The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - Prof G Markets: Global Pushback on Tariffs + Can the FTC Beat Meta?

Episode Date: April 21, 2025

Scott and Ed discuss gold hitting a record high, the Trump administration’s new restrictions on chip exports, and Jerome Powell’s comments on tariffs. Then, they unpack how other nations are pushing back against the tariffs, highlighting Trump’s key strategic missteps—including his underestimation of global rivals. Finally, they dissect the key moments from the Meta antitrust trial so far, with Scott laying out the economic upsides of breaking up the company, and Ed outlining how the FTC could actually come out on top. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets newsletter  Order "The Algebra of Wealth," out now Subscribe to No Mercy / No Malice Follow the podcast across socials @profgpod: Instagram Threads X Reddit Follow Scott on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram and X Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from Mercury, the fintech that more than 200,000 entrepreneurs use to simplify their finances. When banking can do more, your business can do more. With Mercury, you can watch your revenue climb with every invoice you send. You can stay current with contractors with built-in bill pay. You can unlock the credit you need to scale faster. Check it out for yourself at mercury.com. Mercury, banking that does more. Mercury is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services provided by Choice Financial Group, Column N.A., and Evolve Bank and Trust, members FDIC. The IO card is issued by Patriot Bank, member FDIC, pursuant to a license from MasterCard. Support for the show comes from Public.com. If you're serious about investing, you need to

know about Public.com. That's where you're serious about investing, you need to know about public.com. That's where you can invest in everything, stocks, options, bonds, and more, and even in a 6% or higher yield that you can lock in with a bond account. Visit public.com slash prop G and get up to $10,000 when you transfer your old portfolio. That's public.com slash prop G. Paid for by public investing. All investing involves the risk of loss, including loss of principal. I am an investor in public. Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start? Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin, or what that clunking sound from your dryer is?

With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app. Download today. Hey, ProfG listeners, it's Ed. If you're hearing this message, it's because you're still listening on the ProfG pod feed, which means you are missing half of our episodes, which are on the ProfG markets feed. So for all of the content, head over to the ProfG Markets podcast and hit follow.

We've also left a link in the description to make it easier. You'll see it's a different logo. ProfG pod is turquoise with Scott's face. ProfG markets is green with me and Scott's face. Thank you. I'll see you over on the other feed. Today's number 476. That's how many S and P 500 companies Warren Buffett could buy with the

cash while he's sitting on. True story, Ed, this morning I was taking a dump and I immediately got up. I got startled by something and for a brief moment I was in between the basin and the floor and I realized, Ed, I'm an astronaut and I am here for feminism and hear me roar and we're all one, Ed. We're all one, Ed. We're all one. I'm an astronaut, Ed.

I'm an at, can you believe the amount of shit these women are getting? I'm so here for this. Ed, how are you? I'm doing well, Scott. I like your shirt. For those who are not watching on YouTube, Scott is wearing a Harvard Club of New York shirt.

I'm so excited to see you. I'm so excited to see you. I'm so excited to see you. I'm so excited to see you. I'm so excited to see you. I'm so excited to see you. I'm so excited to see you. I'm so excited to see you. I'm so excited to see you. I'm so excited to see you. I'm so here for this. Ed, how are you? I'm doing well, Scott. I like your shirt. For those who are not watching on YouTube,

Scott is wearing a Harvard Club of New York shirt. I assume this is a political statement. Well, you know me, I don't like to draw attention to myself, Ed. Yeah, I wore a Canada shirt around. It was amazing. When I got bored last time I was in New York, I put on my Canada, my big Canadian leaf,

whatever the maple leaf thing is, and I'd walk around SoHo and people would go like, hey, thank you, we appreciate your support. That's my Canadian accent, whatever that was. Sounded like a dead language of twins speak to each other. But yeah, it literally took Donald Trump to make me like Harvard. And I can't stand Harvard.

You know what I hate the most? Even Princeton douches aren't this bad. You know what I just the most? Even Princeton douches aren't this bad. You know what I just fucking hate? I'll say someone will come up like, where do you go to college? And someone goes, I went to college in Boston. And then they say in Cambridge. You went to Harvard and you want everyone to know it,

but you want to pretend to be humble because it's so fucking awesome to have gone to Harvard that you pretend that it's like, you really shouldn't rub your six. I want to strangle them. I wanna send them to space. By the way, I think Katy Perry was replaced up there with someone else.

I just, you know what the best thing about that Blue Origin thing was? This is a true story. They're, you know, they're trying to pretend it's for all mankind, right? First off, that was a giant leap backwards for women when they, did you hear them screaming on the way down? There's like drug parachutes,

just free falling right there until those drugs. Ah, ah. It's like, oh, okay. Yeah, it's a woman's world. It's a woman's world. But when they were about to take off on launch, they try to make it all dramatic and they're like T minus two minutes

and there's all these newscasters broadcast like desperate to get anyone to watch anything so they can sell more opioid induced constipation meds. And they're like, and this is just in, Katy Perry is actually gonna sing when she's up there and literally on cue and they said that, the guy in the control room goes, warning one minute. And I'm like, one minute, they said that, the guy in the control room goes, warning, one minute. And I'm like, one minute. They're like, here's your warning.

She's going to be singing in one minute. What did you think of the Blue Origin launch and these very brave women? I genuinely couldn't give a fuck. I had no interest in the Blue Origin launch. I love how everyone's shitting on them, but I wasn't watching it when it happened. I didn't watch any of the press releases.

I couldn't care less. I just think it's insane that they still think that just by hawking these celebrities, they're gonna win everyone over. I mean, apparently they're planning another one and they've got another batch of celebrities, only it's men this time. I bet a few of those guys are gonna come up

with reasons they can't do it. This is a bad luck. Absolutely. I mean, this is probably the worst celebrity PR event since the Imagine video during COVID. I think that probably, I went back and I watched that again. I was just thinking that. Imagine there's no heaven.

Easy if you try. That was the worst I've ever seen. It's actually shocking if you go back and watch it, just how cringe-worthy. I mean, it makes, it really makes your skin crawl. This was not quite at that level, but it was close. And I think, I think people just need to get into their heads. We don't really care about these celebrities anymore.

It doesn't make us like you that Katy Perry is friends with you. I think we're having a series of small revolutions. And I think of black lives matter as basically in the me too movement is righteous movements where systemic racism or abuse of power by men in corporations, people had just had enough. But in each of those instances in this one, they go after rich people. They're not talking about racism, small,

medium sized companies. They're not talking about systemic racism across the middle class. They're talking, they go after, it's sort of almost like a vehicle to go after rich people. And I think that essentially people are just so fed up with how much prosperity has been crammed into the top 1%. When they see someone who is rich, like if you're rich, be rich and quiet, go

up in a fucking dildo if that's what you want, pay the money, fine, have at it. But to try and capture social status and portray to rebrand vanity and rebrand wealth as any sort of like virtue. People are just like, we've had it with these people. We've literally we've had it. We don't. I think these folks surround themselves in bubbles where they think they are super interesting and that what they do is inspiring and everything they do can be couched as something inspiring. And then the rest of the world goes, okay, if you're rich and you can go up in a rocket and you're in your betrothed to the third wealthiest man in the world,

good for fucking you, but we don't need to hear about it. Keep it to yourself. Your thoughts, Ed. Should we start this show? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Bring us back, get to the headlines. Let's start with our weekly review of market vitals.

The S&P 500 declined. The dollar struggled to recover from its three-year low. Bitcoin was volatile and the yield on 10-year Treasuries fell. Shifting to the headlines. Gold hit a record high surpassing $3,300 per ounce for the first time in history. Goldman Sachs projected prices could soar to $4,500 by the end of 2025 in a worst-case-risk scenario. The Trump administration announced new restrictions on chip exports by Nvidia and AMD, which will cost the companies $5.5 billion and $800 million respectively. The news sent shares of both

companies down around 7% which dragged the Nasdaq 2% lower. And finally, Jerome Powell called tariffs a challenging scenario for the Federal Reserve, warning they will likely lead to higher prices and rising unemployment. A day later, Trump responded on Truth Social and he said, quote, Powell's termination cannot come fast enough. So Scott, let's get your thoughts here starting with gold. I just want to quickly highlight some additional data I found here from the Bank of America fund manager survey. They survey all the top hedge funds, all the top pension funds, money managers all around the world. Um, and just some of the results here.

So half of fund managers say they believe long gold is currently the most crowded trade in the world right now, more crowded than long magnificent seven, which has been the top trade for the past several years. And then also 42% of managers said they believe gold will be the best performing asset class in 2025. So quite striking this reversal in the market trends away from tech, away from stocks and towards gold. Your thoughts. So the uncertainty index in the United States has hit a, it's at the highest it's been since the 80s.

So people are feeling more uncertain about the US economy right now than when we had a virus killing. You know, they killed a million people and there was lockdowns and they closed schools. People are more uncertain today than they were during COVID. And there's always a flight to quality or a fight, not even a flight to quality, a flight to hard assets where if shit gets real, I can take my gold bars and head to my bunker. Right. It's this, it is kind of the gold is really sort of an uncertainty index. And the reason why the trade is so crowded

is not only because of uncertainty, but because of greed. Because if you look at economic history, if you look at every recession, let's go through each of them and how gold performed relative to the S&P 500. From 73 to 75, the returned gold returned 73%. The S&P was down 37.

From 1980 to 82, the S&P lost 27% of its value. Gold was up 120%. 90 to 91, I remember this, this is when I got out of grad school and couldn't find a job, the S&P returned negative 3%. Gold was up seven, 2001 market down 13. Gold up five, 2007 to 2009 actually from Oh seven to 2011 gold doubled. And then in 2020 during COVID Q1, the SMB was down 34% year

to date for the whole year was up 16, but gold was up 30%. Now, is this a giant buy signal? I don't know. I would buyer beware. Cause a lot of that, I mean, it was just such an obvious and smart things seem so obvious in hindsight. A couple of weeks ago when he announced his tariffs to really think, okay, this is going to create uncertainty.

It's stupid. He's declaring war on everyone all at once. What would be a good trade? And this feels like obvious in hindsight. Now, I don't know. Basically when a trade is super crowded, you get scared because that means it's probably a bit overvalued. I mean, the run up here has been pretty significant. One thing that's quite interesting,

though, is what's happening to Bitcoin because remember Bitcoin is supposed to be the same thing. Not correlated. Right. Yeah. It's supposed to be, you know, like the ultimate gold, even safer than gold. But you look at the price of Bitcoin, it fell in concert with the S&P right after the tariff. It's down 10% year to date. The S&P is down 10% year to date as well. It's basically tracked with the stock market. And then you look at gold, which is up 26% so far. So this really, I mean, there have been so many moments where it's been Bitcoin's big

opportunity to step up as the new digital gold. I mean, I think the first example I would think of would have been Russia invading Ukraine, where we had another sort of uncertain doomsday global warfare scenario on our hands. The stock market tanked, gold rallied, but then you look at Bitcoin and it was just tracking with the stock market. Here we're seeing the same thing again. I'm not saying Bitcoin isn't digital gold.

I think you can make the argument that it could be, but at least right now, today, in 2025, the market does not view it as that. But let's move on here to what happened with these chip makers and this new order from the Trump administration, which is restricting these H20 chips for Nvidia. I want to just clarify what this actually means for Nvidia because the headlines are saying that Nvidia is taking a $5.5 billion hit, which is a little bit misleading. So that $5.5 billion number, that is the number that Nvidia cited in this regulatory filing saying this is what we expect to be charged with this new H20 chip restriction.

But it's a backward looking number because it's only describing all of the money they've already spent on these H20 chips. What it doesn't include is all of the revenue they're about to lose on not selling all of those chips to China. And that number is closer to around $15 to $16 to $17 billion. And so that's why you saw this huge decline in Nvidia stock, which brought the rest of the tech markets down with it, because this new order from the administration, it essentially wipes out all of Nvidia's China revenue. Last year, China accounted for around 13% of Nvidia's total revenue, and today it's going to be zero. So when you read that headline, or you read the executive order,

which says we're putting a restriction on this specific chip at Nvidia, this specific H20 chip, that's not really what's happening. What they're basically saying is China is now off limits for Nvidia. And what I've been wondering in the wake of this order is what on earth is going through Jensen Huang's head right now. Because you might recall, you know, why does this H20 chip even exist?

The reason that that was created was it was Jensen Huang's response to a Biden administration order, which said that we can't be selling our most advanced chips to China. And so Jensen Huang and Nvidia responded by creating this slower, less capable chip. And that was their attempt to fall in line. It was designed specifically for China. And now two years later, the government is saying, actually, never mind, we're not going to let you sell these chips at all. So this is really a logistical nightmare for Nvidia. And I do find it hilarious

To think about how Trump was touted for so long as the pro-business candidate and all these CEOs believed it And they were super excited but so far what we're seeing is that this is pretty much the most anti-business president America has ever seen so it will be interesting to see how Jensen deals with it I just read recently that he actually just flew to China and met with Chinese officials, but this is definitely a big problem for Jensen Huang. And that's why you're seeing this big devaluation in this talk. I was initially in favor of the chip bands to China,

because I thought, okay, these are the same chips that are used in missiles to help guide them real time or drones, but what did they do? They came up with a workaround. They came up with essentially deep seek. So there's an argument that, okay, all you're doing is inspiring them to come up, make their own investments, so they can come up with their own chips and develop their own industry.

So, um, you know, if there's a company that could give back some gains and be fine, it'd be Nvidia, but just the amount of time they're spending trying to navigate this bullshit, as opposed to making a better chip, you can just see there's, this is, this is the Republican argument. Government needs to get out of the way with stuff like this. And this is creating just a lot of unnecessary time and energy and waste. But the, the export ban hands the Chinese AI market over to domestic competitors, including Huawei.

So it's kind of a gift again. I keep thinking that all of this kind of kind of bubbles up to medium and long-term gains for, for China. I think, I used to think that China's hit a pretty big speed bump the last five or seven years and then America was pulling away. I think over the next, actually, everyone talks about our ability to ruin China's economy.

I think in two or three years, relative to US performance, China's gonna, and maybe India, it'd be interesting to see what India does, but I think China's gonna outperform. Yeah, I think to your point, if you're very worried about China, then creating this all out ban on sending any AI chips to China is probably reasonable.

What's funny is that this was supposed to be the tech industry's guy, but then we keep seeing these policies that can only spell just disaster from a supply chain perspective for many of these big tech CEOs. And so how is Jensen going to deal with it? Is he going to continue to fall in line and be quite polite and gracious towards the president? Or is he going to start getting upset? And we saw this trip to China, maybe that's an indication that he's about to move

in the other direction. I think that's the thing that we wanna keep an eye on. How do you manage your public relationship with the president? I think at first we saw, they all decided we're gonna kowtow to him, we're gonna show up to the inauguration, we're gonna donate to the inauguration fund,

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But I could see that beginning to change to kowtow to him, we're going to show up to the inauguration, we're going to donate to the inauguration fund, etc. But I could see that beginning to change in the next few months or so, once they all realize this guy isn't really making through on the promises that he told us. I agree and we'll talk more about this in predictions, but I think the worm has turned. I think that essentially there's an enormously ripe opportunity for, for people in both the Republican party and in corporations to stand up and go,

basically what the Harvard president did said, you know, look, look boss, what you're doing is wrong and we're not going to put up with it. And we're not going to try and kiss your ass and massage and figure out a way to couch, you know, to call your, your, you know, your quote unquote 40 chess of eating the pieces somehow genius. We've had it. You're, you're, they're going to find a polite starch way to say, you're a idiot and we're not down with this.

And it's been striking the silence from these guys. All 500 S and B CEOs think this is just stupid, bad for America, bad for everybody. Zero of them have spoken out because what Trump has done is created an incentive system where for short-term shareholder value, you just stay quiet and nod and announce that you're building a $500 billion plant that you're always planning to credit him and give him a million bucks. That has changed. There's now an enormous consumer opportunity to stand up and be an American and show some leadership.

I think at a certain point, once your market cap has eviscerated as much as many of these companies, oh, you don't really have a choice. You know who's perfect for this? Who? Because they are an aggressive brand, they're an American brand.

Palantir. I don't think it's Palantir. I think Palantir is so overvalued right now. To your point, it needs to be a company that's been gotten the shit kicked out of it and doesn't have a lot to lose. I think this would be the gangster move for Nike. Great point.

I think, cause they came out, they came out, first off. The all American company. Well, Elliot Hill doesn't have a lot to lose, stocks at a 12 year low. He's in a honeymoon phase as the new CEO. They have a history of being unafraid around politics. They were very smart around the Colin capturing a moment with Colin Kaepernick.

If they weaponize Weedon Kennedy or some of the most creative people in the world and said, there's something about America and competition and fair play and having people from different backgrounds and the power of immigrants who become American and sport, they could come up with something really moving that highlights what's going on here is not American. And look at it through the lens of sport And look at it through the lens of sport and look at it through the lens

of a great American company like Nike. And to your point, they don't have a lot to lose at this point. There has never been a bigger, a more ripe opportunity for a Fortune 500 CEO to stand up and say, all right, you know, the men have shown up. And they're saying the quiet parts out loud. I mean, they know that everyone else agrees with them

and those are usually the people who are rewarded, who are the people who are the first ones to say it. It's a smart move economically. The wealthiest 10% control 50% of the consumer economy now. And what percentage of those people do you think are waiting for someone to stand up and to call bullshit on all this bullshit? There's an enormous opportunity for a consumer brand to come out and be the good guys here.

Also enormous risk in being the second, third, fourth, or fifth one to come out and say. Yeah, the juices squeeze. The first guy who does this, the juices squeeze. The Harvard president, this was the best brand move of 2025 year to date probably. It was was Harvard, all of a sudden they look like the good guys in Columbia. But if all the other IVs start to follow suit, they look weak. I wouldn't say they look weak. They just don't look as good. Yeah. The first CEO who stands up and says, okay, come after me, have at it, sees a

massive inflow of goodwill from foreign and domestic manufacturers and consumers. And the person that goes the half-life here, the drop-off will be enormous. And numbers two, three, four, five, and six get 10% of the credit that the first person gets. This is, and no one's done it yet. Even a guy like Jamie Dimon's been kind of like dancing around being like, just in case you want me as treasury secretary, I'm here and I don't want to say anything to offend anybody, you know, enough already, enough. Absolutely. Let's move on to Jerome Powell, his comments and then Trump's response.

I just find this hilarious because you actually look at Jerome Powell's comments. They were incredibly tame. I'll just read you what he said here. He said, quote, these are very fundamental policy changes. There isn't a modern experience of how to think about this. The level of the tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated.

We may find ourselves in the challenging scenario in which our dual mandate goals are in tension. Very uncontroversial thing to say, you know, calling it like it is, but calmly and without being aggressive or pugnacious. Um, and then Trump goes on this tweet storm or his truth storm, saying, quote, Powell's termination cannot come fast enough. Exclamation point. It's actually threatening that he's going to fire the Fed chair.

Now many people are arguing whether that's even possible. Technically it is, but he needs to have a reason. You can only fire a member of the board of the Fed for cause. So he needs to have proven that he's done something legitimately wrong. But beyond that, just kind of remarkable to see the president threatening the chair of the Federal Reserve. Scott, your reactions. Scott McIlvenna It's very difficult to predict the actions of the Mad King at this point, but you do get the sense based on him blinking last week that he does listen to the markets. And if you want to talk about waking up to a three, five, maybe even an 8,000 point drop in the Dow, fire chairman pal.

Because a key component and accepted general best practice across Western economies is you have to insulate the head of the bank, the central bank and the Fed or whatever the equivalent institution is, you have to insulate the head of the bank, the central bank and the Fed or whatever the equivalent institution is. You have to separate it. You have to give it protection or immunity from political pressure because these guys are all so horny for power.

The economy, most people are voted out of office. The number one reason is people are dissatisfied with the economy. And the easiest way to juice the economy is just to call, you know, the chairman and say, I'm going to fire you unless you cut interest rates by, I need you to announce five cuts and the market will go up. That could be disastrous though for the economy.

And these people are supposed to just look at all the data and do their best job and decide interest rates and take into account the million points of light they observe and do what is best for the economy over the medium and long term, not based on what is going to get this guy reelected. The scary part is I think his term is up next year. Is that right? 2026. Yeah. So the scary part is who does he put in? Does he put in ass clown Lutnick? I mean, does he put in Stephen Miller?

Is he putting Kid Rock? We're cutting interest rates to 0%. Let America bloom, let our companies run. And it's like, okay, now we have 22% inflation with, I mean, Chairman Powell, arguably, if you consider him technically part of the administration is the most competent person in the administration or has the best reputation. So I think the next democratic president is going to give him the national medal of freedom.

Yeah. It really is just inflation 101. Like you look at any society or an economy where you've had runaway hyperinflation. You look at Zimbabwe, you look at Venezuela, you'll get all these other- Weimar Germany. Weimar Germany. All these other situations. And basically what happens is the central bank

loses its independence. It becomes captive to the dictator. The dictator says, I wanna juice the economy. They start printing money like crazy to meet all these short-term demands. And then suddenly you have runaway inflation. This is not unlike that. And Trump is literally threatening him and ordering him to cut rates.

He's calling him too late Powell. Um, and this is coming at a time when inflation is set to explode because of what we're seeing with the tariffs. Like it's, it's, it's, it's kind of funny how stereotypical the situation is when you look through history and why runaway inflation happens in the first place. Now we're not at that point and the good news is we have a great Fed chair who is rational, sensible but most importantly very strong, clearly.

I don't think he's going to reverse any decision just because Trump told him to. But again, the implication here is pretty massive. You know, if Trump were successful in removing Powell, it would be a huge hit to the stock market, as you say, also to the treasury markets. I mean, what we'd see in the yield, we wouldn't be at four and a half percent, we'd be hitting five, six, probably 7%. I mean, it would totally eviscerate all credibility in the debt markets. So I have a friend who lives in London, who has a company doing independent

research on media and technology. And his name is Richard Cramer. He runs this niche, very high quality research firm. I think it's called a RET. I don't know if it's like some name that's hard to pronounce. Anyways, he sent me an email saying the following, did you see the B of A survey global fund managers interest in investing in U.S. is at a 30 year low.

So what does that mean? It means we're gonna have to raise our, you know, we're gonna have to raise the interest rates we pay for money to come in. And that's going to be inflationary. This is really, I'm like, I'm trying to work through all the second order effects here. Can you imagine what's going to happen to the earnings of export and import dependent companies? Exactly. We haven't even seen the earnings yet, and it's going to be in a few months from now. Like we haven't even been able to price any of this in yet properly. Yeah. They don't know what to order. They don't have to stop all shipments. They can't just flip a switch and massively reconfigure their supply chain and start getting, you know,

start getting outdoor furniture from overnight from Chile as opposed to China. It just, overnight from Chile as opposed to China. It just, yeah, I gotta think there's, you're going to hear the term uncertainty and impact from tariffs in almost, it's going to be a more common use phrase than AI in earnings calls over the next three months. Everyone's going to be like, they'll blame, and some of it will be untrue. Some of them just becoming so performing well, but they'll blame everything. It is going to be literally everyone's going to blame everything on this. We'll be right back after the break with a look at how the world is pushing back on tariffs.

If you're enjoying the show so far, be sure to give the Proffes G Markets feed a follow wherever you get your podcasts. Support for the show comes from public.com. All right. If you're serious about investing, you need to know about public.com. That's where you can invest in everything, stocks, options, bonds, and more. They even offer some of the highest yields in the industry, including the bond account, 6% or higher yield that remains locked in even if the Fed cuts rates. With Public, you can get the tools you need to make informed investment decisions. Their built-in AI tools called Alpha doesn't just tell you if an asset is moving, it tells

you why the asset is moving so you can actually understand what's driving your portfolio performance. Public is a FINRA-registered, SIPC-insured, US-based company with a customer support team that actually cares. Bottom line? Your investments deserve a platform that takes them as seriously as you do. Fund your account in 5 minutes or less at public.com slash ProfG and get up to $10,000 when you transfer your old portfolio. That's public.com slash ProfG.

Paid for by Public Investing, all investing involves the risk of loss, including loss of principal, brokerage services for US- listed registered securities options and bonds, and a self-directed account are offered by Public Investing Inc., member FINRA, and SIPC. Complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures. I should also disclose I am an investor in public. Support for the show comes from Groons. If you're looking for a new tasty nutrition solution then look no further than Groons. It's a convenient comprehensive formula packed into 8 gummies a day. Groons isn't a multivitamin, a greens gummy or a prebiotic. It's all of

those things, and then some at a fraction of the price. Their daily packs contain 8 gummies because you just can't fit the amount of nutrients they do just into one gummy. Generic multivitamins only contain around 7-9 vitamins, but Groons have more than 20 vitamins and minerals plus more than 60 whole food ingredients. They actually provided us with a bit of science to explain what makes Groons different. Basically, 30% of the population has a gene that messes with how they absorb vitamins, but Groons is methylated, which is a fancy way of saying their vitamins like B12 and folate can be absorbed by your body. Methylating is an expensive option for a lot of other companies, but Groons is looking out for you. Plus, they're vegan and free of nuts, dairy and gluten, and they're made with no artificial

colors or flavors. Get up to 45% off when you go to groz.co and use code PROVG. That's G-R-U-N-S dot C-O, using code PROVG for 45% off. Support for the show comes from found. When you're a small business owner, making sure your bookkeeping and taxes stay in order comes at a cost. I'm not talking about your money, I'm talking about your time. Hours and hours you could have spent actually growing your business, but the reality is, it doesn't have to be that way thanks to Found. Found is a banking platform that doesn't just consolidate your financial ecosystem, it automates manual activities like expense tracking

and finding tax write-offs. Found can make staying on top of invoices and payments easy, and small businesses are loving Found. One Found user said this, Found is going to save me so much headache. It makes everything so much easier. Expenses, income, profits, taxes, invoices even. That's just one of their 30,000 5-star reviews. You can open a Found account for free at found.com slash ProfG, spelled F-O-U-N-D dot com slash ProfG.

Found is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services are provided by Piermont Bank, member FDIC. We're back with Profit-G Markets. The trade war is officially on, and Trump's strategy for the US is clear. Shock and awe tariffs. But other countries aren't sitting still. They're responding with strategic moves of their own. China is leading the economic pushback. China's central bank told state-owned banks to cut their US dollar purchases. It also ordered its airlines to stop deliveries of Boeing jets, and they curbed their rare

earth exports to the US. But it's not just China. Canada is starting to boycott US goods, such as American whiskey. Brazil passed a bill to impose their own tariff countermeasures. And in Denmark, the largest grocer in the country is putting Black Star labels on

European products to encourage a boycott of American products. So Scott, the world appears to be coalescing against a common enemy here in the US. Any thoughts on how this might all play out and what we as investors should do about it? I mean, there's just some of the most basics of strategy. If you're 5% of the world's economy or world's population, but you have a quarter of its economic growth or a quarter of its prosperity, you are highly levered to the upside. And some of that comes from this most basic of advantages as a species. You have leveraged the most basic species and that is cooperation.

And generally speaking, the U S believes in free trade. We make outstanding products. So we say to people, okay, well, for the most part, we'll compete and we win on a regular basis. for the most part, will compete and we win on a regular basis. And to declare war on everyone all at once is just, okay, that, that absolutely, um, you know, makes no sense. In addition, his second really big strategic error was underestimating the competition while we have issued tariffs based on some junior economic analysts and fed it into chat GPT,

and he's claimed that 75 nations are lining up to talk to us, we don't have in this administration, we don't have the human capital to the brain power to even begin those conversations distinct to the fact that it's a lie and all of these nations are lining up to exit relationships with the US. What they're doing is they're having conversations with each other. There are more, it's really interesting. Donald Trump's actions are actually going to inspire, in my opinion,

some growth over the medium and long-term because I think every, I think he is going to say, all right, enough of this shit. The best way to fight back is for us to put our shit aside and deregulate and to bring down trade barriers. You're just going to see all these strange bad fellows to say, Hey, Brazil, we're Denmark. Why don't we lower all of our trade barriers and you know, you buy more, I don't know, more cobbler shoes and we buy more steak or whatever. I don't know what it is that Denmark, what did the Danish produce?

Zempik. Oh, is that right? Is that where Nova Nordisk is? Yep. Oh, there you go. But I mean, just as an example here, I mean, we're seeing, we're beginning to see that in very niche categories. For example, Cote d'Ivoire, which produces 40% of the world's cocoa, they're now throttling

their prices on the US and now forming a partnership with the EU. So, I mean just small examples like that where you have little nations that are kind of like, wait, what are these tariffs and why are you trying to hurt us? And the natural response is to go find allies somewhere else. But then you look at China's actions, which are But then you look at China's actions, which are probably the most dangerous to our economy. I mean, I mentioned that boycott of Boeing jets. I mean, China has historically accounted for a quarter of Boeing sales. Our biggest exporter by dollar by Boeing.

Largest exporter. They're also curbing these rare earth minerals and these are the materials we use to create jets, to create satellites, to create batteries and they control 90% of the global production supply of rare earth minerals. And it does sort of beg the question, like, can we actually win this? I mean, even if China is our enemy, even if we do want a trade war, if we decide that's something we actually want, are we actually going to win that? Especially if they start teaming up with everyone else. Is this like even a winnable war?

We're a services economy. We talk about Boeing and big manufacturers and Jack Daniels. At some point it's going to jump the shark and the biggest IPOs in the world of companies not headquartered in the U S they're going to say, we're not using Goldman or JP Morgan or Morgan Stanley. We're going to go with Deutsche Bank HSBC. Yeah. We're going to go with other investment banks. We don't need this bullshit. And by the way, David Solomon and Jamie Dimon,

grow a fucking pair, say something for God's sakes. And that's the opportunity. David Solomon, who I know, if he just came out and said, this is just fucking insane, I think he would get a torrent of this. Their best business, the business they've all tried to evolve is wealth management, because it's much more predictable. They can produce between 50 and 100 basis points a year on AUM from wealthy

people by managing their taxes, being thoughtful. And by the way, I know firsthand, they do a great job. They do a great job. And it's a better business because it's not subject to all these fluctuations from the market. If they want more AUM, they should come out and say, this is bullshit. Canada is our friends. The EU is, they are our friends.

These are our allies. You know what's going to happen? A bunch of really super wealthy people are going to say, oh my God, I'd like to invest in the company run by a guy who has fucking testicles. There is such a huge opportunity for one of these guys to stand up and say, enough is enough and couch it as we have wonderful relations with companies and people in Europe.

JP Morgan does a huge amount of business in Europe and in Asia, and they are going to see Trump full of bluster and anger and threatened to weaponize the DOJ against him and then like a cat chasing a fucking red dot, he'll go on to the next thing. And that company is going to get more business over the next 12 or 24 months. Cause you know what, Ed, the North remembers. The North remembers. And right now the North is everyone else.

They will remember who actually stood up to this shit. There is never, it's never the wrong time to do the right thing. Just on that point that we're sort of declaring war on everyone else and what a ridiculous idea that is, this reminds me, I've been thinking about this amazing joke by one of my favorite comedians, Norm MacDonald, where he's talking about the German strategy in World War I and in World War II.

There is one country that worries me though, not Iraq, not Iran, not North Korea. The only country that really worries me is the country of Germany. I don't know if you guys are history buffs or not, but... In the early part of the previous century, Germany decided to go to war. And who did they go to war with? The world. That had never been tried before. And so you figure that would take about five seconds for the world to win, but no, it was

actually close. Then about 30 years pass and Germany decides again to go to war and and again, it chooses as its enemy, the world. Yeah, I just, I love that clip. Yeah, and now Germany's the good guys. But I mean, is that not what's happening in America right now? We have chosen the world, as no one puts it, as our enemy. Yeah, take on everyone all at once, including universities.

I mean, they're taking on everywhere. Who is he not at war with right now? Let me think. Universities, every foreign nation. I mean, it's just, okay, who's next? What's next? We're all kind of waiting for, we're waiting for one of two things. We're waiting for it to get much, much worse, or we're waiting for someone to show up. There, I don't think I've ever seen a vacuum of leadership like this. I don't, the Democrats seem neutered. There's no one who's emerged.

I did a podcast that was on Governor Newsom's podcast yesterday or two days ago. Oh wow. And I basically said, I think someone should announce they're running for president and start, if someone announced today they were running for president, they'd be the leader of the Democratic Party and they would be on TV every day making, hitting a series of softballs out of the park, just responding to all this ridiculous shit. They need a new guy. Are you going to do it? of softballs out of the park, just responding to all this ridiculous shit.

They need a new guy. Are you going to do it? Yeah, that's right. A chicken in every pot, a sea Alice in every cupboard. It's slowly, I mean, this is how movements start. It starts as a meme. It's sort of like, that would be kind of funny. But it's, I'm increasingly hearing calls to Scott Galloway for president.

I think we need a non-ironic actual response from you on this question right now. Would you ever actually consider running for president? I have considered it. I had a company and some individuals call me and say, if you put up 10 million, we'll put up 10 million and you won't, you're not running for president, you're running for change.

And that it's not about winning, it's about shaping the messaging and having an influence on America, the same way Andrew Yang made UBI more palatable in the redistribution of income. I mean, that was Andrew's real victory here. And I'm a narcissist, I have all the qualities to be president. I'm white, I'm male, and I'm a narcissist and I'm rich. So those are the primary considerations.

The other thing though is you have to be, you have to like people. I don't have that. Right. You would not be good at the meet and greets. I agree with you. And just to be very honest, I'm 60 and the idea of lightning striking and I end up probably not winning, but maybe end up with, you know,

get two or 3%, which is enough to leverage myself into some sort of cabinet role. I want to hang out with my wife and kids and do amazing things and go to go to F1 and be irresponsible when I want to be irresponsible. And I don't, I, the reality is I don't feel that same sense of patriotism. If I was more patriotic, I think I would decide to give up eight years and try and do something more meaningful. But I've also decided, I think Ed, I think the two of us right now, especially you, because you're younger and you're kind of coming into your sweet spot, I think we can have a lot

of impact from outside the tent. And that is be unbridled, try and entertain, try and educate, and try and help get great leaders elected. I think there's a lot of really good people who'd be a lot more qualified and enjoyed a lot more than me. And that when I really ask myself, why am I receptive to calls to run for office, it's too much of my ego and my narcissism

and not enough of a vision and a calling to help the country. And that means I shouldn't run. And, but what we can do is we can absolutely take our time, treasure and talent to help some of the amazing people who are out there and see what man or woman rises to the moment and get behind them. What about if you got offered a position

like a cabinet position? Would you take like sort of go the Howard Lutnick route? Would you take commerce secretary, something like that? I just think there's so many people who would be so much better than me. Did you ever meet Gina Riamundo, the former head of commerce? She was just so good, so intelligent.

I just think there's so much. Michael Bennett should be secretary of education. Vivek Murthy would be an outstanding head of HHS. I just think there's so many incredible people. I think our job is to prop those people up. So I think people are mistaking some fame and some ability to articulate ideas over actual operational excellence.

So I think I'm self-aware enough to know that, okay, how could, if you're really loyal to the country, if you really wanna see America be America again, then part of that is saying, how can I be most effective? And so, no, I think our job, Ed, I'm gonna run you for something such that I can get you to help me engage in massive tax avoidance when I'm 80 and just doing nothing but counting my pennies

and yelling at people. I'll get you to become a senator. But until then, the two of us and the good people that are here at ProfG are going to help great Americans get elected and make America America again. I love that. We'll be right back with a look at the Metta antitrust trial. If you're enjoying the show so far, hit follow and leave us a review We'll be right back with a look at the Meta Antitrust Trial.

If you're enjoying the show so far, hit follow and leave us a review on the Proffjie Markets feed. Okay, Martin, let's try one. Remember, big. You got it. The Ford It's a Big Deal event is on. How's that? A little bigger. The Ford It's a Big Deal event is on. How's that? A little bigger.

The Ford It's a Big Deal event. Nice. Now the offer? Lease a 2025 Escape Active all-wheel drive from 198 bi-weekly at 1.99% APR for 36 months with $27.55 down. Wow, that's like $99 a week. Yeah, it's a big deal. The Ford It's a Big Deal event. Visit your Toronto area Ford store or Ford.ca today.

My parents have had a lot of time on their hands lately. At first, it was nice. Hey mom, can you drive me to soccer practice? Sure can. We're having slow cooked ribs for dinner. It was awesome. And then it became a lot. Some friends are coming over to watch a movie.

Ooh, what are we watching? I'll make some popcorn. Thanks to Voila, they can order all our fresh favorites from Sobeys, Farm Boy, and Longos online, which is super reliable. And now my parents are reliable. A little too reliable. Voila, your groceries delivered just like that.

Unwrap the early days of your favorite hockey stars with Tim's new retrospective rookies hockey cards featuring exclusive NHL and PWHL players and retired legends. Collect them all only at Tim's. At participating restaurants in Canada for a limited time. We're back with ProfG Markets. After nearly six years of investigation, the Meta Antitrust Trial is finally underway. The case is focused on whether Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp violated competition

laws. Mark Zuckerberg has already taken the stand. Potential upcoming witnesses include former COO Sheryl Sandberg, ex-CTO Mike Schruepfer, and executives from rival social media platforms. The trial is expected to last up to two months. I'll just kick this off and highlight what's at stake here for Meta. You know, if the, if the FTC wins this case and they could, it would be a huge deal for the company and for big tech at large.

We are increasingly seeing more momentum on the antitrust front. Uh, Google, in fact, there was just a, a judge just ruled that Google was operating a monopoly on the ad market and the server market. And that's the second time that's happened in less than a year. Of course, we covered back in August when judge Meta in, in Washington, uh, he, he declared that Google was a monopoly in the search market. So this is becoming a trend. He declared that Google was a monopoly in the search market.

So this is becoming a trend. Now, what would happen to Meta if the FTC won? The most likely remedy that people are talking about is that Meta would have to sell WhatsApp and they'd also have to sell Instagram. And that is a huge deal because WhatsApp is one of their most popular products. They have almost 3 billion users. because WhatsApp is one of their most popular products. They have almost three billion users. But also, Instagram now makes up more than half of Meta's ad revenue.

It was 50.4% coming from Instagram ads in 2025. So this would essentially dismantle the world's largest social media company. So Scott, first, just any initial reactions on what's happening with the Meta ant just any initial reactions on what's happening with the meta antitrust trial and perhaps what's happening with antitrust at large with this new ruling on Google. Scott Benner The two greatest tax cuts in the modern economy would be the following. Well, okay, the third. Number one would be the ass clown gets reined in somehow. But distinct to that,

one, if the Chinese and the American leadership were to kiss and make up, they have the ultimate supply chain of things we don't want to produce at that cost. We have IP and incredible consumption economy and innovation. It would lower everyone's costs in the world by 10 to 20%. The second biggest oxygenation of the economy would be if we broke up big tech. And that is because of the monopoly power they've established, one firm owns 50 percent or controls 50 percent of e-commerce, Amazon,

one firm 90 percent of search, Google, one firm 70 percent of all social media, Metta, they're able to extract monopoly rents, whether it's the percentage they charge third party retailers on their platform, whether it's search words or whatever it is in the rents. And I've always said this, the greatest rents they're charging are non-economic. Think about the rents and you don't know this because you have kids, the rents that Metta has raised on parents in the form of stress and strain, because they're so powerful and they have so much data

and they have such mendacious leadership. And we allow them to get away with these things because of the idolatry of the dollar and this worship of technology. If you took those four companies and broke them into 11 or 12, who wins? Society wins because they're too powerful and they've made our discourse more coarse and they haven't been able to resist radicalizing young men on YouTube

or depressing young girls on, on Metta. Society wins, the rents go down. Shareholders win. Can you imagine Instagram trades or Metta trades at about 7.7 times revenue? Can you imagine what an independent Instagram would trade at? A pure play Instagram? That company would trade at 15 to 20 times revenue. WhatsApp instead of being a body bag of data to inform the core dying platform of Facebook,

they would try and turn it into what it is, a truly the largest global telco. And they'd start monetizing it. These companies, independent of one on each other, would create more competition, more shareholder value, more tax revenue, because I believe they'd be more profitable. They would increase wages because there'd be more companies trying to rent human labor. I mean, where do you, if you want to be in social media, make a shit ton of money, what are you going to go to Pinterest? No, you got to Meta.

Pinterest basically gets everyone that Meta doesn't. Where you're going to go to Snap? I think those two firms are in business because Meta has made the conscious decision not to put them out of business so they can pretend they have competition. I'm serious. I think somebody came in and said, oh, we can put Pinterest out of business in six months. We're going to launch, we're going to launch Insta boards.

And Zuckerberg said, no, talk to Nick Clegg or whoever else has their finger on the pulse of DC and goes, no, they're shitty. Their business model sucks. And it gives people the illusion we have actual competition. Just don't just let them have their little four or $5 billion a year, and their $8 billion market caps. Meanwhile, we have a trillion dollar market cap. Just let them survive to create the illusion of competition.

The only people that lose in a breakup, it's almost impossible to find a breakup that didn't end up working for everybody. The only people that lose are the person who controls the voting shares, the voting shares, the super shares who's decided they want to sit on the iron throne of all seven realms, not just Westeros. Yeah, a lot there.

I mean, what would it take for them to win the case? One, they need to prove that Metta suppressed the competition via these acquisitions. Um, and the emails there are incredible and I'll go over a few of them in a second. And two, they also need to prove that Metta is indeed a monopoly. And those are two different arguments that they need to prove. So on the first argument, the case is incredibly strong. And it's all because of these emails that they found from Zuckerberg and Sandberg

and all these other executives. I'm just going to read off some of them to you right now. So Mark Zuckerberg in 2012, quote, Instagram and path are nascent, but the network's established. The brands are already meaningful. And if they grow to a large scale, they could be very disruptive to us from an internal executive quote, in the time it has taken us to get our act together on this, Instagram has become a large and viable competitor to us, which will increasingly be the future of photos." Sheryl Sandberg, 2012, quote, Instagram was growing so much faster than us that we had to buy them for $1 billion.

And then this is the best one. Mark Zuckerberg in 2008, in regards to the Instagram acquisition, he says, quote, it is better to buy than to compete. And that is basically case closed right there. That is the FTC's smoking gun, is that email from Zuckerberg in 2008. So they can definitely prove that Metta was suppressing the competition by just buying up these other companies. The trouble is proving whether or not Meta

is actually a monopoly. And that is a harder argument to make, because, you know, as you mentioned, there are all these other platforms now. There's TikTok, there's Snapchat, there's Pinterest, there's YouTube. Even iMessage, which is technically competing with WhatsApp, and Meta shared this number.

They shared that 20% of the total time spent on social media platforms today, 20% is accounted for by Meta. So at 20% it is definitely harder to argue that this is a monopoly. And I think if the FTC loses this case, it's going to be on that front. They're going to be able to prove very fair and square. Yes, met to suppress the competition by buying these companies. But did they also do that and successfully become a monopoly? And that's going to be a little bit harder to prove. And one final point here.

I just want to quickly highlight this incredible article in the Wall Street Journal that takes you through the negotiations between Andrew Ferguson at the FTC and Mark Zuckerberg. So the FTC actually offered to settle this case with Metta for $30 billion. But after Trump appointed this new guy, Andrew Ferguson, as the new chair of the FTC, Mark Zuckerberg called him and he gave him a counteroffer. And Mark Zuckerberg's counteroffer was $450 million. So a 99% discount on the original settlement offer. And apparently on that call, Mark Zuckerberg was very confident that Trump was going to back him up. that call, Mark Zuckerberg was very confident that Trump was going to back him up.

You know, he had just traveled to Mar-a-Lago multiple times. He just donated a million dollars to the inauguration fund. He went to the inauguration. He, as you point out, he appointed this former Trump advisor to the Meta board, Dana White. He'd just done this 180 on the content moderation policy. I mean, he had his full on MAGA rebrand. And then Andrew Ferguson, they have the conversation and he says, no.

So then Zuckerberg goes to the White House and he starts pleading with Trump to drop the case. And Trump was apparently considering it, but it wasn't until April 8th, when both Andrew Ferguson of the FTC and Gail Slater of the DOJ, they both go to Trump and they say, no, Mr. President, you have to let this trial go through. And Trump was convinced.

He gave them his blessing. And now here we are. Zuckerberg is back in court, back in the suit and tie. And it looks as if Metta may be broken up at this point. So it's an amazing story of Zuckerberg's failed attempts at kissing the president's ass. But it's also an amazing story of strength from Ferguson, from Gail Slater, who as we have said on this podcast before, are actually highly competent litigators, highly competent regulators.

And I think if there's anything that Trump has gotten right in this administration, it would be hiring those two to run the FTC and the DOJ, because they are proving that they are not to be fucked with. You know, we'll call balls and strikes. So far, I think we should commend the president on seeking to his guns here. The thing that's sad is that Mark Zuckerberg, and I've said, Mark and Cheryl, I think there's few people you could point to that have made more money while doing more damage to America than Mark Zuckerberg or Sheryl Sandberg.

But there's just no getting around it. They're both incredibly talented executives. And I would argue that Zuckerberg is probably the really, probably one of the business geniuses of the last 50 years. But when one of the most brilliant business minds has decided and is convinced that he can buy his way out of regulation by giving money to the Trump administration and traveling there, what does that say about our nation? And by the way, he still may be right. We'll see. I hope the president sticks to his guns here, but the brightest business mind, you know, in a generation puts a bunch of hardcore MAGA people on his

board, shows up at the inauguration, gives money and says, okay, regardless of my violating laws, regardless of the fact I suppress competition, regardless of the fact that I'm levying huge taxes every day emotionally and mentally on our youth and on their parents. I think I can buy my way out of this in today's America. I hope he's wrong. I hope he's wrong. Let's take a look at the week ahead. We'll see earnings from Tesla, from SAP and Alphabet.

Scott, do you have any predictions? Well, it goes back to what we were saying. I think there's an enormous opportunity and I do think the worm has turned and that, I mean, let me save you at business school, we have ethics, we have leadership and we have sustainability courses and they each cost, every course costs $7,000.

Let me save you $21,000. Ethics, think about right and wrong. Think about what you're doing might be wrong or right. Like there is a right and a wrong. Okay, that's the ethics course. Leadership, do the right thing even when it's hard. Boom, you're done with leadership. And the sustainability, thinking about doing the right thing,

doing the right thing when it's really hard, you might make money at it. You might actually make money at it. Boom, you're done. I just saved you $21,000. My prediction is the following. I think there's such an enormous vacuum for leadership here that someone is going to step into it and reap enormous rewards, both in terms of their status,

their leadership, what goes on their tombstone, and also shareholder value. I just think there's so many people lining up against this guy. He's losing his power. A hundred third graders can line up against a big angry sixth grader. If they're unified, and this guy has given us reason to be unified, someone is going to step into the void of leadership here. And the person I'm reminded of or the situation is a gentleman named Martin Niemöller. And Martin is credited with this fantastic quote that loosely is reduced to first they came for. He was a prominent Lutheran pastor in Germany in the 20s and 30s. He was actually very kind of pro-Nazi and supported radically right-wing political movements.

After Hitler came to power in 33, however, Niemöller became an outspoken critic of Hitler's interference in the Protestant Church. He spent the last eight years of Nazi rule in prisons and concentration camps. And he's best remembered for his post-war statement, which begins, first they came for the socialist and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me. And that is so powerful. And I think that when on a very crude and economic level, when you don't speak out on behalf of our wonderful allies and other companies and speak out on behalf of your own company. Just wait folks, in the long run, it's just really bad for you not speaking out.

And even on a more substantive level, when we allow people to be rounded up because they have the wrong tattoo or because they're illegal undocumented workers and send them to a hellscape prison, just be careful when the knock comes on your door. This is a threat to everybody. And so I'm, I'm hopeful. I think America has a ton of great leaders. And I think this has gotten so bad. My prediction is in the next one, two, four weeks, we're going to see some prominent leaders and we don't, we can't

guess it. Who knows where they come from, right? This Harvard president has shown real leadership, but I think that there's going to be several people step into this void of leadership and realize that I need to speak up. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producers, Alison Weiss, Mia Silverio is our research lead, Isabella Kintzel is our research associate, Dan Shalon is our intern, Drew Burrows is our technical director, and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer.

Thank you for listening to Profgy Markets from the Vox Media Podcast Network. Join us on Thursday for our conversation with Ryan Peterson, only on Profgy Markets. I I mean, I remember when it was at the Challenger disaster. That's one of the things you remember where you were. I was in the shower, my fraternity, and this guy came in and first he gave me a head. It was that kind of thing. Then I know that. Why do I find that funny? You always find that funny.