The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - Deglobalization, Public Policy, and Government Intervention — with Dambisa Moyo
Episode Date: August 19, 2021We’re revisiting one of our favorite interviews featuring Dambisa Moyo. Dambisa is a global economist and bestselling author. Her latest book, How Boards Work — And How They Can Work Better in a C...haotic World, is out now. In this episode, Dambisa discusses all sorts of topics including the private sector, deglobalization, and public policy. Twitter: @dambisamoyo Website: dambisamoyo.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Support for this show comes from Constant Contact.
If you struggle just to get your customers to notice you,
Constant Contact has what you need to grab their attention.
Constant Contact's award-winning marketing platform
offers all the automation, integration, and reporting tools
that get your marketing running seamlessly,
all backed by their expert live customer support.
It's time to get going and growing with Constant Contact today.
Ready, set, grow.
Go to ConstantContact.ca and start your free trial today.
Go to ConstantContact.ca for your free trial.
ConstantContact.ca
Support for PropG comes from NerdWallet. Starting your slash learn more to over 400 credit cards.
Head over to nerdwallet.com forward slash learn more to find smarter credit cards, savings accounts, mortgage rates, and more.
NerdWallet. Finance smarter.
NerdWallet Compare Incorporated.
NMLS 1617539. Welcome to the Prop G Pod. I am out of the office. I know, I know, I need a break. You can sense
the stress. You can sense the depression. You can sense the fatigue. I actually have less of those
today than I usually have. I hate my life less
and less today. Anyways, today, we're running one of our favorite interviews featuring Dambisa
Moyo. Dambisa is a global economist and bestselling author, a total gangster, talking about an
impressive person. She discusses all sorts of topics, including the private sector,
deglobalization, and public policy. Deglobalization, you don't hear that word a lot.
Dr. Moyo, give us five things or some things that you think will kind of define the post-pandemic
economy.
What are the enduring changes to our economy?
So, from my vantage point and really based on looking back in history, in particular
to the Gilded Age and the years and decades after the period of 1870 to 1900, the five things that are going
to define the macroeconomy, I believe, are really characterized by the overarching view of a more
progressive world and one in which the government is more important. So first of all, I think we
will see bigger government. And by that, I mean larger debts and deficits, if you can
imagine such a thing, given where debts and deficits are today. Part of that is really the
government's role as a provider of welfare, I think will continue. The second point is that
government will become bigger, much more important in terms of being an arbiter of capital and labor. We've
already seen signs of this. And by that, I mean much more important in terms of employment,
much more important in terms of supporting businesses. So, for example, the fact that
the Fed in the United States have been buying sub-investment grade debt to support certain
corporations. And also we've seen in the UK
where there have been massive furlough schemes, which I think will be more needed over the long
term. I think that's a second thing that we'll continue to see. The third thing that I'm sure
to see, which is a corollary of government getting bigger, is that I think the private sector
will get smaller. And in that
respect, we've already seen some of these trends over the past decade, according to Wiltshire and
other data sources, the number or the proportion of publicly traded companies in the markets has
gone down by about 50%. And I think that is a trend we'll continue to see, partly as there's
much more consolidation in M&A in the markets, but also as many companies shy away from the sort of
heavy regulatory scrutiny and burden, both from institutions and regulators, but also
from society more generally. The fourth area that I think is really important is that we're going to
see more taxation and much more regulation. Again, this was very much thematic in the period
post the Gilded Age, followed by the crash in 1929, where you started to see much more
antitrust legislation. We've started to see hallmarks of that,
especially as many of the largest sectors, banking, airlines, pharmaceuticals, technology,
et cetera, are now dominated by just a handful of corporations globally. So we've ended up with
oligopolies in many of these key sectors, essentially organically, but I think there'll be a greater push from governments to really be much more aggressive in the antitrust perspective.
And then fifth, one area, a fifth area that I think is going to absolutely define the post-pandemic
era, which was actually something, a trend that was happening before COVID hit in earnest, is there will be greater
deglobalization. And just as an umbrella concept, deglobalization is about trade. It's about the
movement of capital for investment. It's about the movement of people in terms of immigration.
It's about the commonality around standards, such as intellectual property,
and it's also very much about institutions
that govern the global monetary
and sort of trade and commerce environment,
such as the Bretton Woods Institutions,
which were established in 1944,
such as the World Bank and the IMF.
I think, in fact, I know there was already trend lines
showing that the deglobalization,
reduction in trade and capital,
stronger and more aggressive anti-immigration policies,
the risk of a splinternet that you'll have
a US-led and a China-led versus a China-led
type of intellectual property war in technology space, and really
the rise of alternative multilateralism. I think all of these aspects of deglobalization will gather
momentum in the period post the pandemic. So those are the five things that I would say would
highlight the post-pandemic era. A couple of these things. One, government's
getting bigger, private sector getting smaller. My traditional capitalist DNA says that that
results in lower levels of output and productivity, and that is a bad thing. Where do I have that
wrong? What are the upsides and the bad sides of a shift to more resources to government
coming out of the private sector? Well, I think you're not wrong on the
superficial level, but I think there's an important caveat, or I should say an important assumption
that you're making when you make that claim, which is to say that government is acting
inefficiently or ineffectively. We have had periods, and I should say, I'm like you, I'm very much a sort of red-blooded capitalist. I really do believe that the private sector needs an important central role in driving innovation, growing the GDP pie, improving livelihoods, and really driving human progress. So that is very much what I believe. But I also think that we oughtn't forget that
when you look back in history and even recent history in the United States, for example,
the government has been a key player in a whole host of areas that have helped to drive
the success of the private sector, whether it's through the Manhattan Project or DARPA,
the development of Silicon Valley, or even go back
further in history. Vaccines. Exactly. Touche. But also going back further in history,
the notion that somebody somewhere with the help of state and ultimately federal government thought
about high schools developing a program or a template for education that could be broad-based.
I mean, these are elements, and of course, infrastructure,
are just a handful of elements where government,
which acts on the data-driven, forward-leaning, measured outcomes
and in a non-corrupt way can be incredibly catalytic for economic success.
When I hear, so I'm going to use the S word, socialism,
but I also want to acknowledge it's not necessarily a bad word. Seven of the 10 countries that report the happiest citizenship are socialist. So I want to use it just as an economic construct. It's not an insult. It's not a warning sign. I find a lot of people in the media are using socialism as some sort of cautionary tale, like, oh no, socialism. But when I think about socialism,
I think it's okay when the state controls the means of production and how its spoils get
divvied up. And it sounds like what you're predicting in a post-pandemic world is,
roughly speaking, we're moving towards a more socialist construct.
Well, I think it, again, really depends very crucially on how those governments operate. If you end up with a
government that is not really interested in growing the pie, but is more interested in
redistributive approaches, I think, yeah, that is an outcome that we ought to all be dissatisfied
with. That is not to say that we should be blind to concerns around income inequality getting worse,
social mobility
down by 50% in the United States over the last several decades, et cetera, et cetera.
I mean, those are, you know, we have to be led and policy should be driven and curated
based on the facts, which is that, you know, there are certainly losers, winners and losers
in a more globalized capitalistic world. But, you know, I don't
have any objections to a socialist quote unquote states that where you see a bigger pie. And again,
I'm using your terminology that I didn't know in this context, the notion of socialism,
meaning that government is much more involved as an arbiter of capital and labor, as opposed to
one in which the spoils are just, you know,
they're just there to redistribute. I don't think that that is an environment that we should aspire
to. And one example of work that I've done, my first book, which is now over 10 years old,
was really a critique of these large aid programs, which on paper seem very attractive. Oh, we want
to help the poor and the best way we should help them is through the aid transfers. But, you know,
what I was arguing that that is not the best way. And you actually create dependencies that are
longer term deleterious for economic progress and ultimately for human progress as well.
So that's where I stand on this. I'm all for government providing public
goods such as infrastructure, providing public goods such as education and national security.
I have deep, deep reservations around governments that only see themselves as essentially being
short-term in their thinking and very focused on redistribution and not much in
terms of long-term thinking.
So the rescue package, the stimulus, the CARES Act, PPP loans, grade our response so far,
our economic or fiscal or monetary response to the crisis.
What did we get right?
What did we get wrong?
I think the original approach across the world was three things. I
think it was one, it was not multidimensional. I think everybody interpreted it as being a
healthcare problem first, and that all the advice came from healthcare experts. It was very little
sort of, let's bring a bunch of experts around the table, whether they're economists or
socio-anthropologists, et cetera, which I think that was one era.
A second era is I think we didn't really view it as a long-term problem.
I think there was a lot of a sense that it would be quickly resolved.
We couldn't imagine that it would take on.
Yeah, that we just couldn't imagine.
We have not planned for something that could happen for another couple of years.
And even with the evidence that Spanish flu was from 1918 to 1920, we still assumed with technology and knowledge, we'd be speedily out of this situation.
And yet here we are.
Now we have to face all the distribution issues around the vaccine, et cetera. The third thing, which I think we could have done better, is this is a global healthcare problem. And yet
we've all gone to our respective corners to solve it unilaterally. So I think there, for me,
especially somebody who's quite a globalist, I think that that's a failure in a lack of
coordination. Very emblematic of some of the deglobalization
points that I raised earlier. We're in a world where people think that the world should be more
balkanized. Doesn't deglobalization, isn't that really a step backwards?
Oh, from my vantage point, absolutely. But I mean, see, I am very much a big believer of what's
offered or been proffered in textbooks around globalization.
I think we should all produce in the world what we're best equipped to produce.
That's the fundamental comparative advantage or competitive advantage, however you want to describe it.
And unfortunately, for a whole host of reasons, we've ended up in a world where places that should be doing certain things, and
give an example of my home continent of origin, Africa, which is largely subsistence farmers,
largely agricultural. It has the largest proportion of untilled arable land left on the planet.
Those economies really should be at the forefront of feeding themselves as well as the world. But you have subsidy programs, which are very rational in some respects,
more political respects than economic respects,
because politicians want to win the state of Iowa and Idaho, et cetera.
So they've got to pander and protect the markets of their farmers.
And similarly, through the Common Agriculture Policy in the European Union,
they want to protect British farmers and French farmers. And similarly, through the common agriculture policy in the European Union, they want to protect British farmers and French farmers. And so they lock out African and South
American food producers. And as a consequence, we move away from globalization. So I understand
the rationale on paper, but we're all poorer for it. I wish we'd be in a much more coordinated global world,
but it's a far cry.
The reality is a far cry.
What I'd call realpolitik is a far cry
from what is in textbooks.
When you look at our economy and our policies,
if there were one or two structural changes
you would like to see implemented,
what would they be?
It's a great question.
I actually published something on LinkedIn recently. I won't go
through all of them, but it was sort of three things we should start doing, three things we
should stop doing, and three things we should keep doing. And this is for the United States.
I won't go through all of them, but it's certainly the case that for the United States, for me,
the biggest vulnerability is the political environment. It's far too short term. We're in a situation
where the political infrastructure in democracies is misaligned from a lot of the long-term problems
that the global economy and the U.S. economy faces, whether it's technology and the risk of
a jobless underclass, demographic shifts that are leaving people unemployed, concerns about the environment.
These are all long-term.
Income inequalities, these require deep thought and they require long-term solutions, but
our politicians are rewarded for short-term thinking.
The other thing, which is to me very obvious and it's been frustrating to see decade after
decade not really resolved with any gusto is the sort of
boosting the infrastructure. America's infrastructure is graded D plus by the American Civil Engineering
Corps. You know, this is just not the sort of backbone of a successful economy for the 21st
century. And similarly, you know, education remains incredibly weak. Look at the OECD
piece of statistics in mathematics, reading, science, American students are now, they used
to be in the top three. Now they're in the bottom 30 of the world in terms of rankings. And as you
probably know, this generation of Americans for the first time in the history of the country since
1776 will be less educated than the preceding generation. I mean, this is just not a formula for success. No matter what caveats people might attach to them, I think we really have a lot of work to do. 50% of doctoral candidates are immigrants, and we've decided to take our secret sauce
and stop it at the border, right? But the ultimate manifestation, and I would be curious to get
your view here because I'm a glass half empty kind of guy, is our skyrocketing deficits.
We show up and we say, I know we won't have to tax the rich more because they're my donors and we'll throw bread and circuses at the populace and we'll borrow money against future generations.
I mean, at what point do my understanding is where we have the budget this year that we were projected to have in 2044, we've exploded our deficits.
At what point do the deficits begin to register a toll on our current abilities?
We know that long-term, someone's got to have to pay this money back.
But at what point does, you know, it's not a problem until it is a problem.
When does it become a problem?
Yeah, well, you know, frankly, it becomes a problem when the people who are holding
your debt no longer want to lend to you.
And as you know, China, if it's not number one, it's usually number one or two.
It's sort of the vibe for the first and second position
between China and Japan.
China is the largest foreign lender to the US government.
I mean, this is just a vulnerability
that to me seems so stark.
How can you have your biggest lender
be in many respects your biggest rival. You're being very harsh in
terms of trade, in terms of security, intellectual property, et cetera. But on the other hand,
they're holding the largest amount of debt, which they can very easily put the squeeze on the US.
Now, some people say, well, we're a reserve currency. Well, I really do think that the
world is changing incredibly quickly, and there needs to be a better recognition of what is at stake.
And I worry that that's not the case.
And the other reference to your question is have a look at the book that was written a couple of years ago, a few years ago, by Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, two economists I really like a lot.
They wrote a book called This Time It's Different. And they basically looked at 900 years of government debt. And they concluded that,
you know, when government debt to GDP ratio goes over 60%, it becomes an incredibly dangerous,
precarious place, not only because of what I just said, like who's, you know, who's lending to you,
but also because your economic growth
starts to slow considerably. And just as a way of thinking about growth, you need to be growing at
3% per year in order to double per capita incomes in one generation. That's a generation being about
25 years. So if you're growing below 3%, and for governments that have 60% debt to GDP ratios,
you're really growing at around 2%, you have enormous vulnerabilities, which could be anything
from income inequality problems, but can very quickly seep into civil unrest and more deep
seated challenges to the sort of viability and stability of an economy.
Perhaps the last thing I would just point out is, as you know, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is now 100% debt-to-GDP.
Globally, debt-to-GDP is around 320%.
In terms of what can really be done, I think there are very few levers left, if any, for the United States,
if they're not really sort of embarked
upon in a very aggressive way.
Coming up after the break.
Boards need to have more visibility around ethical issues.
This is largely because we have a lot of ethical issues around data privacy, use of data privacy.
You know, we all want a vaccine. a vaccine. We all want a cancer cure
yesterday, basically as soon as possible. But what freedoms are we willing to sacrifice in
order to speed that up? Stay with us. Hey, it's Scott Galloway. And on our podcast, Pivot,
we are bringing you a special series about the basics of artificial intelligence.
We're answering all your questions.
What should you use it for?
What tools are right for you?
And what privacy issues should you ultimately watch out for?
And to help us out, we are joined by Kylie Robeson, the senior AI reporter for The Verge, to give you a primer on how to integrate AI into your life.
So, tune into AI Basics, How and When to Use AI,
a special series from Pivot sponsored by AWS, wherever you get your podcasts.
What software do you use at work? The answer to that question is probably more complicated than
you want it to be. The average US company deploys more than 100 apps, and ideas about the work we do can be radically changed by the tools we use to do it.
So what is enterprise software anyway?
What is productivity software?
How will AI affect both?
And how are these tools changing the way we use our computers to make stuff,
communicate, and plan for the future?
In this three-part special series,
Decoder is surveying the IT landscape presented by AWS.
Check it out wherever you get your podcasts.
And you serve on a bunch of corporate boards. I know you're interested or have written about
corporate governance. What do you think are the one or two structural changes or how would you
like to see boards of directors of public companies change? So, you know, just to give
some context, I do have a book called How Boards Work. I think that there is a lot of a sort of a blind spot by
a number of people, even our own employees, about what the mandate for the board is,
what levers boards have to influence change. Boards have been around since around 1674.
And, you know, by and large, we haven't changed that much. I mean, on the margin that
there have been some changes, but really fundamental change hasn't really been the case.
And I say that really with part temerity and part humility, because I think there's something to be
said about a good governance structure. But on the other hand, I don't want to claim or to assert
that other boards didn't have challenges. I mean,
try being a board member in the middle of the World War I or World War II. It must have been
incredibly difficult. So, you know, it is challenging, yes. However, I do think there
are some specific opportunities. I think boards need to have more visibility around ethical issues
as one area. So, you know, there's some companies that are going as far as thinking about
having ethics committees on the board. And this is largely because we have a lot of ethical issues
around data privacy, use of data privacy. You know, we all want a vaccine. In fact,
we all want a cancer cure yesterday, basically as soon as possible. But, you know, what freedoms
are we willing to sacrifice in order to speed that up?
Do we want our pharmaceutical companies to do trials in a place like China where jurisdictions where the use of data is perhaps not as managed or policed as aggressively as the West?
So that's a fundamental question.
I mean, there are other questions such as ESG broadly defined, and I'll pick climate as
one example. How do we think about climate and ESG compliance being, you know, is it comport with
being an investor in China or is it against being an investor in China? I mean, these are questions
that I think ethics committees on a board or an ethics lens on a board will have to consider.
The other one, another example of something I think would need to change, I mean, is in some respects obvious, but in other ways not.
And that is really, we do need to have a better understanding of trade-offs.
I fear that there's a lot of campaigning, a lot of very aggressive policing of 21st
century capitalism, boards specifically. I mean,
there's campaigns to defend companies, but there's just a lack of understanding about the importance
of corporations and their role in the world. And if I may give you a very quick example,
on the one hand, we are all, I mean, I think there are very few people who are climate change deniers. I think the evidence is pretty clear that human beings are contributing to the heating of the world.
But, you know, on the one hand, we have to do something about climate change.
On the other hand, we can't be so reckless as to just turn the lights out when there are about 1.5 billion people on the planet who don't have access to energy in a cost effective and sustainable sort of stable way.
This is a problem because, you know, we might solve one problem, i.e. we turn out the lights because we want a sort of more sustainable energy approach.
But on the other hand, we leave a lot of people incredibly impoverished, no access to education.
And you create another problem because then you have mass disorderly migration.
You know, I like to encourage people to think about right now.
We spend so much time on Zoom screens and really heavily dependent on virtual and electronics as you and I are doing right now. But the truth is, if you're sitting in a place like my home country of Zambia,
for 17, 18 hours a day, you don't have any electricity because of load shedding.
And it's the same is true in places like South Africa.
It's a very specific example, but it's a very generalized problem that we cannot
and boards should not be in a place where they're being forced to answer questions without
thinking more generally about trade-offs and broader concerns for society.
So to wrap up two things, I want to do a lightning round with you, but I want to give you the ability
to pass because some of these questions, someone who's thoughtful with your credentials doesn't
want to give a three or five second answer. In a decade, global superpower, China or the U.S. or other?
Could it be both of them?
Or what does other mean?
Somebody else.
I was thinking somebody else, but say more.
Say more.
I think that it will be finely tuned.
I think that both economies will be important players in different areas.
And there's going to be forced cooperation.
50-50.
Well, that's optimistic. I think that's actually probably a decent outcome. That's what my portfolio says.
And do you, stock market, NASDAQ, up or down next, call it next 24 months?
Up.
Up?
Yeah.
A number of households that are food insecure in the U.S., up or down over the next
five years? I'd say up. I think the number is one in seven in the U.S. I fear it's going to be higher.
Yeah. And do you think that we as a nation become less or more polarized?
I'm afraid it's probably going to be more polarized. So let me just add to that. If
there's more food insecurity, which sounds like more
income inequality, if we become more polarized, isn't the risk of revolution much greater over
the next five or seven years in the U.S.? Well, I would say in principle, risk of anything, yes,
is rising. But I think at the same time, the institutions in the United States are becoming
more transparent, more inclusive. I think what needs to be done is greater conversation.
And, you know, I've been reading this book.
I'm actually rereading a book called The Art of Thinking Clearly, which came out a number
of years ago.
But it's really interesting because we make so many fallacies, so many assumptions made
about what, quote unquote, the other side think.
And so I think really public policy is duty. And the next, you know, certainly generation, but certainly the next five years or so is really to
try and bring people together, having proper conversations about what America means, what
it's supposed to be and how it's going to get to that place, as opposed to pointing fingers.
And I've talked about this. I think one of the weaknesses in the country, which I really love
living in America, but one of the challenges has been it's been too easy to blame someone else.
It's always China's fault or globalization's fault.
And there's no real acknowledgement that we've made some catastrophic errors that need to be rectified.
So I'm optimistic about the U.S. because I think they're very quick to solve problems.
And last question, advice to your 25-year-old self or specifically,
we have a very young viewership on the podcast here. What advice would you offer them?
I would say two things. One is things take time. Don't try and be clever. We've all looked for
shortcuts. They don't exist. So you've got to do your time basically. And the other one is no
doesn't mean never. It just means not now,
which I think is really important. People, they get told no, and they think it's the end of the
world when actually it just might mean that you need to work a little bit harder or differently.
And so you really shouldn't be discouraged. It just doesn't mean never. It just means not now.
Dr. Dambisa Moyo is a global economist and bestselling author who influences key decision
makers in strategic investment and public policy, a trusted advisor on macroeconomics, geopolitics,
and technology themes, and serves on a number of global corporate boards, including 3M,
Chevron, and Condé Nast.
She worked at the World Bank and Goldman Sachs for nearly a decade and joins us from
her home.
And where are you, doctor?
Where are you right now?
New York City.
In New York, greatest city in the world. Greatest city in the world.
So nice. They had to name it twice.
We'll be right back.
Support for the show comes from Indeed. If you need to hire, you may need Indeed. Indeed is a matching and hiring
platform with over 350 million global monthly visitors, according to Indeed data, and a matching
engine that helps you find quality candidates fast. Listeners of this show can get a $75
sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at indeed.com slash podcast. Just go to indeed.com slash podcast right now
and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast.
Indeed.com slash podcast.
Terms and conditions apply.
Need to hire? You need Indeed.
Support for the show comes from Alex Partners.
In business, disruption brings not only challenges, but opportunities.
As artificial intelligence powers pivotal moments of change, Alex Partners is the consulting firm
chief executives can rely on. Alex Partners is dedicated to making sure your company knows what
really matters when it comes to AI. As part of their 2024 tech sector report, Alex Partners spoke
with nearly 350 tech executives from across North America and
Europe to dig deeper into how tech companies are responding to these changing headwinds.
And in their 2024 Digital Disruption Report, Alex Partners found that 88% of executives
report seeing potential for growth from digital disruption, with 37% seeing significant or even
extremely high positive impact on revenue growth. You can read both reports and learn how to convert digital disruption into revenue growth
at www.alexpartners.com. That's www.alexpartners.com. In the face of disruption,
businesses trust Alex Partners to get straight to the point and deliver results when it really matters. had kids, I was working around the clock. And one of the most rewarding things I remember about
having kids at home or babies, we had a newborn and a three-year-old at home. I was working
pretty much around the clock in Manhattan. And when I would head home, I remember I would come
down 10th Street and make a right on 4th Avenue. And right when I made that right,
I'd start walking faster. And I was just so excited to see my new family. It was just such a wonderful feel to have people you love and who love you. And there's nothing like the welcome you get from kids when they're at that age where they still like dad or daddy. It was just wonderful. And that last hundred meters, by the way, once I saw them, they were great for 10 minutes and then they just turned into total needy jerks.
I found that anticipation was one of the most rewarding things about being a dad. Whenever I
would get on a plane home, I would immediately just get kind of this strange sense of impatience
and a little bit of anxiety, but mostly hopefulness and anticipation of getting to see my family.
That as soon as I got to the airport
after a client engagement or a meeting,
that anticipation and that excitement would build.
And the closer I would get to home
and then finally to that last hundred meters
was just wonderful.
And I think that's been one of the nicest.
If I look back on the film that is my life,
Jesus, that'd be one fucked up documentary.
You don't wanna see that on your Netflix home screen.
Anyways, the frames that were really rewarding
or burned brightest for me
weren't necessarily even being with people,
weren't necessarily even going on some great vacation.
It was the anticipation.
So where does this take us?
Build some anticipation in your life.
Build some frames that you can look forward to.
Call people that you love
that you haven't seen in a while,
whether it's friends,
whether it's grandparents
and put something on the calendar
and then call them,
call them and create anticipation,
create that last hundred meters,
create a sense of wanting and longing.
And even if you have,
even if something happens
where you have to cancel,
the best thing for me about seeing people,
about vacations, about doing
something wonderful has been the last hundred meters before that thing happens. Build the last
hundred meters in your life. Start making plans and reach out to people and give them that last
hundred meters. Make some trips, put some things on the calendar, and then express to people,
tell them how excited you are to do this, but more specifically to do this with them.
Our producers are Caroline Shagrin and Drew Burrows. Claire Miller is our assistant producer.
If you like what you heard, please follow, download, and subscribe. Thank you for listening
to The Prop G Show from the Vox Media Podcast Network. We'll catch you next week on Monday and
Thursday. Making every moment count. Over 100,000 brands trust Klaviyo's unified data and marketing platform to build smarter digital relationships with their customers during Black Friday, Cyber Monday, and beyond.
Make every moment count with Klaviyo.
Learn more at klaviyo.com. slash BFCM. high positive impact on revenue growth. In Alex Partners' 2024 Digital Disruption Report,
you can learn the best path to turning that disruption into growth for your business.
With a focus on clarity, direction, and effective implementation, Alex Partners provides essential
support when decisive leadership is crucial. You can discover insights like these by reading
Alex Partners' latest technology industry insights, available at www.alexpartners.com.
That's www.alexpartners.com.
In the face of disruption, businesses trust Alex Partners to get straight to the point
and deliver results when it really matters.