The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - America’s Casino Economy — with Kyla Scanlon

Episode Date: October 30, 2025

Scott Galloway speaks with Kyla Scanlon, an economic commentator, educator, and author of In This Economy? How Money and Markets Really Work. Kyla explains how gambling culture has seeped into markets and everyday investing, why America has effectively become a giant bet on AI, and what the rise of “risk-aggressive” leadership means for the next generation. They also explore the widening gap between Wall Street and the real economy, the dangers of over-concentration in Big Tech, and how social media and polarization are reshaping economic behavior. Follow Kyla, @kylascan.Algebra of Happiness: are you unafraid? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from Sacks Fifth Avenue. Sacks Fifth Avenue makes it easy to holiday your way. Whether it's finding the right gift or the right outfit, Sacks is where you can find everything from a stunning David Ehrman bracelet for her or a sleek pair of pheragama loafers to wear to a fancy holiday dinner. And if you don't know where to start, Sacks.com is customized your personal style so you can save time shopping and spend more time just enjoying the holidays. Make shopping fun and easy this season and find gifts and inspiration to suit your holiday style at Sacks Fifth Avenue.

Support for this show comes from the Audible Original, The Downloaded 2, Ghosts in the Machine. Quantum computers, the next great frontier of technology, offering endless possibilities that stretch the human mind. But for Roscoe Cudulian and the Phoenix Colony, quantum computing uploads the human mind with life-altering consequences. Audibles hit sci-fi thriller The Downloaded returns with Oscar winner Brendan Reprising his role as Rosco Cudulian in The Downloaded 2, Ghosts in the Machine.

This thought-provoking sequel from Robert J. Sawyer takes listeners on a captivating sci-fi journey, a mind-bending must-listen that asks, what are you willing to lose to save the ones you love? The Downloaded 2, Ghosts in the Machine. Available now, only from Audible. Support for this show comes from the Audible Original, the downloaded two, ghosts in the machine. The Earth only has a few days left. Rosco Cudulian and the rest of the Phoenix colony have to re-upload their minds into the quantum computer, but a new threat has arisen that could destroy their stored consciousness forever.

Listen to Oscar winner Brendan Fraser reprised his role as Rosco Cudulian in this follow-up to the Audible Original Blockbuster, The Downloaded, it's a thought-provoking sci-fi journey where identity, memory, and morality collide. Robert J. Sawyer does it again with this much-anticipated sequel that leaves you asking, What are you willing to lose to save the ones you love? The Downloaded 2. Ghosts in the Machine. Available now, only from Audible. Episode 371. 371 is the country code for Latvia. In 1971, Starbucks opened its first store in Seattle. True story, I've gotten really into VR. And like many technologies, the first great real application is porn. And I tell you, you cannot get over how immersive it is. I got totally lost in this porn film in VR. Unfortunately, I forgot I was out of Starbucks. Welcome to the 3701 episode of the Prop G-Pod.

What's happening? I'm home in London now, but heading to New York soon to kick off my press tour for our latest book, Notes on Being a Man. And truth be told, I'm looking forward to getting to New York, and I'm looking forward to seeing friends, but we're doing literally every. from the view to Morning Joe to Bill Marr. And quite frankly, I'm intimidated. I'm just really wanting it to be over. I want to do really well. And I guess that's good. That's part of it. But I have, I'm going on anxiety, but I'm more intimidated and sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. I know this book is going to sell a lot. And I know that sounds arrogant, but I usually have a feel for this stuff. And again, more lucky than good, the timing is right. This is a conversation

that's sort of evolving and pivoting from, okay, the manosphere where some really ugly voices entered into the void, to the far rights credit, or to the rights credit, they recognized the problem before other people. They said something is wrong in Mudville. The problem was their answer was to regress to the 50s where non-whites and women had much less power, much less agency. That's not the answer. And then to start these weird fucking videos from Tucker Carlson or. or nominate for president people who conflate masculinity with cruelty and coarseness. So that's not correct either. So I think there's an understandable or has been an understandable gag reflex anytime you start talking about the crisis of young men or the crisis young men are facing. My producer says, what is the point of the book? I'll give you sort of a distillation. And that is, I think that young people really benefit from a code.

And that is you have to make hundreds, if not thousands of decisions every day, big and small. all. And it's difficult to make these decisions just floating in space and responding to them real time. And where do you get this code? You can get it from your religion. You can get it from the military. You can get it even from your corporation. You can get it from your parents. What does that mean? It means you should immediately feel that that physical strength is used to help others, to protect others. So let me get to what I think are sort of the three legs of the stool of basically of masculinity and one overarching thing. Provider, protector, and procreator. Provider. I think in a capitalist economy, every man should, at the outset, as a young man, assume that he is going to need to take economic responsibility for him and his family. And by the way, sometimes that means getting out of the way and being more supportive of your partner who's better at the money thing than you. I think we have to, from a very young age, teach boys that the greatest demonstration of strength is protection. And it's not just physical. People are bad-mouthing someone else. Your default is to protect them and to defend them.

Finally, procreation. I think we need to celebrate a young man's horniness, his desire to have sex, his desire to have a partnership. One of the key attributes of a man that will yield dividends is their ability to establish friendships, express friendship, but also demonstrate and communicate romantic interest, and here's the key part, while making that person feel safe. But real mating and real interest begins in person. I went to Temple and I saw how kind he was. I worked with him and saw how outstanding he was at what he does. I hung out with him and just found that he was funny and nice and responsible and wasn't a fucking idiot staying out late. He went home because he had a plan. I always felt safe around him. Providing, protecting, procreating. And what does it all add up to? What is the litmus test for when a boy becomes a man? It has nothing to do with age. I know a lot of males that have never become men. That's nothing to do with a religious ceremony. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with sex. What it has to do with is one term,

surplus value. You witness people's lives. If you are able to someday, towards the end, think I loved so many people so much that while I received a great deal of love back, I go out on the plus side of this column, I have achieved surplus value. Then you leave this earth a man. All right, enough of that. In today's episode, we speak with Kyla Scanlan, an economic commentator, educator, and bestselling author of In This Economy, how money and markets really work. We discussed with Kyla Trump's casino economy, what to make of the AI bubble, and why the markets no longer reflect reality. So with that, here's our conversation with Kyla Scanlon. Where does this podcast find you? I'm actually in Florida right now. Marco Island. Marco Island.

Wait, you have grandparents or parents who vacation in Florida? No? What's going on? No, no. I'm here for the equipment, leasing, and finance conference. Yeah. I heard it's a crazy party. Is it gotten out of control yet?

The ELF party? Yeah, Michael Phelps is here today. So it's fun. Yeah, I spoke yesterday. So I'm leaving later today. But that is where you find me is Marco Island. Yeah. Thank you for being here.

We wanted to bring you on because you had a, what was, I thought, a really interesting and provocative piece in the New York Times, arguing that the American economy is really Trump Casino, you said. Can you walk us through that thesis? Yeah. So that piece, you know, the economy has always been somewhat of a casino. know, but underneath the Trump administration, like, there's a lot more room for gambling. Like, you could see tariffs as a gamble on the American economy that our allies will want to continue to work with us, that the dollar will remain stable. But then also in private markets, you're seeing a lot of gambling-esque things, too, like private credit is looking a little bit shaky,

venture capital firms or funding, like debt roulette startups. And then, of course, you have the AI bubble that everybody is talking about right now. So it just feels like every. where you turn around from the government shutdown to the stock market, like gambling has become the status quo. Do you think I'm trying to reverse engineer this to something very basic, and that is, so I would argue the geopolitics is just an administration that's somewhat ignorant and hasn't done the game theory and overestimates their power at the poker table. They show up with cards they don't actually have.

And that's, I would call that poor judgment. I'm not sure it's gambling. But at the same time, on the other end, what I see is a lot of young people who are constantly reminded every day that they're failing because they don't have, you know, ripped abs or aren't on a Gulfstream or didn't make 300% yesterday on some meme coin. And they believe that that is a normal part of the economy taking these sorts of crazy outsized risks and are engaging in it. And they have access to this type of risk taking. in their pocket. As someone who is younger, have you done any research or any thoughts about how this, it strikes me, this gambling economy seems to be especially prevalent among your generation. Your thoughts? Yeah, John Cohen wrote a great book that came out a few months ago about the rise

of sports gambling. And so he did a lot of on the ground reporting with young people. Like, one of his primary interviews was an early 20s person named Kyle, who was living in Colorado who had had his life destroyed by gambling. And so you do see a lot of people go towards that path. Like one of the theories that I've been testing is that there's this idea is that young people have like zero risk tolerance or like all the risk tolerance. So you see, you know, Gen Z becoming the tool belt generation, going back to the trades. I think that's primarily to reduce risk. Like when I talk to people who are going down that path, they're like, I don't think a college degree is going to pay off. So I'm just going to take this staple job at the

factory. And then you see other young people who are going into meme coins. They're going into sports betting. They're, you know, vetting it all on companies that are doing AI things. And so it has become increasingly prevalent, I think, because people are just grasping for straws to try and climb the economic ladder. You outline three likely outcomes for this casino economy. The more probable one being that we see smaller crises unfolding as low growth persists through a series of disparate shocks. Do you see any kind of initial signs of the trouble that you're monitoring in this casino economy? I mean, lots of people are starting to talk about private credit. I think that's a bit concerning. Like, we're seeing some of the auto lenders start to go

bankrupt. First brands tri-color. J.P. Morgan lost, I think, $175 million on that company going under. Primeland. So you're starting to see some ruptures begin to happen in the private market where all of this risk was taken on. And there was like zero regulation, which is always a recipe for disaster. So I think we're starting to see that begin to show up. And then I think we're starting to see young people begin to suffer from the consequences of the unfettered access to gambling. which you talk a lot about as well. And so I think we are starting to see some of these pain pockets begin to pop up for sure. What do you think of these predictions markets?

Like, one is businesses and two is a reflection on our kind of society and economy. I mean, I think it is kind of like gamble on everything. It's, I don't know. Like, I think the idea makes sense. And like if you're trying to find consensus for information, I think that makes sense. and like, sure. But I think what they incentivize is people finding some sort of way to gamble on everything. Like one of the comments underneath my New York Times article on Twitter was like, how can I bet on how many views this article is going to get? And so I think everybody is just

seeing the world through the lens of gambling, which is not a very stable or well-structured society. And when I say everybody, obviously, like I'm, you know, being dramatic. It's not everybody. but it is a lot of people, because, again, it seems like the one way to make money is to bet on everything, and that's concerning. Do you think some of it, and again, this is really is a question looking for illumination and potentially pushback? But I wonder if some of it is kind of our role models for a younger generation. When I think about the president is always going to be a role model, whether we want them to be or not. and the wealthiest person in the world in a capitalist society. In both of these individuals, it feels like they're sort of conflating or creating an image where you can easily conflate masculinity

and leadership with being incredibly aggressive and incredibly risk aggressive, like doing things that have never been done before, saying things that have never been done before, shooting a rocket into space that scissors can capture. I mean, there's a positive side to this risk aggression. But it feels as if our leaders are no longer measured in any way that they're taking these outsized risks in that sort of, is that potentially what's going on here that our role models are just more risk aggressive from, you know, any angle? I think a little bit. And like not all risk is bad. Like in order to grow an economy, you know, you have to be able to catch a spaceship inside of scissors. You have to take on some element of risk. But I think like the

risk that is being encouraged now. Like when you look at the president just objectively, like the guy bankrupted because he knows. Like he took on a ton of risk and, you know, that wasn't always successful, but he had like some form of a safety net to catch him, whereas a lot of people are taking on risk now are doing it because they have no safety net. And so I think people are looking at the billionaires, maybe soon to be trillioners, and saying like, okay, they took these big leaps, like they figured it out. Like, hopefully I can do that too. But the path is. not always that clear and it's not that stable and that those people had a lot of help along the way. But I do think it encourages behavior that might not be conducive to cohesiveness.

Like when we think about Twitter and, you know, even just like quote unquote taking a risk on saying something polarizing on Twitter. Like a lot of people are monetizing their accounts that way. So, yeah, that sort of gambling mindset applies to both money and to communication. So we now have 10 companies responsible or make up 40% of the S&P. The S&P is 50% of global market cap. So 10 companies are now arguably 20% of the world's value, at least in the public markets. That to me feels like a concentration of risk that typically we didn't like to have or tolerate. What are your thoughts on the concentration of value across the small number of companies?

Yeah, I don't think it's great because also it's, you know, 40% of GDP growth is coming from the AI companies. And the 20% of companies that you reference are like primarily dabbling in AI, the big tech companies. And, you know, there's 75% of S&P 500 earnings growth. And so like our whole economy is becoming this like really big, risky bet on AI. But when you think about, you know, the jobs that we're adding, they're primarily in health care and social services, at least the last time that we got data from the government. And so like these companies are taking on more and more value. They're growing bigger and bigger. but they're maybe not adding to the economy in a way that we would expect outside of building

data centers. Like, data centers don't add that many jobs. You don't need that many people building them. Like what the U.S. needs is jobs. And so I worry about that. Like, I think I do worry about the concentration risk, especially when we think about 401Ks and people who are going to try to retire soon. Like, all of the onus of their retirement is on them, and therefore it's on the S&P 500 continuing to succeed. And then I also worry about these companies really just suck in the life out of the market and then not contributing to the economy in a way of a growing labor market. Yeah, I pair a comment you made that just sort of summarized the economy right now. You said America is essentially a giant bet on AI.

And I thought that was just such a kind of cogent distillation of what's going on right now. My sense of history is the stuff you're expecting to go right oftentimes doesn't and the stuff you're expecting go wrong. oftentimes doesn't. Like upticks in the market are from areas we weren't expecting and crises, you know, 9-11 and COVID, very few people were predicting those things. If you were, if someone said to you at your conference, Kyla, do you think it's a good time or a bad time to invest in this AI economy? What are your thoughts? I mean, what I've been telling people, and obviously like it's not investment advice, but I still think it's important to have some exposure to the company. Not all exposure. Like that's kind of one of the issues with younger investors is like 70% of their portfolio will be in tech companies, which is like, you know, decent rule of thumb. But with the concentration risk, I think it's pretty dangerous. And so a lot of investment advisors will advise you to diversify across gold, across utility companies, across like things that are a little bit more stable, you know, across international companies too. So not having your whole whole portfolio.

just exposed domestic. So I think that's like one way to navigate the uncertainty and, you know, the potential bubble popping that we might have. So that's, that's been a good rule of thumb. What does Kyla Scanlon do with her money? How do you invest? What's your approach to investing? Yeah, Kyla Scanlan does what I just said. So, yeah, that's what I do is like, yeah. Yeah, yeah, primarily. And then I, you know, I've been taking advantage of high yield savings accounts as well. You know, the Fed is probably going to cut rates, so that's going to get less and less exciting. But when rates were high, that was pretty cool. But, yeah, no, I'm pretty exposed across ETFs. I'm a very boring, very plain vanilla investor. I, you know, put aside 20 bucks a month

toward the S&P. And then I've been investing more and more in gold. But the recent run-up in gold, that's been a bit like, oh, this feels a little dangerous too, which is crazy that, like, like people are looking at gold as something that's too risky to invest in. I have some exposure to crypto as well. So I just try to like have a diversification as one of the only free lunches in investing, as they say. So I try to take advantage of that. And do you buy the thesis that the surge in gold and the increase in crypto over the last couple of years is essentially the debasement of the dollar and trust in America? I mean, that's, you know, that's an interesting topic that.

a lot of people have gone back and forth on. I mean, crypto is a levered NASDAQ, so I don't think you can really say that about crypto. It's been unfortunate to watch that industry lose itself. And I used to work in crypto and I thought it could be something really cool. And I just think it's become also a part of the gambling economy. But with regards to gold, like, I think the interesting thing there is that China is really trying to become the place where people park their gold reserves to kind of, you know, navigate around the U.S. dollar, saying, like, I think, like, hey, everybody, like, invest in gold and then invest that gold with us. And I think that might work in some regards, because I do think people might be trying to find some alternative to

the dollar. I think that's going to take a long time if that does eventually happen. But I think there's some element of truth and people trying to not have as much exposure to the U.S. You said a couple of things I want you to unpack there, that crypto is levered NASDAQ. What do you mean by that. And then secondly, you said you were in crypto, but you think the industry has lost itself. Say more about that. Yeah, I mean, I'm not the first person to call crypto-levered NASDAQ. It's essentially, like, the way that tech stocks move, crypto will move like three times bigger. So if tech has a big sell-off, then crypto will have a gigantic sell-off. If tech moves up, crypto will move up. It's interesting because, you know, now JP Morgan is allowing institutional clients

to use Bitcoin and Ethereum as collateral. So there is like that institutional backing to crypto, but that also means it tends to trade a bit like tech stocks because institutions have sort of flattened it and like flattened the moves. So I just think it's like not any different than tech, which is probably a very unpopular opinion. But to the point that I used to work in crypto, yeah, I used to work with several crypto companies and thought it was really great.

A lot of my very early writing was about crypto and kind of about what it would look like to have the future of finance, like what decentralized finance could look like, you know, what it could look like to sort of build this online world that had its own form of money. And yeah, I mean, when you even think about Bitcoin, like the original proposal was a payment to pay, like a person to person payment system. And I don't think it really can be that just because it's so speculative. So it's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just I don't know if crypto knows what it is. It's definitely not a currency. It's just an asset. And you feel as if it's sort of lost itself,

or it sounds like your tone was you soured a little bit on the industry. Why? This is just one of the things that happens when people get really, really, really rich is they forget what they're doing something for. And I think a lot of people in crypto, you know, saw tremendous wealth. And I think you can kind of lose the plot when all of that money comes pouring in, and you might forget the mission. of what you're originally doing.

I think Ethereum has kept to the plot pretty closely. Like Vitalik, one of the founders, seems pretty focused on, like, what he wants that thing to be. But that's not, you know, that's not the whole industry. We'll be right back after a quick break. Support for the show comes from Ship Station. Running a business is tough. Running an e-commerce business in the age of online reviews, even tougher. Consumers have higher expectations than ever, and you can't afford to let any of them down.

That means you need a platform that can offer fulfillment excellence. In other words, you need ShipStation. Ship station goes beyond shipping labels. With scalable features that help ensure accuracy, you and your customers can rest assured that your shipments are arriving on time and intact. They make it easy to automate tasks and manage orders from one simple dashboard. And they even provide their clients with a rate browser that compares over 200 carriers to make sure you and your customers are always getting the best rates, sometimes as much as much. is 90% off. At every turn, ShipStation is ready to grow with you by automating your workflow, saving your time, and reducing human error. It's time to wow your customers and get rave reviews

with cheaper, faster, and better shipping. Upgrade to ShipStation today to get a 60-day free trial at Shipstation.com slash Prop G. There's no credit card or contract required, and you can cancel any time. That's shipstation.com slash prop G. Fox Creative. Support for this show comes from AWS Generative AI Accelerator Program. My name is Tom Elias.

I'm one of the co-founders at Bedrock Robotics. Bedrock Robotics is creating AI for the built world. We are bringing advanced autonomy to heavy equipment to tackle America's construction crisis. There's a tremendous demand for progress in America through civil projects, yet half a million jobs in construction remain unfilled. We were part of the 2025.

for AWS Gen AI Accelerator Program. As soon as we saw it, we knew that we had to apply. The AWS Gen AI Accelerator program supports startups that are building ambitious companies using Gen AI and physical AI. The program provides infrastructure support that matches an ambitious scale of growth for companies like Bedrock Robotics.

Now, after the accelerator, about a year later, we announced that we raised about $80 million in funding. We are scaling our autonomy to multiple sites. We're making deep investments. in technology and partners. We have a lot more clarity on what autonomy we need to build and what systems and techniques

and partners we need to make it happen. It's the folks that we have working altogether inside Bedrock Robotics, but it's also our partners like Amazon really all trying to work together to figure out what is physical AI and how do we affect the world in a positive way. To learn more about how AWS supports startups,

visit startups. U.S. Support for property comes from CHIME. It's no secret managing your money can be stressful. Dealing with overdraft fees, mispayments, and even just wishing you had more ways to save can add unwanted pressure when you already have enough to deal with.

Chime says they can help alleviate some of that stress by helping you take control of your finances one simple step at a time. With CHIM, they say your money works faster for you. You can open a check-in account with zero-monthly maintenance fees, set up direct deposit, and even get your paycheck, to two days early. Plus, with Chime, you can qualify for free overdraft of up to $200. Chime says they've already spotted members over $30 billion. And with more than 47,000 free ATMs, that's more than the top three national banks combined, they say you'll have your money

wherever you go. You can work on your financial goals through Chime today. You can open an account in two minutes at chime.com slash prop G. That's chime.com slash prop G. Chime. Feels like progress. Chime is a financial technology company, not a bank, banking services and debit card provided by the Bankor Bank N.A or Stride Bank N.A. Members FDIC. Spot me eligibility requirements and overdraft limits apply. Timing depends on submission of payment file. Fees apply at out-of-network ATMs. Bank ranking and number of ATMs, according to U.S. News and World Report 2023.

Shine checking account required. What are you seeing when you look at economic data, what do you think are the biggest stories unfolding that get the least amount of coverage relative to the impact they might have? What are we not talking about that we should be talking about? everyone's, I feel like we're on to kind of the AI bubble. There's a lot of, there's a lot of media around that. This reminds me of 1997. And that is, everyone had consensus we were in an internet bubble. And the NASDAQ went up another 100%. It's when everyone decides we're in a new model and it's different this time. And maybe all rules, you know, all bets or the rules have been broken. That's when you need to watch out. So I feel like the AI, quote unquote, bubble has been covered. What are you saying in your data and your research that you don't think is getting enough coverage. So you think we're in 1997 right now, relative to the AI bubble? The good news is when you're my age, you have some historical perspective.

The bad news is you have historical perspective, and that is you want to make your life easier with pattern recognition. And the reality is most of these patterns are, you know, history does repeat itself. Well, what is it? It doesn't, you know, it rhymes. It doesn't repeat. I see a lot of similarities. These circular deals really worry me, you know, in,

Did he have investing $100 billion in a company with the agreement, they're going to buy their chips. And that is accretive in the short run, but setting up kind of a house of cards in terms of, you know, capital structure, capital formation. I see euphoria. But at the same time, it's different this time in the sense that these companies, their earnings growth hasn't matched their PE expansion, but it's pretty strong. These are real companies with real cash flows. But what I was referring to is that the economist called the dot bomb implosion perfectly. how it would start, why it would happen, the damage it would do. The problem is they called it in 1997. And from that point, if you'd stayed in internet stocks, you would have made a ton of

money. Now, granted, you would have given it all back. But I don't, you know, what I have come to believe is that when everyone, when all economists agree on something, you should go the other way. And it feels like all economists, at least right now, are saying AI is, you know, somewhat overvalued, which lets me to believe that, okay, it's probably going to run further. I mean, every instinct in my body is saying sell all stocks right now. But typically, when I have that emotion, or a lot of people are having that emotion, and it's not the thing to do. But so, yeah, I see echoes of it, but the reality is I don't trust my gut on this stuff a lot because I try to be emotionalist and do what you're doing, and that is just be diversified and not try to time

the market and not try and convince yourself you're smarter than the market. But are there things out there that, you know, it's it's the iceberg you don't see that takes the ship down. Are there things you see that we're not talking about? I mean, yeah, I agree with you that everybody's talking about the AI bubble and how bad it could be if it all explodes because it is such a big part of the economy. You know, 40% of GDP growth is no joke. But I think, like, a lot of people are talking about it, but the government shutdown, I feel like has not. like we're kind of like oh no it's still shut down and we're it's like about to be the second I think it is the second longest shutdown ever and you know a bunch of people 40 million people

are about to lose access to food stamps and I just think like there's such a clear distinction and I'm curious if it was the same way in the 1990s there's such a clear distinction and divergence between the stock market and the economy so like with the government shut down like that's severely affecting the economy, but you have this huge run-up in stocks. And I think a lot of people are kind of covering that idea. But when we talk about the AI bubble, I don't think we necessarily talk about that idea. It's more like, oh, no, NVIDIA gave Open AI $100 billion, billion, billion dollars. So was it like that in the 1990s, too, like that?

Did you feel that divergence between the two? So really thoughtful. You know, in the 90s, I was building Internet companies and Ignatius, that thoughtful or I didn't have much situational awareness beyond the e-commerce company I was running trying to raise money for and trying to hire people. I didn't think a lot about big picture societal issues. Also, we just didn't have the concentration of wealth. We didn't have, it felt like a more gentle time. It was George Bush, who looked soft and cuddly back then, although progressive thought he was evil incarnate, now we look back and think, God, he was so adorable

and so nice. And there wasn't nearly the polarization. And also we didn't have, we were blessed with a lack of social media showing, I mean, social media has figured out that I'm a progressive and that every video they show me of a mass person from ICE separating a woman from her husband knows I'm going to be so fucking enraged that I'm not going to be able to look away from the phone. And so I don't know how much, you know, there's an interesting statement, another statement I love is that we're not that divided, but we have the most powerful companies in the world trying to divide us. So it is different. I don't envy people of your generation whose media consumption is so anxiety-ridden, is so trying to tune you up to enrage you such that you'll be engaged. One, where does someone like you get the majority of your information? What is your media diet? And have you found, and this is more of a question around you know, the psychological impact, but if you found that it takes a toll on you and people your age, I'm, and I can't figure out if I'm just getting older and angry or more depressed, but I literally have to have self-imposed blackouts from the media now, because I find

that algorithms are purposely trying to take me down really, really ugly rabbit holes. Anyways, your media died and thoughts on the impact on your generation. Yeah, I mean, my media died is I read a lot of the, you know, major news publications, so New York Times, Wallsheet Journal, Bloomberg. I also love, like, the other magazines, like N Plus One, Phenomenal World. So I read a lot, but I also use Twitter a lot. And it's been, or X, so, and that's been, like,

the biggest bummer in the world is that it used to be such a place for economists and finance people to really get together and, like, talk about ideas. Like, it used to be, you know, this place to really connect. and even back in 2021, and now it's not, it's like so polarized and the algorithm is being tweaked to totally fry everybody. And so I definitely see that with a lot of young people. And I have an account that I've tuned to be quite conservative. So this is like a, like a burner account that I don't post or anything, but I just view that account to make sure I'm not missing anything because my feet is also, you know, pretty attuned to what what Democrats are up to

or the center left or center right. And yeah, this account is very mag-oriented and it's wild, like the amount of rage bait that that account gets served. And it's pretty concerning. And so I also have to make sure that I don't fall down a rabbit hole because one thing that's really tough about these big companies is that they weaponize empathy, right? And so a lot of people are pretty good-hearted and they just want to help and they just want to make sure everybody's doing okay. And that's when you can get in trouble is because you watch these videos or you read these things like trying to understand, trying to figure out how you can help. And that's really when it becomes dangerous because you know, I think a lot of people care so much that they go a little bit

crazy. And so I have to really watch myself with that kind of stuff. Yeah. as I think it sounds like you do, too. You mentioned the fissure, the growing disparity between kind of the Wall Street economy and the real economy. We've said on the show that the Dow Jones and the NASDAQ have been just incredibly damaging metrics because they give people the illusion that things are okay, oftentimes when they're not. And as long as the NASDAQ goes up, where my thesis is as long as the NASDAQ keeps going up, the president can send troops into American cities and get away with it. I'm curious to get your thoughts on these metrics and also what metrics you look at that you think are better indicators of the health of quote unquote the real economy.

Yeah, I wrote this piece on my newsletter a few weeks ago called AI as a stock market and the stock market is the government. It's sort of that idea where the government or yeah, the government has a lot of latitude if the stock market continues to go up. Like if the market was selling off right now, he would not be allowed to send troops onto the state. street, I think Congress would have a lot more pressure to reopen the government. And because the stock market is so disconnected from any sense of reality, we're actually in, I think, deeper trouble than we should be. And it's, yeah, it's like wild to watch this stuff where it's like, oh, AI earnings are going to continue to go up. Like, stock market's going to go up forever. It's just so bizarre to me. And even, you know, we got this inflation data the other day, even though,

the government shut down, they brought back a small team of the BLS because we needed to readjust social security payments according to inflation. And the stock market rallied on the idea that inflation was somewhat going down, even though it's still 3% year over a year, that the Federal Reserve is going to cut rates. It was like, woohoo, everything's going well. Even though, like, people can't find jobs, inflation is still very high and the Fed is cutting into that. And so, yeah, I think like the metric said, I try to pay attention to. It's a lot of anecdotes right now because we don't have data. And I know that's always, that's a bit dangerous. But I, you know, I post videos about the economy almost every day on social media. And a lot of people message me

and tell me what they're feeling and what they're paying attention to and what they're worried about. And so I kind of absorb all of that and try to get a better sense. But then in terms of like real data, the Chicago Fed has some real-time labor market indicators that are pretty useful. It pulls from public and private data. And so I found that to be helpful. There isn't an inflation metric that I've found to be super good outside of the numbers that we get from VLS. So I'm still trying to piece that together. And yeah, and then I think another interesting thing is when we think about the stock market, it's important to look at the number of companies. that are booming that have no revenue. So a lot of the boom in the stock market right now is being

led by these companies that don't have a lot of profits. They have essentially no revenue. And I think that's a good indicator for the actual underlying health of the stock market and the fact that it's not being led by fundamentals. And it tells a different story than like the Dow Jones going up. It's like why is the Dow Jones going up? It's because these companies that aren't making money are going up because people are gambling on them. The administration trying to interfere with the Fed, what feels like socialism or government intervention or attempted influence on private markets, picking companies as they invest in or wanting a golden share in U.S. deal, tariffs, which is when I was in graduate school and I was a graduate student instructor in macro and microeconomics,

it was just a case study. And look at how stupid we were at one point in history with tariffs. I'm surprised. I'm curious if you're surprised. Are you surprised the economy, is as strong or not as bad. I would have thought the economy would not be holding up the way it is right now. What are your thoughts? You thought it would have imploded because of the tariffs or just because of everything else going on? All of it. Fear around, fear around lack of independence of the Fed, tariffs, a move towards a cross between socialism and cronyism. I just think all of these things, to me, the market would have had a stronger gag reflex. And the numbers, to be the number, be fair, a lot of the underlying numbers are concerning, but a lot of them are stronger than I think

people were expecting, right? The inflation number is not good, but it's not terrible. You know, there's the AI boom. I keep reading about this quote-unquote re-industrialization of America. I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I keep reading about it. I don't know how much of it is just propaganda. But are you, what are your current thoughts on the state of the economy versus your expectations, and if you're comfortable talking about what you think might unfold in, say, 26. Yeah, I mean, to the point of the reindustrialization of the economy, Iowa, a state that is very reliant on manufacturing is, like, essentially in a recession. So there's a really interesting map, and I cannot remember who made the map, but it showed the number of U.S. states that were in

some type of economic contraction, and it was over half of them, I believe. And so I think when we like zoom in on these individual cases like states that were really reliant on manufacturing actually working out you see a lot of a lot of that not happening like one of the things that Trump did promise was that he would bring manufacturing back to the US and the way that he's doing that is through tariffs which is not that intuitive right ideally you would use a carrot instead of a stick method in order to to bring people back and it takes a long time to rebuild manufacturing. And so you do see these pockets of pain for these places that overwhelmingly did vote for Trump. And the longer the government stays shut down, like a lot of these red states

that voted for Trump, they're heavily reliant on the social safety net. Like they're reliant on food stamps. They're reliant on Medicaid, the thing that is being the reason the government is shut down, right, health care. And yeah, I think it's going to get more and more painful. because people need those things. People need an economy that works outside of AI. Like, they need jobs that are more than just data center. And the argument there is that, like, the economy has always gone through some turmoil with technology. Like, nails used to be 0.5% of GDP, like, hammer and nails back in the 1800s.

And so, like, there's always some shift. But I think, like, this, I'm curious, what you think about this. Like the combination that we have right now of political turmoil and technological turmoil is like quite pronounced. And it seems the way that politics are unfolding just objectively as you said is like pretty destructive, just net on net. Like it's harmful. And I think the market is ignoring that because of the AI stuff. It's like, okay, who cares if like the economy implodes outside of AI as long as AI succeeds because it'll take over everything. And so I think that's the divergence, but like this transitional time, if it does end up working, is really painful. But like,

how do you sort of see that combination of politics and technology? Like, do you think they're feeding off of each other in a harmful way or protecting the economy? Well, I would bifurgate them. I don't think you can get in the way of innovation, and that is AI is going to replace a lot of jobs. I actually think automation and GLP1 are perhaps even more impactful technologies than, you know, I just wrote a post saying I think GLP1 is more impactful on the real economy than GPT5. I just think people reducing there, the fat economy or the diabetes industrial complex is just enormous right now. And if people, you know, if GLP1 were to permeate the households like I think it's possible, I think that's going to have a bigger impact on people's lives and quote of what we were talking about before the real economy.

I don't know where you are, but with Trump, I just don't get these policies. I'm trying to figure out it's as if if I wanted to elegantly really screw the economy for the mid and the long term and reduce our prosperity inch by inch every day, I think this is a genius playbook. Tariffs, cronyism, lack of respect for rule of law. We're going to place tariffs on people. Young people feel bad because they can't buy a home, so what are we going to do? We're going to tariff drywall gypsum from Mexico and lumber from Canada and make building houses more expensive. I just don't. It's as if they look at every pain point and say, how can we rub salt in the wound of this pain?

So I don't, I have a difficult time understanding any of the rational or logic behind this or that there isn't, quite frankly, more sort of small revolutions in our, society. What I would, you said something there that I thought was really powerful and I want to pose on, and that is America needs an economy outside of AI. I think that's really powerful. And what you were saying before about data centers not having that, not needing that many people to build them, they need even less people to operate them. They don't even need to turn the lights on during the day. There's just no one, no one's needed there. The story I'd love to get your feedback on that I think is the really big story right now is Amazon, I

I don't know if you saw this. Amazon just announced it laying off 30,000 corporate jobs. And I got to think when they announce it, they're going to, there was this seminal earnings quarter that I can't get over a call about three quarters ago. It was meta saying they'd increase their revenues 23% while decreasing headcount by 20%. I don't think any company's ever done that because generally the way it works is if you're growing, you tell your head of HR to hire more people. And I've said that AI is corporate OZMPIC and that it's turned the switch off among CEOs that they need to eat more or hire more to grow. And I think Amazon is about to have one of those quarters where announces great earnings or great revenue growth with a huge

destruction or decrease in costs, i.e. people being laid off. And their stock is going to surge. Their stock and their earnings are going to surge. We're about to see this arbitrage of human capital arbed into greater earnings and a surge in some of these information intensive companies. I think it's coming at Goldman, J.P. Morgan, all of those companies. Anyways, your thoughts on Amazon in this kind of labor destruction or the announcement they're laying off 30,000 people at corporate. UPS is doing the same thing. Like, I think they announced that they were going to cut 20,000 jobs. And I don't know if it's at the court vote level, but they actually ended up cutting 34,000 instead. So even more. Yeah, and then a target, I think, is cutting a thousand jobs. GM is

cutting a couple hundred jobs. So I think we are going to see more and more of that. And to the point of the investment banks, like all of the AI companies are launching their AI Excel, like Claude Anthropics model, just announced that. I think perplexity has something like that, too. I believe that one of the AI Labs has employed former investment bankers to actually train an investment banking version of AI. And so I do think we are going to see the expedited attempt to replace humans. Yeah. And at the corporate level, too, like that is one of the interesting things about AI as a technology is that normally technology replaces what we might call blue collar work, but this is going after white collar work. It'll be interesting to see if it works. I mean, Klarna and Duolingo,

they were some of the first companies to let people go and be like, we're going to replace everybody with AI, but then they had to hire people back because it doesn't always work that well. That's the other funny thing about AI is it needs quite a bit of nudging still. It's still new technology. So yeah, I think that's going to be very strange. And with that portion of the workforce being displaced, it'll be interesting to see how they respond politically. You know, what they start asking for what they want. Right now, we have like zero regulation on AI. And so I think if this, if all the big companies start cutting their corporate workforce, we could sort of see a lot more groups begin to coalesce around the idea that there has to be some sort of human AI

partnership rather than companies just gutting people and giving jobs to technology. we'll be right back support for the show comes from grunes they used to say that an apple a day keeps the doctor away well that's a nice thought but even so you still won't get all the nutrients you need that way here's a tip add grooms to the mix grunts isn't a multivitamin a green gummy or a prebiotic it's all of those things and then some at a fraction of the price and bonus it tastes great All Grun's daily gummy snack packs are packed with more than 20 vitamins and minerals made with more than 60 nutrient-dense ingredients and whole foods.

And for a limited time, you can try their Grooony Smith apple flavor just in time for fall. It's got the same snackable, packable, full-body benefits you come to expect. But this time, these tastes like you're walking through an apple orchard and a cable-knit sweater, warm apple cider in hands. I've tried Grooons. I find it very convenient. And in general, just super easy to get kind of that health boost. you will. Grab your limited edition Groooney Smith Apple Grooons available

only through October. Stock up because they will sell out. Get up to 52% off when you go to G-R-U-N-S.co and use the code PropG. Support for PropG comes from Pipe Drive. The sales process isn't exactly an easy process. Even the most

experienced entrepreneurs can have trouble keeping up with everything. And it's even harder when you have a bunch of scattered information spread across tools and systems with no clear view of what's happening. Pipe Drive brings your entire sales processes into one simple centralized space, giving you a crystal clear complete view of sales processes and customer information so you can stay in control and close more deals faster. Pipe drive knows every team works a little differently,

which is why they let you fully tailor your CRM to match your unique sales process and strategy all within one platform. In Pipe Drive's visual sales pipeline, you can see every deal track its stage and know exactly what needs to happen next. It's a powerful, simple CRM built by salespeople for salespeople. Join the over 100,000 companies already using PipeDrive. Right now, when you visit PipeDrive.com slash PropG, you'll get a 30-day free trial. No credit card or payment needed. Just head to PipeDrive.com slash PropG to get started. That's Pipe.com slash PropG, and you can be up and running in minutes. Support for the show comes from Upwork.

We all know that working in a small business means you wear many hats, but sometimes what you really need is an extra pair of hands. Upwork is how good companies find great and trusted freelance talent. Upwork can give your business access to a global marketplace filled with top talent and IT, web dev, AI design, admin, support, marketing, and more. Companies at every stage turn to Upwork to get things done and find more flexibility in the way they staff key projects and initiatives. Posting a job on Upwork is easy. With no cost to join, you can register, browse freelancer profiles, and get help drafting a job post or even book a consultation. From there, you connect with freelancers that understand you and your business. Upwork makes the entire process easier, simpler, and more affordable with industry low fees. Visit upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That's upwork.com to post your job for free and connect the top talent ready to help your business grow. UP-W-O-R-K-com.

upwork.com. We're back with more from Kaila Skamlin. We have our own problems. I mean, the stock market, the NASDAQ and the Dow Jones are doing really well, touching new highs. But it definitely feels like there's a lot of political division. People are more anxious.

You know, it doesn't feel like the U.S. is a role model for the rest of the world. But I struggled to point to another economy that's doing better. Do you spend any time thinking about China or the European economy, who is doing well, or also just a follow-up? I'd just love to know any thoughts you have about the state of the Chinese economy right now. China is really interesting. Like China, have you heard of Breakneck, Dan Wing's new book? Yes, I have. Yeah. I mean, he kind of kind of kind of, is it pretty well. Like China has like an engineer economy. The U.S. has a lawyer economy. A lot of people have said that about other economies in the past. Like the U.S. has always been this

sort of lawyerly economy relative to everybody else being an engineered economy. And I think that's pretty true is that it feels like the U.S. is having all of this infighting and then China's over there like developing bullet trains or I believe they just found like a cure for baldness or something like that. And so it seems like they're able to like really capture technology and use it in a way that the U.S. isn't, but like they have their own problems. Like they are also staring down a demographic crisis, right? And they also have the last flat problem where a lot of their young people don't necessarily want to work. And so I think that's an economy that's really complicated and it works really well because it's a command economy. The U.S. is not.

and therefore it tends to flounder. I think what's disappointing with the U.S. right now is that we just have a bunch of money going into like the dumbest things possible. And that's pretty frustrating relative to China. Like China also just announced that the people who post information about certain sectors on social media have to have like degrees in the subjects that they're talking about on social media or else they get fined. And I think that could be really useful in terms of, the polarization on the division that we see in the states is people actually being educated

on the topics that they talk about. And so, yeah, I mean, I think Europe is like a different case. They've just been struggling for a really long time to find their footing, to grow. They also are suffering underneath the demographic crisis. Like, I think that's the thing that everybody's going to have to grapple with over the next couple of years is we have a rapidly aging population. The economy is going to have to change to accommodate that. All of these economies and economies rely on an influx of young people to continue to grow, as you've talked about. And I just, I don't know how we're going to fix that. Like, that's the number one thing. That's the number one thing I worry about is demographics. And both China and the U.S. are suffering

from that. Specifically, the ratio of young to old is headed in the wrong direction. Do you think we can solve that with immigration? That's one way to solve it. It's, you know, immigration or having more babies. Having more babies is hard to incentivize. You know, South Korea tried to pay people $1,000 and that didn't really work either. So immigration, high-skilled immigration is one way the economic innovation group had as a good paper on high-skilled immigration and like how much it does add to the economy. Like it is a boom, you know, paying taxes, adding to the local community. But yeah, the politics gets in the way with that. So I want to pivot and talk a little bit about kind of Scanlon Inc.

And that is I think a lot of young, we have a lot of young people listen to the pod. And I think they probably have seen the ascent of your career and your relevance in the last 24 months. And I think that is really cool. Like, how did she do that? So any tips for what platforms have been, you know, breakthrough for you, what's worked, what hasn't? if someone thinks I would like to be the Kyla Scanlan of art or of fashion or of, you know, of engineering in Europe, whatever it is, I want to be a domain expert. I want to have relevance. I want to be invited to conferences in Florida. What has worked and what hasn't worked is you've developed this. You're essentially an entrepreneur. I mean, it's my understanding is it's just just you or maybe not.

That's just you. No, it's just me. It's just me. And you put out, that's extraordinary. The amount of content and the relevance you have as a sole proprietor is really extraordinary. Anyways, what advice would you have given yourself your younger self three or five years ago in terms of where you would have invested more and where you would have invested less? So I guess, like, very quickly, the way I got started was it was during the pandemic.

So I had moved from Kentucky where I'm from to Los Angeles to work at Capital Group. so a buy-side firm, you know, had major in econ finance and data analytics and just really love teaching and, like, wanted to get a PhD, but my professor told me to go corporate first, and I was like, that sounds great, six months into that job, the pandemic hit, and I was all alone in this 350-square-foot apartment in Los Angeles, had no friends, and so I started making videos, and the videos were weird. You know, they were skits where I was pretending to be Jerome Powell, which I don't know if anybody has ever done besides me. And I just, I just really wanted people to understand the economy. And so I think like that is always my biggest piece of

advice is like, do it in the way that feels very authentic to you. And so for me, it was like these really bizarre, strange skits where people were like, oh, I didn't know like you could have fun and talk about economics at the same time, which is what I was trying to do. And I just had a big, I still have a big passion for educating about the economy. I think it's a total disservice that we do to the public, sending them out into the world and not teaching them things. And so I started my company officially four years ago now. So I've been doing this for what feels like a long time, but really isn't even that long. And I just think it was consistency like I've posted almost every day since.

and I've written, you know, hundreds and hundreds of articles. I wrote a whole book. So consistency, staying authentic to what you truly care about and messaging it in a way that feels relevant to you. And, yeah, not letting the fear of being perceived get to you. Like, I'm an introvert. It's funny, like, my friends from when I was growing up or I think it's so weird that I have this, like, public lifestyle because I do prefer to research. And so I think that's the biggest thing. It's like there is a whole big world out there, and there's people who want to see what you want to message. You just have to do it in a way that feels good for you. But if you, last question, if you look at all of the distribution channels and platforms, whether it's YouTube or TikTok or substack or your newsletter or books, I stack rank the things that have worked the best for you.

If you were to say to someone, all right, you have a limited. amount of human capital, this is what, so we started doing 15 years ago, me and my business partner, my old firm L2 started doing these videos called Winners and Losers on YouTube. And it was just breakthrough for us. No one knew who I was, no one who knew who L2 was. People thought they were funny. Sounds a little bit of like what you did with mimicking Jerome Powell. So YouTube was seminal for us 10 or 15 years ago. What has been, what platform or medium has really worked for you? Well, it's disappointing as it was Twitter, because that's where all the finance and econ people went to go hang out. It's not that anymore. Don't post. I mean, still post on Twitter, but be careful. It's really become bad. Instagram Reels, like the discoverability on there, I know, you know, we kind of talked down on Mark Zuckerberg sometimes, but the platform is still pretty good for discoverability.

Yeah, YouTube is still, yeah, and still, I mean, you have to. Like, you got to, that's the thing. You got to eat from the, it's the worst. It's the worst. But it's a tool. It's a tool at the end of the day. Social media is a tool. If you can interrupt somebody's scroll with like really good information as you do about like markets, economy, culture, like that is worth it to go and use these platforms for what they provide. But Instagram Reels, a lot of people have subsacks now. I was like one of the first substacks, I think. And that was really cool, like a decentralized newsletter. YouTube is still really powerful. Podcasts are really powerful. Like that's, I think. think a really good tool. But yeah, TikTok maybe not so much right now. But it's still all the main platforms and kind of being in many places at once. So I think they're all equal in that regard is you want to have as many touchstones as you can with people because they're all on different platforms. But it's a cumulative effect, isn't it? Yeah. Sort of a flywheel. Yeah, it is. Social media captures us all that way, right? That's scary. Kyla Scanlan is an economic commentator educator and founder of bread, a financial education platform reaching millions through storytelling and analysis.

She's also the best-selling author of, in this economy, how money and markets really work. So, I think you are an inspiration. And one of the things I tell people is we were one of the, I found you on TikTok, I think. And I remember forwarding, I think this was like two years ago, I remember forwarding the TikTok to our producer saying, We have to have this woman on. She's just such a unique voice. And I love, one of the things I do like about these mediums is that raw talent does break through. You didn't have to go to CNBC or be a junior reporter at the Wall Street Journal for 15 years and finally get your shot and then get guest appearances on CNBC and then at some point like 45 or 50 finally get your own platform.

I really do think you're a case study and one of the more positive things around so. media. And I'm so enjoying watching you have a, you know, your career ascend. I think it's, I think it's just fantastic. And it's got to give a lot of young people, a lot of confidence to kind of bust out on their own. Anyways, keep doing what you're doing and very much appreciate your time today. Thank you so much. Algebra of happiness, who controls the algorithms or do they control you? When I first got on social media probably 15 years ago, you post something and you see how many likes it gets. And it's really rewarding when you post something or a piece of content or a viewpoint that resonates.

I still get very excited when I see, you know, I put out a stupid. or a statement, and it gets 10 or 15,000 likes, it still feels really good. And also, it feels bad when I get negative comments. And slowly but surely, you start adapting and shaping your narrative and even your own thinking to an algorithm designed by other people. Now, you think, well, it's okay to want to please the crowd. Shaming is a very powerful concept. And that is, for the majority of our time on this planet as a species, if we were expunged or expelled from the tribe, you would die. We're nomads and we need each other. There's a tribe of 100 people. 20 people do the hunting, 20 do the gathering, 20 take care of the kids, 30 build housing and 10 of the village

elders that help make better decisions and everybody or almost everybody gets to live a lot longer than they would if they were on their own. So being expunged, expunge is the wrong word, or cast out from into the wilderness meant almost certain death. So that type of shame is really powerful and it hurts. The problem is that the people deciding these algorithms and shaping the likes and shaping your views and your narrative do not have your best interests at heart. They're not trying to promote a discourse. They're not trying to help you get more educated. They're not trying to help improve your self-esteem. They're trying to make more money. And unfortunately, what the algorithms have discovered is that enragement and conflict create engagement, more Nissan ads, and more money.

So what happens is you put out something that's cute with puppies. The algorithms love that. It makes people feel good. It keeps them glued to their phones. A lot of likes. You put out something controversial, maybe even something aggressive, and it makes the other side look bad or makes somebody look bad. The algorithms really like that. and they will elevate your content so more people get it, more people see it, and there's more

likes, which creates a feedback loop where you think, well, the more aggressive, the more pointed, the more terse, the more puncturing I get, the more dopa I feel, the more reward I get. And slowly but surely, the narrative that you start to develop is one of being more terse, more angry, more polarized, more puncturing, less grace. and then the narrative, if you will, becomes a function of the algorithm, and the algorithm owns you. And you no longer dictate, you no longer own the technology, the technology owns you. And I have a victim of this. There are certain issues I feel really strongly about, and I hesitate to say things because I know I'm going to get a lot of negative comments.

And sometimes these comments are from bots that have been weaponized by people who don't share my beliefs. Okay, fine. Or I'm inclined to jump on a bandwagon and start saying what I know my followers will like as a progressive. And the problem is when we all start barking up the same tree, we all get stupid. So where I've landed is the following. I go to my role model. So I'm a huge, I have a small list of people that I really admire and I try to model them. A couple examples. Margaret Thatcher and Muhammad Ali. And the thing I take from them is that the reason why they're my role models. The reason why I think they'll be remembered in 100 years was they were not

afraid to put forward a viewpoint and behave and acquit themselves at the moment in ways and with words and with viewpoints that were wildly unpopular, wildly unpopular. But they did their homework and they believed them. And they were their truth selves. So the question I would ask is in the recommendation I would make and the script I'm trying to follow, is I don't want the algorithms to own me. If you just have positive feedback in your comments, if you're just stating, if you're just putting shit out there that everyone agrees with, and okay,

you're not taking any chances, you're not being a leader. I always say to myself, if I don't have people pushing back on me, it means I'm not saying anything. If everybody agrees with me, it means I'm doing something that's funny about dogs or I'm stating the obvious. And that doesn't mean the comments don't affect me,

but I realize that if I say something and it gets a lot of negative feedback, okay, learn from it, reflect on it, but it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong. I hope that when I look back on the content that I have put out there, that people say, sure, a lot of it was wrong, but his heart was in the right place, and he was intellectually honest, and he was unafraid. And that's the question I would put to you. Does the algorithm own you, or are you unafraid? This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez.

Our assistant producer is Laura Gennar. Drew Burroughs is our technical director. Thank you for listening to the PropGPot and PropGMedia.