 20 percent year after year after year and your income as a median consumer, you know, a regular everyday main street worker only goes up, you know, four to five percent year after year. And oh, by the way, inflation in some years is greater than that. Then you just get left behind because their purchasing power, the purchasing power of people like us who have our loan, those assets rises exponentially, whereas their purchasing power does not rise if at all, you know, does not rise exponentially, if at all. Sometimes it declines. And so ultimately that gap winds over time, over time,

over time, so that when you and I show up to go buy a new car for our family, or show up to buy a new house for our family, or show up to buy groceries for our family, we have a lot more money that we can demand these goods and services with, whereas they don't. And so that that that cancel on effect is a real big issue from the perspective of inflation, because it ultimately means that inflation is really only impacting the people who can least afford to have it impact them. So if I look right now, overall grocery prices since early 2020, so call it six-ish years or so, have increased roughly 29% according to the government data. So let's just say that they're accurate, which I think you and I probably got questions about, but let's give them credit and

say, okay, they're right. 30% in six years is bonkers increase in grocery prices. Bonkers. Well, it's not like we forgot how to make food, by the way. You know, like I think about this is a supply demand dynamic. So like we didn't run out of arable land. We didn't run out of clever techniques to extract more crop yields. And so the only reason grocery prices can possibly be going up is because the unit of measurement that we're pricing the groceries in is going down. That's it. That's the only way. That's the only way. You know, the Bloomberg was one of my favorite analyses that I've did. And I'll tweet it out when you publish this. I'll attach it to the post when we publish this discussion. One of my favorite analyses that I did, because I think it is going back to this kind of insidious Wall Street, you know, Jack O'Lion type, you know, dynamic that we see with central banking here in this country. me. If you go to Bloomberg and just type in U.S. dollar currency, which is the ticker,

the time series history for the dollar, not against any currency, just the dollar, just what is the dollar worth? And it just says one every single day since Nixon broke the gold standard back in August of 1971. But the reality is, as we know, the dollar has declined in price. Heaven forbid, we have a CPI index. We got a stock market index that goes up over time, priced in dollars. So the dollar has declined in prices relative to the stock market. It has declined in prices relative to the CPI index. It's declined in prices relative to what the real cost of goods and services in the economy, because we know the government is highly incentivized to underreport that stuff. And so when you start to invert things and start pricing them in units

of dollars, like instead of saying price of S&P in one dollar, what's one dollar's ability to purchase one share of the S&P? What is one dollar's ability to purchase one banana at the grocery store or one gallon of gas, and you invert those prices, you really see the structural multi-decade decline in our purchasing power that's been masked by these academic arguments that money supply has no impact in the real world, which again, sorry for me using this word again, is bullshit. And thank God for Kevin Warsh to come in and into the Fed and kind of hopefully change the mindset around this. Stephen Moran was on CNBC the other day talking about this as well. You know, the reality is, is this, you know, the academics, they want to exclude anything that could be potentially inflationary via the Cantillon effect from discussions about inflation and the balance sheet and ultimately monetary policy because they want carte blanche to continue implementing those policies for the bankers and the masters that they serve, which is not the ordinary Main Street American households.

And so hopefully, it's my hope as someone who understands these dynamics at a very high level and someone from the bottom of that K, I'm hoping from based on everything he's saying in his testimony a couple of weeks ago, that Kevin Warsh understands what I'm talking about and will go there and fight for the people in terms of changing the mindset. I think that this is going to be huge. You can now automatically take profits when one market hits new all-time highs and rotate that capital into other markets, showing more opportunity. Whether you're rotating capital into AI stocks, gold, if you're investing in the S&P 500, or you're accumulating Bitcoin, Archpublic brings real discipline and automation to your investment strategy. Additionally, they've launched a powerful new tax loss harvesting tool. With crypto being so volatile and its exemption from the wash sale rule, Archpublic can offset gains with losses without compromising your long-term positions.

It's exactly what every serious investor does. Institutional-grade automation that works across every major asset class. There's no more emotional trading, no more missing tax opportunities, just smarter, hands-free execution of your preferred strategies. Go to archpublic.com right now. Connect with our team, set up a time, bring your accountant if you'd like, and then you can learn what automated trading can do for you. archpublic.com

Now, Kevin Warsh has said that he is not going to provide kind of Fed guidance or, you know, forward looking things. I think that there's two reactions to this. The first is great. They don't know what they're going to do in the future. So stop talking about it. On the other hand, everyone on Wall Street is like, oh, my God, I can't think for myself. I need someone to tell me what they might possibly do, you know, in the future. What are your clients saying? But do they like this idea or do they not like this idea? And the reason why I'm interested in that is because it kind of is changing the way that people analyze the Fed's potential impact on the market over the next six or 12 months?

Oh, that's a phenomenal question, because we have two types of clients, for specific as it relates to this question. We have global fixed income clients, folks who manage hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars. We know we have a couple of clients who manage trillions of dollars of global fixed income. But then we also have non-fixed income clients, which are equity investors, portfolio managers, people who invest across asset classes, credit, et cetera, crypto clients, crypto hedge funds, et cetera. And so I would say the clients in the fixed income space are annoyed as heck by this change. You know, they're so used to making easy money by gaming what the Fed is going to say next

and as a function of their legacy forecast, we know that what they're going to say next is a sort of high autocorrelation between what they previous said. Well, now we're moving to an era where the autocorrelation between what the Fed previously said and what they say and do next is declining. And so that ultimately makes it harder for the fixed income investors to make money, but it makes it easier for the rest of us who can forecast accurately to make money. And here's why. By injecting volatility into the interest rate curve, particularly on the short end of the interest rate curve, by not over-communicating, which is what Kevin Warsh is seeking to do, by injecting that volatility, you ultimately allow the financial markets to price in, the better price in, more accurately price in, changes in the interest rate curve. the R-star, which is the real policy rate, or changes in the neutral rate better, as opposed to what the markets have previously been doing, which is anchoring on previous Fed forward guidance. And so by allowing the markets to price in changes, real-time changes to the R-star and

the neutral rate, you ultimately create an economy that doesn't deviate too far in one direction or the other. That is a massive, important change from a sociological and economic standpoint, that ultimately shrinks the distribution of probable outcomes, it reduces the probability of having significant left tail events like the global financial crisis, it reduces the probability of having significant right tail events, like what we saw in early 2021. You know, you're just basically compressing the range of probable outcomes, which is actually better for the economy long term, because you ultimately businesses can plan better, households can plan better, we ultimately get to a much better sequence of outcomes. When we look at Kevin

warsh's comments right i'm going to read to you uh kind of a summary of one of the important things the part maybe that i'm most interested in of his understanding that seems like the old fed uh administration did not uh warsh has described the artificial intelligence boom as a heavily productivity enhancing and structurally disinflationary wave again that's he describes the artificial intelligence boom as a heavily productivity enhancing and structurally deflation disinflationary wave though he maintains that immediate rate decisions depend strictly on broad economic readings rather than just tech sector growth the thing i take away from this is this guy knows there's this tsunami coming of all of the robotics and automation and ai and all this

kind of stuff at the same time he seems to be pretty rational saying you can't start trying to extrapolate what we think is going to happen in five or ten years and pull it to the future and then all of a sudden say let's make policy decisions based on a maybe so have we had a fed chairman who has this balance between understanding a technology trend and direction of travel but still seems pretty rooted with their feet on the ground like i don't know if we've seen someone kind of talk like this before look i mean you have to go back to greenspan right greenspan this is the last time we saw you know significant you know capital deepening in the economy that led to a meaningful productivity boom. We had 150 basis point, you know, trend acceleration and

productivity growth from the mid-90s to the mid-2000s. And so, you know, that was obviously part of that was the function of the diffusion of internet technology, technology throughout the economy. But it wasn't just that. It was other things as well. And so, you know, anchoring on that legacy, you know, yes, the answer to your question is yeah. It's been a while since we've had a Fed chair that understands that the sequence of outcomes is just as important, if not more important than the destination. And here's why. I just said our star has been gravitating higher. Neutral rate has been gravitating higher according to our market implied estimate of the neutral rate. It's our we built a model that essentially tries to extract

from various market pricing what the market's estimate of neutral is. And, you know, it's basically gone up by about, you know, two rate hikes in the last couple of months. And so what that ultimately means is the market is signaling to the Fed. The market is telling the Fed, hey, we are running out of money at the margins. And so in order for you to attract this increasingly limited supply of capital, Mr. Treasury market, you need to raise your interest rate. You need to raise the ex ante return on this security. Otherwise, I'm going to go buy a piece of NVIDIA hyperscaler debt, or I'm going to go buy this stock that's going up 10x, what a fixed income return would be. And so that's the whole concept of our star and neutral.

That's the market's ability. That's the market's communication mechanism, either through our star neutral interest rates or inflation expectations, rather. That's the way the market communicates to the Fed to tell them to do stuff. And so the market is telling the Fed that, hey, if you want, if the Treasury Department wants more of my money, you need to make the interest rate higher because I have alternate uses for this capital and or the supply of capital is dwindling at the margins. Fun fact, if you look at the growth rate of global savings on a trailing 10-year basis, it's about 55%. That's one of the lowest readings in the history of the time series. The long run mean of the trailing 10-year percentage change in global savings is about 90%.

percent. Right now, we are currently at 55 percent. So we've had a tremendous deceleration in the growth rate of global savings. At the same time, we're having a tremendous acceleration in the demand for capital. Obviously, we have an AI CapEx bubble. We obviously have a bubble in sovereign deficits all across the world. If you look at the U.S.'s latest value, it's close to 6 percent. That compares to a long run mean of 3 percent in terms of our budget deficit. The global budget deficit on an aggregate basis is about 5%. That compares to a long run mean of about two and a half, 3%. And so you have this bubble in sovereign deficits that is increasingly demanding capital at a time where capital is starting to become scarce at the margins. And we can see it

in AI stocks. Now, when we go and we look at the average person, I think that they're complaining about, and rightfully so, gas is high, groceries are high, they can't afford a home, credit card interest rates have exploded higher. I mean, student loan debt, all this stuff is just going crazy now pull that back and mom donnie in new york he's got a plan he's gonna have five grocery stores run by the by the government go out to california they got a plan it seems like you know kind of blue states are saying hey we hear you we're gonna help fix it red states i think are saying we hear you but they're kind of saying like that's for the private sector to solve that that's we're not going to get involved there if you put aside all of the nasty like uh uh

bipartisan politic stuff and just say look at the economic policies we essentially are going to run two different experiments in this country based on the current situation yeah if you had to pick one positive from both the red states and the blue states how would you look at like what are the things they're doing that you like in both of those experiments? Boy, that's my favorite question I've had in probably in a podcast in history. I've known this for almost two decades. Yeah. Oh my God. Sorry not to digress, but I would say, and again, I'm to have someone with political aspirations. You know, I, you know, I was going to Yale so that, you know, going to Yale delusion. No, no. I'm saying this, like having been in the president's room at the Yale club,

you realize like, these are people who will just like me, they're just on the wall now, You know what I mean? And so, like, at some point, you know, these, you know, it's not inconceivable that Darius Dale could be the president of the United States someday. It's not inconceivable that Anthony Pompliano could be the president of the United States someday. In fact, I fully intend to run for political office with you at some point in the future. I don't know if you know that, but you know now, because I believe that you and I, and I'm really grateful you asked this question, because I believe that you and I can, again, I'm going to use the word again for the fourth time. I almost never curse, by the way. You and I can see through the bullshit. We understand that this game the politicians are playing is a game designed to gamify our angst. They're designed to they're weaponizing our angst so that they can gain more of our resources and stay in power and or acquire incremental units of power. That's why it's so violent, Republican versus Democrat in this country, because the people who control the system understand that if you divide, you can conquer and administer power to greater degrees and for longer periods of time.

This has been tried in every society throughout human history. But you and I are smart enough to recognize that game and knock it over. They might kill us before that happens, but that's neither there nor there. I'd rather die trying than stand silent. But going back to answer your answering your question, what I like from the Democrats side of thing or the blue state side of thing, whatever we want to call it, is that they're actually listening to the people who've been left behind by this sort of evolution of this K-shaped society. Now, where I strongly disagree with them is in their solutions. We know socialism doesn't work. You don't have to go to college to figure that out. You can just go on YouTube at this point. And so, you know, any policy that is designed to restrict prices and or supply will ultimately cause more inflation and cause more problems longer term. And you won't you won't solve the underlying problem, which is people don't have enough money to afford a quality lifestyle.

That is the underlying problem we're trying to solve. The issue with the red state side of things is that they want to do more of the things that are causing the K-shaped economy to begin with. We have K-shaped monetary policy. we know if you look at the Fed relative to a baseline Taylor rule estimate, its policy has gotten easier and easier and easier and easier and ridiculously easy over time. If you look at the Fed's balance sheet or the monetary base relative to the economy or relative to the stock market has gotten easier and easier and easier over time. So that is gets contributing to that cantaloupe effect by inflating asset prices at rates that are far exceeding the median wage

growth. I mean, we've left the median wage in the dust by hilarious degrees in recent decades. And so monetary policy has been a key contributor to that. K-shaped monetary policy has been a key contributor to the K-shaped economy crisis. K-shaped fiscal policy has been a key contributor to the K-shaped economy crisis. If you want to look at all the money that the government spends on poor people, when you aggregate all the means-tested programs, it's about $1.2, $1.3 trillion dollars currently, that compares to about $2.6 trillion that the government spends on rich people in the form of national defense and net interest on the debt. When the government has a contract, it goes to Alex Carp at Palantir or Elon Musk or whoever manufactures all these

bombs and missiles and drones. It doesn't go to poor people who are lining up at the food bank. So we're basically spending double the amount of money on rich people as a federal government than we do on poor people. So that's K-shaped monetary policy. That dynamic's been going on for years. And lastly, as we started the conversation, case-shaped regulatory policy. We've allowed big business to take over the Supreme Court in this country in the past 55 decades to the degree that we no longer have, you know, trust busting. We have union busting to the degree that we no longer have defined benefit pensions. We have defined contribution pensions. You know, we have all these things, offshoring, globalization, you know, the AI race,

You know, the race to replace white collar labor with, you know, quote unquote, low cost, you know, bits and tokens, you know, all these things that are basically, you know, great for generating profits and higher stock prices, which is great if you're on the top part of the K like us, but they are contributing to the problem. They're causing the problem of the ordinary person cannot afford to live a quality life. And so you have to find a middle ground between listening to the people and understanding the drivers of why those people are upset and why those people, why we need to basically walk them off the ledge before we lose our society, because that's the way that's where this is at. Today's episode is brought to you by Uphold. Are you someone who's tired of juggling multiple apps just to trade, earn, stake or spend your crypto? Then listen up, because Uphold does all of that in one single unified platform. You can access 300-plus crypto and fiat currencies with an interface that works for you, whether you're a beginner or an expert. Uphold also features any-to-any swaps, where you can swap crypto to fiat, fiat to metals, and tokens to tokens directly in the app.

If you prefer self-custody, Uphold's vault gives you multi-sig security, key recovery, direct trading access, and peace of mind without giving up convenience. Uphold is also 100% reserved, meaning no fractional practices and proof of reserves are updated every 30 seconds so you can verify your assets anytime. For U.S. users, you can even earn yield on dollars with a USD interest account. No fees, no minimums, and funds are insured up to $2.5 million through the Atomic Cash Suite program. If you want one app for your entire digital asset life, check out Uphold today. Go to Uphold.com to learn more.

Uphold.com. Go check them out today. Today's episode is brought to you by Simple Mining. Bitcoin mining has a reputation for being complicated, risky, and hard to evaluate as a real investment. If you're considering mining in 2026, what actually matters isn't headline profitability. It's uptime, repairs,

and whether the operation is run like a real business. That's why I've been using Simple Mining. They're based in Cedar Falls, Iowa, and they run a white glove hosting operation where you own your miners. You choose your own pool, and you have Bitcoin sent directly to your wallet. They were featured on the Inc. 5000 list

as the fastest growing company in Iowa with over 40,000 machines under management. What stands out to me is execution. They have the number one rated ASIC repair center and for the first 12 months, repairs are included. If mining margins get tight, you can pause with no penalties. And if you want to resize or upgrade your fleet,

there's a marketplace to resell equipment instead of being stuck. To help people think it through whether mining actually makes sense right now, they put together a short resource called the 2026 bitcoin mining blueprint it walks through the five mistakes investors make when allocating the mining and they also explain how to avoid them before deploying capital if it sounds interesting to you you can get it for free at simplemining.io slash pomp that's

simplemining.io slash pomp go check it out today and see if you should get into the mining game i wrote a piece um earlier this week and i talked about how socialism is one of the biggest threats to investors' portfolios, but I talk about explicit and implicit, and that's basically what you're talking about here. There's explicit Mamdani grocery stores. There's implicit, we're printing cash and we're giving it to somebody, right?

And it's two different forms, two different kind of avenues for money to go from the federal government into people's hands. And really the fight now in politics is over who gets to be the recipient of the socialism. Amen. And I think that there's a huge challenge with the number of people who believe that we should have a small government. That number is disappearing. I mean, I talked to a lot of folks. There's red and blue. I don't see a lot of libertarians. I don't see a lot of folks who are saying, get both of these parties away from me.

And I think that those folks who do have those beliefs, they feel like they're kind of outcasts when it comes to the US political system now. And the reason why I'm so interested in it is because I do believe that those folks tend to have the best understanding from the economic policies that are being implemented to what portfolios are likely to work, and also probably have some of the best returns in their portfolio if you go because they understand what both parties are doing and how it affects the investment assets. Amen.

Amen. You nailed it, man. You absolutely nailed it. And part of the reason, like, you know, when I first started, when I first joined Wall Street, I was a card-carrying member of the Von Mises Institute and, you know, School of Wall Street Economics. And, you know, that's part of my core belief system because ultimately I understand from, you know, studying literary works like the greatest literary work of all time, the Bible, and studying many other literary works throughout my academic career and post-college, you know, deliberate study process, is that none of this stuff works over the long term. It always winds up getting corrupted. It all, if you, the bigger government gets, no matter if it's big government to make Alex Karp and Elon Musk rich or big government to make people at the food bank less hungry, if no matter how big the, if it's big, the bigger the government gets, the worse outcomes are in society. And part of the reason for that, I believe we talked about this the last time I was on your show.

part of the reason for that is this dynamic called the wealth pump and the wealth pump peter turchin um you know his colleagues at the crisis db and and complexity science institute in vienna you know they've done a tremendous amount of academic research on this is quite possibly the most well-researched social uh socioeconomic you know kind of um database that i've ever seen in my you know two decades of doing this and even throughout my scholastic experience and and basically what they found is that like the bigger the government gets the more it gets weaponized to create, you know, disparate outcomes for certain groups relative to other groups. The more the divvying up of the pie starts to get, you know, bad, basically, it starts to create more

conflict and violence in society. And so, you know, if I can just end with this, you know, part of the data that they presented in this, in this, in this crisis DB database and the complexity science Institute. And again, this is like hundreds of PhD researchers from universities all over the world have combined to, you know, kind of contribute to this over the past few decades, tough couple of decades. And so now that they are finally starting to publish a lot of their work, I'll just leave you with seven numbers. If you look at economies that share the US's current K-shaped dynamics, and part of the reason we have current K-shaped dynamics is because of K-shaped monetary policy, K-shaped fiscal policy, and K-shaped regulatory policy

that's been used to extract rent and wealth from the lower classes of society to the upper classes of society. When you have those types of case shape dynamics that are being driven by what they call the wealth pump, you tend to have very bad outcomes. So let me just go through seven numbers here. If you look at the historical probability of these outcomes, and thus far, they've done this across 100 different societies, expanding millennia, obviously all the big ones in there, the Chinese, Rome, US, French, all these other big societies. I think they're currently studying another 200, if I'm not correct. But the first 100, the first main ones that they have the best data for, this is the historical probability of select outcomes.

17% of these societies that have the U.S.'s current K-shaped crisis dynamics end with systemic violence against elites like us. 20% of those outcomes wind up with recurrent civil wars lasting for at least 100 years. 40% of those societies wind up with assassination of their rulers. 50% of those societies wind up with substantial population decline. 60% of those societies wind up with state collapse via conquest or disintegration into multiple states, which is very much what could be happening right now in the United States of America. 67% of those societies wind up featuring systemic downward mobility of elites. And then 75% of those societies end with revolution, civil war, or both. Again, this is the historic frequentist probability of

the outcomes that economies that share our current K-shaped dynamics wind up into. What are you most excited about over the next four or five years? If you had to point, we talked a lot about the challenges. I think that people are feeling that. What gives you hope? What gives me hope is that things are going to get bad enough for us to fix it. Yeah, that's what gives me hope. And that anchors on my former colleague, one of my mentors, Neil Howe, is for Turningberg. He sees this as more of a reflexive, you know cyclical process and we have to go through we have to go through these seasons of of disintegration and violence and conflict to kind of right the ship because ultimately human

beings are you know we are easily tempted you know human beings are very greedy creatures were easily tempted resources are scarce and so ultimately we wind up trying to not we but you know human beings in general particularly people who don't have a core belief system like being christian etc if you don't have a core belief system that says the herd is better than me it's more important than me and you just operate with my my mind give me mine selfish give me mine i gotta get mine i gotta get mine and that's how most human beings operate you're ultimately going to wind up with these really uh harsh outcomes and so i'm very i'm most excited about things getting bad enough for us to finally fix these problems so that you know your children my

children can grow up in a world that's much more socially cohesive and a lot less you know anxious i uh i think there's a lot of people who want to see that future come to uh come to fruition Where can we send people to find you or find more about 42 Macro? Yeah, no, I appreciate you, man. Again, like I said, I'm here to educate and learn and learn from you. Folks want to come check us out, check us out at 42macro.com. Having these types of conversations is maybe 1% of what we do. The number one thing we do for all of our clients is helping them stay on the right

side of market risk, whether we maximizing upside capture in a bull market, minimizing downside capture in a bear market. And we do it through the lens of some of the best quantitative risk management systems that you're going to be able to access at price points that regular people can pay for. So, you know, again, I cut my teeth designing systems like this for the global buy side. And now we sell them to regular people because I think that's the right thing to do. I think you guys do a fantastic job. Obviously, I'm a fan of you and 42 Macro.

So I appreciate your time to do this and we'll do it again next month. Yeah, God bless you, brother. And thank you again for this opportunity to educate, man. We need to have these conversations as a country.