The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - Prof G Markets: Tariffs Blocked by Court, U.S. Steel’s Golden Shares & Neuralink’s Funding Round

Episode Date: June 2, 2025

Follow Prof G Markets: Apple Podcasts Spotify  Scott and Ed discuss the trade court’s ruling that Trump lacked the authority to impose most tariffs, Trump Media’s plan to buy bitcoin and Nvidia’s first quarter earnings. Then they discuss Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel, arguing there was no strong reason to block the deal in the first place and debating when government intervention in business is justified. Finally, they explore Neuralink’s latest funding round, acknowledging the technology’s potential while cautioning that widespread adoption may take longer than expected. 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 @profgmarkets Follow Scott on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram and X Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's Truck Month at GMC. Tackle the open road with added confidence in a 2025 Sierra 1500 Pro Graphite at 0% financing for up to 72 months. With an available 5.3 liter V8 engine, 20 inch high gloss black painted aluminum wheels, off road suspension with available 2 inch factory installed lift kit, plus a towing capacity of up to 13,200 pounds. You'll be ready for anything this Truck Month. Truck Month is on now. Ask your GMC dealer for details. Wendy's most important deal of the day has a fresh lineup. Pick any two breakfast items for $5.

New four-piece French toast sticks, bacon or sausage wrap, English muffin sandwiches, value iced coffee, and more. Limited time only at participating Wendy's Taxes Extra. So you're hosting the family barbecue this week, value iced coffee and more. Limited time only at Participating Wendy's Taxes Extra. So you're hosting the family barbecue this week, but everyone knows your brother is the grill guy and it's highly likely he'll be backseat barbecuing

all night, so be it. Impress even the toughest of critics with freshly prepared Canadian barbecue favorites from Sobeys. Today's number, 75. That's the percentage of US restaurant traffic that comes from drive through or take out orders. I remember saying to my ex wife, I'd love to see a fast food restaurant in space.

And she said, what fast food restaurant would you want to see in space? And I'm like, I'd like to see five guys on Uranus. I think that's good, no? It's fine. Fuck you, you're on MSNBC and now you think you're all big time. Big time. I like whatever makes you happy and that one clearly, that one resonated for you. Ed, I think you are getting a little too good on MSNBC. Daddy's getting a little jealous. First they call me and I'm like,

no, I'm not going on Katie tour for four and a half minutes with a bunch of talking heads who were, you know, in the Obama administration 12 years ago. Fuck. Seriously, it's like, okay, I think I've graduated beyond that. So they said, so I suggest you, you go on. Oh, is that what happened?

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to, yeah. Well, how do you think you got on there? Do you think they're like, oh, let's bring on a 26 year old from Princeton? I thought that's what happened. I thought they suggested me organically. Are you sure? Anyways, believe what you wanna believe.

Yeah, cable television consistently reaches out to 26 year old podcast co-host. Anyways, you are outstanding. I'm saying this to, granted, I want you to buy Zbiotics and invest in Fundrise, but I am really recommending to our listeners, type in Ed Elson, MSNBC, and watch when they ask Ed a question, or they ask all these boomers these questions and they give this ridiculous blah blah hoping to get a speaking gig or a consulting offer for some

Joey Bagadone's firm or something. And then you break into all this is is a tax on, is you folks continue to, and you literally, everyone on the panel looks as if they've just been caught masturbating. You make everyone, you rendered everyone totally flatfooted, no one had a response, no one could. You are outstanding. I really, it was like, so I was a response, no one could. You are outstanding. I really was like, so I was a mix of proud and jealous.

I was sort of, okay, he's getting too big for his britches. He's gonna want 15 bucks an hour now. Yeah, now I want a consulting gig just like the rest of those guys. Oh my gosh, you were outstanding. And what was that, your second year or third appearance? That was my second appearance, yeah. Okay, so this is what's gonna happen.

You're gonna start getting calls from all these producers, you know, who wanna seduce you to come and talk to hundreds of thousands of 75 year olds. My target audience, yeah. In between soup and water aerobics at night, but TV is super fun and your parents will be super impressed. And you can go on for a year, but after that, we're gonna limit, I'm gonna manage your brand so well here,

we're gonna go very scarce. We're only gonna go on with like Ando, we're only gonna go on with, they're really like, maybe the view, I think Whoopi would like you, I think all the women there would love you. You would remind them of the son they wish they'd had instead of the son that's home, you know, stealing the Range Rover with a cocaine habit.

But you are, we're gonna manage your TV appearances. I love it. I need your branding help. So right now the strategy, I assume, is just pure volume, quantity over quality, take anything I can get. I think as I really, what is it we wanna do here? I assume is just pure volume, quantity over quality, take anything I can get. I think as I really, what is it we wanna do here?

What is the point of any of this again? It raises your profile so more people download our podcast, buy more Zbiotic and I can pay you more money. And to get more subscribers on The Daily Show, which is starting next week. Yeah, but we're gonna manage, I made some big mistakes. I was a total whore. I was so impressed with media that I went on a ton of media.

I think it sort of cheapened my brand a little. Is that right? Did it cheap my brand? Actually, you know what your next move is? And I hate to say this, your next move, you should go on Fox. I would love that. Despite the fact that they're the gravedigger

for democracy, they are, it's a really well-run organization. The people are really nice. I used to go on Fox every week and I think it gives you a certain, and unfortunately, absolutely the best journalist there or the best TV host, Neil Cavuto, is just retired. But I think it gives you a little bit of cred.

I think you wanna get cred on both sides. I don't think you wanna be on MSNBC too much because you're sort of like, oh shit, him again. I agree. We know what he's gonna say. The whiny, woke, liberal. There you go, yeah. Although if this all,

if you make a series of really deaf moves and everything works out, at some point you might get a voiceover on the White Lotus. You might get a 10 second voicemail, cameo appearance. I will absolutely take that. I hear the voiceover money's pretty good. Not for your episode on the White Lotus. They paid you what, like 20 bucks? I got paid, no, I got paid, you know, I got paid,

I think four or 500 bucks. And I said, donate it to it. I'm not kidding. I said, donate it to a Thai orphanage or some elephant camp or something. Yeah, that'll make a difference. No, but we're gonna manage this very, very carefully. Anyways, I'm very excited.

Good. Again, Ed Elson, not Olson. And thank you for recommending me. I did not know that you recommended me for that appearance. Yeah. But now just to be fair, when people call me and ask me for referrals, I say not at Elson, cause you're getting a little too powerful. The force is a little too strong with this one.

Ed, get to the headlines. Let's start with a weekly review of Market Vitals. Let's start with a weekly review of market vitals. The S&P 500 rallied, the dollar climbed through the week before giving up some gains, bitcoin retreated from its all-time highs, and the yield on 10-year treasuries declined. Shifting to the headlines. A US trade court has ruled that President Trump lacked the authority to impose many of his Liberation Day tariffs. Duties on cars, steel and aluminum will likely remain intact as they were justified on national

security grounds. Trump Media shares fell 10% after the company announced plans to raise $2.5 billion to invest in Bitcoin. The raise includes $1.5 billion in newly issued stock and then another $1 billion in convertible debt from about 50 institutional investors. And finally, Nvidia posted first quarter earnings that beat expectations with revenue up 69% year over year. Shares rose nearly 5% after the company issued a strong second quarter forecast.

Despite new export restrictions, they are expected to cut $8 billion in revenue from China. Scott, your thoughts here, starting with this new tariff court order that has basically said that these tariffs that Trump has come up with are illegal. Scott Monell Well, the Constitution is laid to the party here, but it's a welcome guest. And I found this really encouraging that the gears of justice grind slowly, but they do grind on. And basically the court said that only Congress, not the president, has the constitutional authority

to regulate commerce with foreign nations. And that emergency powers, when they're clearly just a ruse, are not emergency powers, and they don't override this. And a bunch of companies that have been in sort of like ground zero in terms of this toxic uncertainty that's plaguing the nation and some stocks right now, you know, lifted pretty seriously. Apple and Amazon, Etros, about 3%. Chip stocks were up. So I was really happy to see this just when I'd sort of given up hope that,

oh wait, the president can just run roughshod over the law. The constitution showed up and said, no, not so fast girlfriend. So I was really happy to see this. Have any thoughts Ed? The way Trump did these tariffs, he did it under this framework called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows you to implement these tariffs, but there has to be an emergency. It's literally in the name.

The law literally says this is only legal if it is in response to, quote, an unusual and extraordinary threat to America. There was no unusual or extraordinary threat here. Trump said the threat was the trade deficit that we have with many other countries. But as people have said over and over, and as we've said, a trade deficit is completely normal. That's not a threat. So to call that the unusual and extraordinary threat, it just doesn't hold up.

So I guess the first thing I would say is I was waiting for some legal entity to say this. It came from this international trade court that I frankly had never heard of, but which apparently has some level of federal authority. But this is something we've been discussing. In California, even Gavin Newsom sued Trump over this because he's like, you're supposed to do this when there's an emergency. There's no emergency here.

And that's exactly what they ruled. Now the second question is, does this mean the tariffs will actually be repealed? And the answer to that question is, no one seems to actually know. When I've read the commentary, I've read the legal opinions, and it's all kind of like,

oh, we're not really sure. And then you look at the markets, and the markets tell me a similar thing. There was a little bit of a rally, but not enough to say outright the tariffs are coming down. So I think where the market probably lands on this is first, they thought it was going to be appealed. And that is what happened. Trump administration immediately appealed. I think what they're probably thinking is this appeal process, it's going to take some time. It's probably going to climb its way up to the Supreme Court.

And throughout that very long and boring and complicated process, the tariffs will probably just remain in place. What I see is that a lot of companies, um, are probably beginning to just ignore Trump. I have a friend who's in the, um, import business and to just ignore Trump. I have a friend who's in the, um, import business and thought he was out of business. And now he just sort of takes everything Trump says with a grain of salt. And we should a quick shout out to a regular guests, uh, FT journalists, Robert Armstrong.

He coined the phrase, the taco trade. And that is Trump always chickens out. And by the way, Robert Armstrong is going to be joining us on the show on Thursday. So make sure to tune in for that. And Mia pulled together some notes showing that since he's taken office, he has threatened, implemented and or reduced tariffs 50 times. And you can validate or nullify this, but I don't think there's after 50 threats, 50, 50 chickening out 50 folds.

I don't think we have one tangible deal to show for it. Do we? No deals. He says the UK is a deal and that the deal has not been agreed upon and there are no, there's no upside in the agreement that they had there. I do think as you get more senior in your professional life, you always want to be measured around, if this person does this,

I'm going to fire them or something like that. You don't want to make declarative statements like that unless, or we're not going to work with them ever again. Be very careful with absolutes and the few absolutes you make follow through, you know, do it, even when it's painful because the most powerful cop or arsenal or arrow in your quiver is your reputation.

And you want to be known as someone who does what you say both on the upside and on the downside. And he's lost, he's literally lost all credibility. The markets are now not moving nearly as much. He announces an Apple tariff and Apple goes down three or 4% and then recovers the next day. If Obama or Biden had recommended a tariff against Apple, anything along the lines that he's recommending, these stocks would be down 10, 20, 30%.

Let's stop talking about Trump, the president, and let's start talking about Trump, the media company. Um, Trump media is taking on the micro strategy approach. They're raising two and a half billion dollars to buy Bitcoin and they want to take, they want to become a Bitcoin treasury company. Um, I'm sure you can imagine my reactions to this, Scott. million to buy Bitcoin and they want to become a Bitcoin treasury company. I'm sure you can imagine my reactions to this, Scott. I don't like this, but let's first hear your reactions.

You know more about this than I do. So you run with this one. I'm fascinated that it's gone from the ultimate strategy for pumping your stock to now stocks are crashing on this news. What are your thoughts? Well, like they're trying to do what Michael Saylor did at MicroStrategy. And that is you basically, you rebrand the company. In his case, it was a enterprise SaaS company. You rebrand it as a Bitcoin or a crypto company.

Then you issue debt to buy up Bitcoin. And then you use that Bitcoin to issue even more debt, which you use to buy even more Bitcoin. And then you just keep on doing that. And that's what Michael Saylor has done. I have said in the past, I think it's a Ponzi scheme. I still think it's a Ponzi scheme. I know you disagree with me on that. I don't think we need to relicigate that conversation right now. But the reality of the micro strategy is they're up more than 100% in the past year doing this thing. And now you've got all these companies like GameStop, like Rumble, like Vivek Ramaswamy's company, this company Strive Asset Management, and now Trump Media, who are all trying to do what Michael Saylor's been doing at MicroStrategy for the past several years. Now what's interesting

is that after they announced this, the stock, unlike MicroStrategy, actually went down. And that was despite the fact that Bitcoin's hitting these all-time highs, and it fell 10%. And that did surprise me, because this is a very memeable stock. It's the kind of stock where if you start mentioning words like Bitcoin and crypto, history would tell you, you're going to get a pop. So I've been wondering why did it fall? And I wonder if the reason it fell, I hope by the way, the reason it fell is because the bullshit around the meme coins and the crypto is just about starting to die out. And I wonder if this is the first

signal that's slinging these half-baked financial engineering strategies, that they just don't hold the same level of hype and excitement that they used to hold when Michael Saylor was out doing it back as far as 2020. And that would make sense to me because, quite frankly, this whole Bitcoin treasury thing is becoming boring and predictable. And there are now almost a hundred publicly listed companies that have announced some form of Bitcoin treasury strategy, and it's all happened in practically the span of a year. So at a certain point, I don't think you can expect the market to just be wowed every time you come up with this grand vision of, we're just going to buy up as much Bitcoin as we possibly can.

It's just not interesting anymore. At a certain point, I think it's just boring and played out to the markets. And it's funny because this goes back to our conversation with Michael Saylor, where I asked him, what is actually interesting to you about this and about this strategy. And you go and you watch that moment. It was almost like I had physically attacked him. Wasn't the more important question, why is it interesting to everybody else on the earth? So literally what I do is turn it around to you and say, if you don't think it's the most interesting, tell me what asset in the world is more interesting right now to more people.

Because I don't think you can name one. I think I hit a nerve there. That this whole operation is completely and entirely dependent on hype. And as soon as the hype runs out, suddenly the money stops. So I don't want to jump the gun here, but I think what we saw happen with Trump stock this week, where they do this whole Bitcoin thing and then the stock actually falls 10%. I think that could be an indication that this is sort of the canary in the coal mine for the hype running out.

Not necessarily on Bitcoin itself, but certainly on these Bitcoin treasury companies where it's no longer interesting and exciting to go out and say, look, we're going to buy up all this Bitcoin. And then suddenly the market goes crazy. I think the market's saying, we've seen this all before. And you're not MicroStrategy and you're not Michael Saylor, you're the president. What Saylor has been able to do, that you could say warrants some enterprise value beyond the value of the underlying crypto itself, is he's been able to come up with pretty innovative debt strategy where he's able to go into the market

and access debt at a pretty low price. So I don't know if these companies can do that. So the value of MicroStrategy per Bitcoin, it's 1.6 times Bitcoin. Is it really worth that? It also has a core business though, right? No, they're not. The business is like nothing.

It's, I mean, compared to the market cap of the company. Intellectually what you're saying is it's hard to contradict. I 100% understand what you're saying. And also I to contradict. I a hundred percent understand what you're saying. And also I felt the same way when I saw this, I feel it's a little bit like whenever you're on a board and a company and this is happening to be twice, a company decides to do its first stock buyback. My, my kind of first, and at some point a mature company should start buying

shares back and returning money back to shareholders and buying stock back is a fairly efficient way to return money to shareholders. But my first question is, so we're out of ideas. We don't think as an enterprise, we can invest ahead of where market return should be. And when I see these companies basically deciding to transition to a Bitcoin treasury company, basically what they're saying is to a certain extent, it's sort of saying, it's throwing up the white flag and saying our core business doesn't work. And we want to pivot out of our core business. And if you look at the companies that are doing it, you know, a GameStop, right? It just rumble, rumble.

These are companies that have no underlying core. You're not going to see Procter & Gamble do this. They have a really good business with really good margins and it's growing and it's a global business and great culture. Netflix is not going to overnight decide they're a Bitcoin treasury company. They're just not going to. And what it is is the market now sees it as that.

This is you waving the white flag. You're not going to be focused. Your core business is so bad, you're grasping at straws. Let's talk about, uh, Nvidia, another phenomenal quarter. Beat on top and bottom lines, revenue up 69% to more than $44 billion. Data center revenue up 73%. That's their AI chips revenue, uh, up to $39 billion net income up 26%. It just crazy, crazy good quarter.

And that's why we saw this big pop in the stock around 5%. Now, what makes it even more impressive is the fact that they did this without access to one of their biggest markets, which is China. Just as a reminder, the Trump administration, they recently banned Nvidia from sending any chips to China. They sent these H20 chips, which they had specifically designed for China to have less

capabilities and then Trump came in and said, no, not allowed to send any of them. And according to the company, if it weren't for that ban, gross margins would have been 71% versus 61%. And also revenue for the current quarter, for Q2, would have been, or the guidance, would have been $8 billion higher. They guided 45. It would have been $53 billion.

So that's a pretty significant hit. Now, when you and I discussed this Trump ban on Nvidia chips going to China, one of the questions we asked was, will we see a tone change from Jensen Huang? My prediction was that we would see some level of a tone change. On this earnings call, I believe we witnessed it. He opened his speech, Jensen Huang, the CEO, he opened his speech with a monologue about China and it went on for three minutes and

his total comments, the total length of time that he spoke was six minutes. So he spent half of his time right at the opening talking about China and what a bad policy this is. I'm not going to play the full thing he said, but let's just play you a little bit of what he said and let's get your reaction. China's AI moves on with or without US chips. It has to compute to train and deploy advanced models. The question is not whether China will have AI. It already does. The question is whether one of the world's largest AI markets will run on American platforms. Shielding Chinese chip makers from US competition only strengthens them abroad and weakens America's position. Export restrictions have spurred China's innovation and scale.

The AI race is not just about chips. It's about which stack the world runs on. As that stack grows to include 6G and quantum, US global infrastructure leadership is at stake. The US has based its policy on the assumption that China cannot make AI chips. That assumption was always questionable, and now it's clearly wrong.

So just to clarify, at the end there, he did do a bit of, oh, Trump's great, Trump's great. But we're hearing that pretty loud and clear. He said that the policy from the US is wrong. It was based on an assumption that is wrong. Any reactions to what he said there, Scott? He's gotta thread the needle with Trump because he went on the grift tour.

He went on the Gulf grift trip, but Tim Cook refused. And I don't think it's any accident that a week later, Trump is having a temper tantrum and lev and, and levying or threatening to levy tariffs on Apple. So he's at the same time, Jensen is really powerful. Jensen, it's not the most valuable company in the world. It kind of embodies us innovation. They're a juggernaut.

Jensen is arguably the most powerful person in business right now. I'm of two minds here and it'd be interesting to have a trade expert because there's a really solid argument for free trade that, okay, if we give them our chips and they don't have the incentive to develop their own chips and their own LLMs, they end up buying more of our stuff and they don't develop technical equanimity or technical equivalence. That by sequestering them or creating an embargo against China for our most advanced chips, we just gave them sort of a burning platform

to create their own Manhattan project around developing their own chips and their own LLMs. And in almost no time, they spun up something kind of the Chinese version of AI. 80% is good for 50% of the price or a lot less. So there's an argument that free trade, it just makes sense to sell into them. Now, having said that,

I just did an interview with Patrick McGee. He had a really interesting point and that is Apple, since Apple's gone into China, it has upskilled and trained 24 million people. So it's upskilled and trained in kind of advanced manufacturing capacity, every job to try and pull together all these parts in what is probably the most complex supply chain in history. And he believes that the echo effect of that or the spillover has essentially built the Chinese tech community.

The Xiaomi and Huawei would not be what they were without the ecosystem that basically Apple financed in terms of human capital. So the question is, do you do yourself, do you do shareholders a solid in the short term going into China, 100%? But what if Apple had made that same level of investment in say Mexico or kind of French shoring,

and that is countries that we have a less adversarial relationship with, would that have been a better idea? So I'm of two minds here. I really don't have an answer around, I mean, Jensen is doing what every CEO, he's coming up with thoughtful, earnest reasons why he wants to get his stock higher

and why he wants bigger markets. But I don't know if this is... I think there's really solid arguments on either side. What are your thoughts? I'm totally with you that he makes a really compelling argument, and there are compelling arguments on both sides. And his point is, it's happening anyway. Would you rather they're building this stuff on the American tech stack or the Chinese tech stack? But honestly, I feel like ultimately where this goes is we're talking about national security threats.

We're talking about stakes. Basically, we're talking about existential threats here. That's what we're all worried about. The only real solution is that we're friends with China. I agree. Like it goes back to what you've said about we need to kiss and make up. It's like we can, we're sort of, I don't know, we're pinching pennies if we're talking about how to sort of slalom our way through AI chip strategy and a trade relationship in terms of AI with China. If China is an existential threat or a national security threat to the US, like we've got bigger fish to fry.

We need to be friends with China. And now that the AI race is happening, what all we know is both countries are going to develop AI at an exponential pace. And that's a scary concept. So do we want to live in a world where we're friends or adversaries? What Patrick also said that kind of opened my eyes was he said that US companies are run for profit, whereas the priority for Chinese companies is control.

National unity as well, yeah. They're not as worried about, it's like if we don't mint as many billionaires, that's fine. We're not in the business of minting billionaires. We want companies to be profitable. We're not in the business of minting billionaires. We want companies to be profitable. We want people to make money here,

but we're in the business of what we think is best for China, which is that we stay in control. And long-term, it's debatable around whether that's not the best strategy for national security and kind of, you know, the flow of IP is one way. We need to get better at that. That's, I mean, the IP theft is unbelievable. Well, Trump's, to his credit,

I think his instincts are right on a lot of this stuff. I think there is trade asymmetry. I agree. And the fact that none of our media companies are allowed in there and we let TikTok into our, you know, there's just some things that just are blatantly wrong. But the way he goes about it, it doesn't make, yeah, it doesn't make any sense. We'll be right back after the break.

And quickly, as a reminder, we are going daily starting next week, and that will only be on the ProfG Markets podcast, not on the ProfG Pod podcast. So be sure to give the ProfG markets podcast a follow. You'll be getting the most up-to-date episodes from us and it'll be happening every weekday, Monday through Friday. Support for the show comes from Vanta. Are you a startup founder or security professional?

If so, you're going to want to listen up. Navigating vendor security requirements can be challenging. Facing your first security compliance audit can be downright scary. With Vanta, it doesn't have to be. Vanta is a trust management platform that helps businesses automate security and compliance enabling them to demonstrate strong security practices and scale. Simply put, your company can't grow if it can't prove that it's meeting security standards, including SOC 2, ISO 27001, and HIPAA. Vanta can get you audit-ready in weeks

instead of months, saving you up to 85% of associated costs. And Vanta scales with your business, helping you continuously monitor compliance, unify risk management, and streamline security reviews all in one place. More than 10,000 global businesses trust Vanta to achieve compliance and save them time while they're at it. Starting and running a business is hard. Let Vanta help make it a little bit easier. Go to Vanta.com slash markets to meet with a Vanta expert about your business needs. That's Vanta.com slash markets. Support for the show comes from Mercury, the banking product that feels extraordinary to use. When you're a startup founder getting

your business off the ground, the last thing you want to be doing is toggling between a dozen apps and clunky banking services that can barely keep up with your needs. Enter Mercury. Mercury is the banking product made by entrepreneurs for entrepreneurs. What makes it so special? Well, Mercury isn't technically a bank that provides banking services through partner banks and are able to focus on delivering well-designed software that helps navigate some of the TDM for you. Because when your finances are simple, your mind is free to focus on the real work of growing your business. With Mercury, you get the tools you need to operate at your best, scale your business, and keep your spend under control.

Visit mercury.com to join over 200,000 entrepreneurs who use Mercury to do more for their business. Mercury, banking that does more. Mercury is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services provided by Choice Financial Group, column NA, and Evolved Bank and Trust members FDIC. The aisle card is issued by Patriot Bank member FDIC pursuant to a license from MasterCard. Support for the show comes from Ferragamo. People say dads are impossible to buy gifts for, but I'm here to tell you to put down

the beard oil and garden tools and listen closely. The secret to shopping for your dad is to find something well-made, thoughtful, and built to last, like a classic pair of Ferragamo shoes. Their collection of men's shoes strikes the balance between casual style and sophistication. That's what makes Ferragamo shoes the perfect gift. They're classic, timeless, and always on point, like a reliable companion that helps you walk with confidence through life's most important moments. Each model was crafted with premium materials, and you can find one to complete any look for any occasion. For example, you can enjoy a to complete any look for any occasion.

For example, you can enjoy a good scenic drive even more while wearing a pair of driver loafers from Ferragamo. They offer a relaxed yet refined look made from artisanally aged calf leather. They're flexible and lightweight and come in a variety of rich deep shades. Ferragamo shoes represent the perfect blend of functionality and luxury tailored to enhance your everyday wardrobe. This Father's Day, find him a piece that reflects your enduring bond. Shop in the boutique or online at farragamo.com slash Father's Day.

We're back with ProfD Markets. After more than 17 months of delays, the acquisition of US Steel by the Japanese company Nippon Steel is finally moving forward. President Trump gave it his stamp of approval, calling the deal a quote, partnership rather than an acquisition. And he also noted that Nippon will invest another $14 billion in US Steel over the next 14 months. The deal had faced strong opposition from both Trump and Biden due to union concerns and national security risks, but support grew after the addition

of a golden share provision, giving the US government power to approve keyboard appointments and prevent cuts to production levels. Scott, we've been following this story for a while. We talked about it back in September when Biden blocked the deal. You'll remember Nippon tried to buy it and then Biden said no. He cited the national security concerns, which was fake. All the reports said no, there's no national security risk. The reason he blocked it was because the union workers who worked for US Steel, they didn't like it.

They were concerned they would lose their jobs and Biden wanted their support. So he said, no, you can't do the deal. And he blocked it. So let's listen to your comments from back then. This is a mix of xenophobia, ego, and pandering to unions. This is stupid. If they were making air filtration systems or airbags, they let the deal go through. But because steel for some reason is seen as Pittsburgh and a part of America we need steel to build buildings. They want to get in the way of it I'm sure unions are trying to convince them that this is a bad idea This deal should absolutely go through now. We're at a place. I mean what was interesting was Trump agreed with Biden Throughout all of this. He was very against nippon buying US Steel, I think for the same

reasons you just outlined there. But now he's letting it go through so long as the government has some level of control. And that control is coming in the form of this golden share. So that's where we are today. The deal will happen. Nippon will buy US Steel, but the US government gets a Golden share. Your reaction Scott? There's no reason. There's no sort of strategic threat here. And the only argument is, well, our steel industry has strategic importance in case we all of a sudden need to make tanks overnight.

Fine. Japan is a very close ally. In addition, this has such outweighed rhetoric versus the actual importance of this company. This company employs 24,000 people. It employs. Only 14,000 are in America by the time we get to that point. In addition, this has such outweighed rhetoric versus the actual importance of this company. This company employs 24,000 people. It employs- Only 14,000 are in America, by the way.

Is that right? Okay, Lululemon employs 38,000 people. So it takes more people to figure out yoga pants than figure out US Steel. And my understanding is Japan or Nippon Steel is talking about making huge investments, upgrading the technology, and potentially hiring tens of thousands. The number I saw as they're planning over the long term to increase employment at US Steel by up to 70,000 people. That's what they said.

Yeah. So your security risks are somewhat a swash because Japan is a fantastic ally. I mean, we're building, our steel consumption builds the Navy ships that guard much of Japan. So they have a vested interest in maintaining a very strong alliance. The other thing, in some ways, the Trump administration is more progressive and liberal than Democrats because this one golden share thing where they get a vote, that is the definition of socialism. The notion that somehow bureaucrats know how to run individual companies.

The way you have a golden share or government influence is you have systemic regulation. But to decide all of a sudden that, oh, Stephen Miller or Peter Navarro knows how to run a fucking steel conglomerate, it's the definition of socialism. It's like, if you want laws or input into how an industry or private business behaves, you pass laws

that apply to everyone. But this is not, quite frankly, this is not an important company. It's just the rhetoric surrounding it and some of the jingoism here has manifested itself and pat ourselves on the back. We got this right. We said this would eventually go through because at the end of the day, markets win. The reason that Texas now produces more wind power than any other state in the world is the economics around wind finally makes sense. They make more sense

in many instances than wildcatting for fossil fuels. The markets and money wins. At the end of the day, global trade will win. Tariffs will come down. There'll be some blips. But the arc of justice bends towards Benjamins. And the same thing is happening here. This made sense for both parties.

And I'm glad to see it's going through, but this nonsense around a golden share that just shows that in some ways the Trump administration is much more socialist than any Democrat out there. If Bernie Sanders said, I want to, I want the government to have control over Nvidia, that we should have a say in just this one company, their hair would be on fire, like'd go, there goes the socialist. Just to be clear, this isn't without precedent. We have had the government stepping in and owning stakes in companies before.

And I'll just go through some examples. In 2008, the government bought a 92% stake in AIG. In 2009, they bought stakes in GM and Chrysler during COVID. They bought not stakes, but warrants in many of the airline companies like Delta and United and Southwest. But in each of those cases, the government was intervening to prevent some sort of structural collapse in the economy. With AIG, it was a response to the financial crisis.

GM and Chrysler is to prevent the auto industry from going under. With the airlines, it's because we're in the middle of a pandemic and no one could fly. And so this is a very different situation where there's no real crisis at hand. The only hot button issue here is this prospect of manufacturing jobs potentially being outsourced into, I guess, Japan. But even still, as you mentioned, Nippon made this commitment that they're going to keep the jobs in America and actually they're going to add jobs. They said, we're not going to outsource any of these jobs. And as you also point out, it's not that many jobs. It's 14,000 people.

And you compare that to what we saw in 2009 with the auto industry, where it was literally millions of workers whose jobs were at stake. that to what we saw in 2009 with the auto industry, where it was literally millions of workers whose jobs were at stake. And in this case, it's at most a few thousand. So yeah, I guess it does beg this more libertarian question, which is when is it appropriate for the government to step in? And it's just so interesting, as you say, because this has been the big issue for the Republican Party, where they believe that Democrats, and perhaps rightly believe, that Democrats are way

too quick to intervene. Something happens, business happens, and the only way they feel comfortable is if they say, well, we just want to have our hands on it. We want some level of control, i.e. we want a golden share. And here we are with a $14 billion acquisition for a company that is not even remotely systemic to the economy and the productivity of this nation. Maybe it used to be, but certainly not anymore. And the Republicans and Trump say, the only way we're down for this

is if government controls it. So Scott, how would you answer that question? When is it appropriate? When is it right for the government to step in? And I assume, I mean, I guess you already said it, the government should not be stepping in here. I still believe you let businesses go out of business. The one I fucking hate is them bailing out the airlines

where the CEOs had taken about 150 million in compensation and had done all these share buybacks with their excess cash when things were going well through the odds. And then the COVID crisis comes along and they decide, we're all in this together and we need handouts. So when you have capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down, what you have is neither, what you have is cronyism. So I'm a big fan, we have very strong bankruptcy laws

of letting companies go out of business. As a matter of fact, the thing that really screwed your generation is that we didn't let more businesses go out of business in COVID. We should have let, you should have been able, granted you were too young, but let, you should have been able, granted you were too young, but your older sister should have been able to walk into a restaurant or Brooklyn

real estate in Manhattan or Brooklyn and say, this is selling for 40 cents on the dollar because the baby boomer got fucked as happens regularly in economic cycles, which transfers capital from the incumbents to the entrance. That is a natural part of the economic cycle. But instead we said, no, bail everybody out. Do you realize I was working at, I had just started section, our AI upskilling company for the enterprise. And we just started, we just raised, what did we raise? We raised $30 million from General Catalyst. And our CFO came in and said to me, sign this paperwork. we just raised, what did we raise? We raised $30 million from General Catalyst. And our CFO came in and said to me, sign this paperwork.

I'm like, what is this? We're gonna get $260,000 from the CARE Act. And I'm like, what? She said, yeah, there are any company, if you just sign here and agree to not lay off employees who get a certain amount, we were gonna get $260,000. And to my board's credit, we looked around the table and we said, we're all wealthy.

This company is overfunded. We're not taking the afterschool budget of a large public high school. And we said, no, and I granted, I'm doing a lot of virtue signaling here, but this is a true story. And guess what, folks? They never audited anybody.

And then there's shake shack taking tens of millions of dollars and they rightfully get called out for it. But basically, they bailed out every incumbent. And the beautiful thing about the markets and capitalism is we believe in winners and losers. And with losers, there's opportunities. Specifically, there's opportunities for young people who want to come in and buy stuff on the cheap, buy houses that have gone through disruption. They want to go into Miami real estate and have their chance to pick up a condo for a hundred thousand in the design district and have it be worth 600,000 10 years later. But since essentially, since the great financial recession, the incumbents, i.e. old people, refuse to let any one industry fail.

In my opinion, it's nothing but again, another another transfer of wealth from the young to the old. I absolutely think you should let these companies go out of business. Or you just, I mean, in this case, just let business do its thing. I mean, don't jump at the chomp of the bit to get involved as government. And the argument that you always hear

whenever there's some level of government intervention, which I think is a good argument, is this is a slippery slope. If you're going to justify government intervention here, then what else are you going to justify government intervention for? If we're justifying government intervention for an ally buying a basically small to mid cap American company because they're Japanese and because the company is old and gives off vibes of patriotic America and reminds us of the golden age. And that's our justification for the intervention, not national security risk,

which was proven there is none. There's no national security risk here. If that's the reason, that's, that's really, that's really a slippery slope. Chipotle has 130,000 employees. So Chipotle has 10 times the number of employees as, as a US steal. So that's the real existential threat is if something happens to Chipotle. Look, you, I mean, just look at history. A business, business people can't run the country or failed business people aren't very good at running the country. And then Devin Nunes,

a congressperson is running True Social. How's that going? It's a different skillset. And when industry or when politicians get drunk on their power and start believing that they can run business, you lose the violence. The key here is the violence of full body contact competition where people have a vested stake

and they see downside and upside and they have greed and fear and they constantly make thousands of decisions every day to offer an amazing product and do their best to put their competitors out of business. That creates great companies that have appeal overseas, grow their markets, better profits, and hopefully more tax revenue that creates a base for future companies. But when governments get involved, whether it's the UK subsidizing DeLorean or Obama subsidizing, what was it, Solyndra, it usually doesn't end well.

We'll be right back with a look at Neuralink's funding round. If you're enjoying the show so far, hit follow and leave us a review on Proficy Markets. Support for the show comes from Zbiotics. I love a good drink every now and then. But what I don't love is having to choose between having a great night out and a great next day. Zbiotics wants to help you have both. According to Zbiotics, here's how it works.

Zbiotic's pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. They say it was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. According to the company, when you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut and they say it's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration that's to blame for rough days after drinking. Z-biotics pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow. So I use Z-Biotics and I find I'm trying to drink less as I get older just because generally speaking that's kind of the best strategy for improving your health.

But I also do love to go out and drink and what I do is I start the evening with Z-Biotics and I found the next morning it reduces I would say somewhere between a quarter and a third of that rough morning, so to speak. Go to zbiotics.com slash propg to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use propg at checkout. Zbiotics is back with 100% money back guarantee, so if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to zbiotics.com slash propg and use the code propg at checkout for 15% off. Support for this show comes from Aura.

A common piece of advice for staying healthy is listen to your body. But that's easier said than done. What is your body actually saying? AuraRing can give you incredibly rich data about your body, including long-term trends and feedback on the stats that matter for actually making you feel better over the long run. It helps you understand what your body needs by tracking over 30 biometrics 24 hours a day,

right from your finger, then delivers personalized insights and recommendations to help you improve how you feel every day. Because that's what it's really all about, improving how you feel instead of just focusing on activity and performance. Aura emphasizes balance and rest. It also focuses on metrics related to mental health, heart health, stress and other areas that are critical for helping you live better and longer. And Aura Ring looks like a regular piece of jewelry. It's subtle, comfortable, stylish,

waterproof, and has a battery that lasts up to eight days. That means you actually wear it. Getting old has never looked so days. That means you actually wear it. Getting old has never looked so good. Now give Aura the finger. Learn more at Auraring.com. Spring is here and you can now get almost anything you need delivered with Uber Eats. What do we mean by almost? You can't get a well-groomed lawn delivered, but you can get chicken parmesan delivered. Sunshine? No.

Some wine? Yes. Get almost almost anything delivered with Uber Eats. Order now. Alcohol in select markets. See app for details. We're back with ProfDew Markets. Elon Musk's brain implant company, Neuralink, is raising $600 million in a new funding round that values the startup at $9 billion. That is more than double its $3.5 billion valuation from late 2023. The company is currently in early human trials of its implant, designed to help people with spinal cord injuries. Three patients have received the implant so far, and more volunteers are in the pipeline. However, the device is still far from commercial release.

So Scott, just in terms of the valuation, this company is still so early, it's probably not even worth talking or thinking about the valuation. There's no real way to value a company like this that isn't generating revenue. So I think the thing that I'd like to focus on is just the technology. And I'd like to get your reaction

because I think the technology is absolutely incredible. Essentially what it allows you to do as of today, this Neuralink chip. And this isn't a promise that they've made in the V, this is something that is happening right now. Basically, instead of using your hand to move a mouse that moves a cursor on a screen, instead of using your fingers to type words on a keyboard,

this technology allows you to do all of that just with your brain and with your thoughts. And what they found is, I mean, it's essentially connecting your brain directly to a computer interface. And they found that the best use case right now for this technology is to help people who are physically paralyzed.

And there's one guy, they installed this chip into this guy who has ALS, which basically means that you can't move anything except your eyes. Like he can't talk, He's completely immobile. And he put out a video explaining the experience. And I just want to play you a short clip that I think kind of demonstrates how this technology works and why I believe this is just incredible. Hi, I am Brad Smith. I'm the third person in the world to receive the Neuralink brain implant. I'm also the first person with ALS and the first non-verbal, which means that I rely on it for all communication. I am making this video using the brain-computer interface to control the mouse on my MacBook Pro.

This is the first video edited with the Neuralink and maybe the first edited with a BCI. This is my old voice narrating this video, cloned by AI from recordings before I lost my voice. The full video's on YouTube and anyone can go search it up and check it out. And you see how this thing actually works. But in short, this guy was unable to move or speak or communicate with anyone. He has a fully functioning brain

except for he cannot move any parts of his body. And this has basically unlocked his ability to communicate with people. I'm just like blown away and inspired by the technology. More of this, no? Kara Swisher calls it good Elon. This is a good Elon. You want someone with this type of vision and ability to attract capital, working on some of our biggest problems. This is a big problem. I have someone in my life that struggles

with multiple sclerosis and is fine now, but I wonder what's that gonna be like in 10 or 20 years. And so the idea of doing, you know, we have technology, we have a ton of technology or implants for hearts, right? Pacemakers that send a shock, that keep you, essentially keep people alive or keep them from going into VTAC. So it would make sense that at some point

we'll have implants into the brain. By the way, I had a brain implant, but I got one of the cheaper ones. And anytime someone turns on the microwave, I piss myself. Um, that's good. Is there a joke? I mean, why the microwave? Someone turns on the microwave,

there's some sort of waves go out and I piss myself. That's, that's good. God, yeah, Jesus. You're so big time now. You're like getting so intense. No, I'm just trying to understand you. All I want is to understand you, yeah. Yeah, we're gonna need a bigger boat

if your goal is to understand me. So, look, I think this is great. And my glass half empty side can't help it. Every time I used to get excited about the X project or Peter Diamandis stuff around the Singularity, and I like Peter a lot, I bet I remember on 60 Minutes, 10 or 15 years ago, them doing a tour around this facility where they were growing ears, and I go, no doubt within 10 years, we're going to be able to grow human limbs using stem cells. I find this stuff just takes a lot, a lot longer. I think this is more like autonomous driving from Elon than from Waymo.

And that is, I think the promise is super exciting. Uh, I think it's going to take a lot longer than people think. Does that mean it's not fantastic that he's able to raise capital, cheap capital, and do things like this? Yeah. And even if it's 10, 20, 30 years out, if ever, I hope is a wonderful thing, right? It gives people a reason to try and stay in shape

and try and stay alive and thinking, you know, at some point I might be able to walk again or, you know, use my communication skills again. So I don't think, I kind of think there's nothing not to like here. I think you're right about the timeline. And that's often what happens with these moonshot technology bets is there's, there's a lot of hype. Um, and then, I mean, by the way, he's, he's made a lot of these annoying claims as well.

He's, he sort of throws out stupid numbers out there. Oh, in the next five years, we're going to have 30 to 40 people with,. And it's all, it's all bullshit. And I wish you wouldn't do that. Um, but in terms of the timeline, it's sort of like the way you speed up the timeline is with capital. And I guess it just annoys me that there's, there's this incredible technology out there like Neuralink. And then I compare it to all of the stupid technology out there. In my view, that would be crypto. The difference between this technology that literally transforms people's lives, that gives them the ability to walk and talk again, versus, oh, this thing

allows for more transparency in the blockchain, except it's actually not even creating more transparency because everyone's anonymous. It's deregulation in the form that is thinly veiled as technological innovation. And I guess it's frustrating because it's like, I agree with you, the timeline, it takes a while, but the way that you fix that is by pouring capital into these kinds of projects. And I guess I just find it frustrating that there's not more attention. Why is Elon spending all of his time dealing with Twitter and whatever he's doing at Twitter

and whatever he's doing at X, which is quite frankly a gigantic waste of time. And whatever he's doing at Doge, which turned out to be completely useless, they're now just getting rid of it. $150 billion in projected cuts, which was then just reversed in the form of $150 billion in the defense budget. I mean, I like what Karaswish has said there. This is the good Elon. Why aren't we spending more time, more capital, more attention, more effort on technology like this that has transformative and powerful effects on people's lives and things that

can really, really benefit society long-term. I think it's important that we know what my DJ or personal trainer thinks about vaccines. I think X is super important. Yeah, look, you know, we, what's that adage? We thought we were going to fly in cars and we ended up with 140 characters. The market goes where there's money to be made. And there was money to be made in capturing people's attention, rewiring the brain of the young male or female such that they needed that concert

dopa hit and could get it on a screen. That's what's essentially has everyone calls it an attention economy. It's an addiction economy. It's just attention is the metric, uh, as opposed to investing more and more in healthcare. And now what the pharmaceutical industry would say is that now we're an example of capitalism at work, because if you can turn someone HIV negative, they will pay a lot of money for that.

And so their insurance company, and that creates pay a lot of money for that and so will their insurance company and that creates a tremendous amount of capital for wonderful research. And what I would argue back is that without government research through, you know, the National Institutes of Health or the CDC, you're gonna see a substantial slowing in these types of breakthrough incredible technologies

that benefit humanity. Because typically these types of breakthrough technologies don't make economic sense in the short run. And I think Neuralink wouldn't be able to raise money had it not been for the fact that Elon is attached to it. So the strongest argument I think you could make in favor of why it's important to have a guy like Elon Musk is his ability to, his brand and awareness and ability to attract capital results in a company that probably would have a difficult time getting this type of capital if he wasn't directly involved. And by the way, that's Bezos' justification for Blue Origin as well,

which I actually think is the right one. He wants to get involved in the business that is the most capital intensive with the longest time horizon, because as the richest guy in the world, he's the only one who can really do it. I mean, that's sort of his thinking with it used to be that the government took on that role with NASA. He's like, well, the government isn't going to do that. I've got all this money. I'm going to be the new NASA. And I know you've had issues with that.

I actually think it's a great justification. I think it's, it's true. Elon Musk is in the position. He's the one that can do this because he's so rich and because he can raise so much money. So they should be going off to the most capital intensive projects, which have less immediate time horizons for returns. Thorne experiment, would you invest in this? No link?

Yeah. No, not at 7 billion. I don't understand them enough about the business. I mean, it would be a trade. I think this company might change the world, but I think on an IRR basis, it's gonna take a lot longer than people think. If I were to invest, it would be under the belief that in the private markets, I'd

be able to double it in two years and get out. That's why they're not getting funded because as you rightly point out, it's too long of a time horizon. I just think this stuff is so incredibly, um, and to a certain extent, the, you know, the Bezos speech that he gave that you recited is a little bit like his speech of why he's moving to Florida because he wants to spend more time with his pop-pop.

And the reality, in my opinion, in my opinion, he's sending Katy Perry and Gayle King into space to beta test his launch vehicle for satellites. And Katy Perry blows up no one's really gonna miss her so he gets to beta test. Can someone clip that and put that on every social media platform? I'm convinced aliens replaced her that is not the Katy Perry I know I don't know if you've seen her performing recently but something's gone wrong there anyways I don't think he's doing it for all mankind I don't know if you've seen her performing recently, but something's gone wrong there. Anyways, I don't think he's doing it for all mankind. I don't think Bezos is doing it for all mankind

and he's the only one that can answer it. I think he's hoping that his project, Kuiper, which we've talked about, is gonna be a competitor to Starlink. I think this is, again- Rich people wanting to make money, that's fair. Yeah, and that's fine. It's an important part of capitalism.

Let's take a look at the week ahead. We'll see factory orders on the US trade deficit for April, and we'll also see the unemployment rate for May. Scott, any predictions? I just think this taco movement is so interesting that I think, I think you're going to see a bunch of Trump tantrums where he'll just make these outrageous claims around tariffs and the market is going to begin to yawn. The market is going to stop.

And I, and you to begin to yawn. The market is going to stop. And you saw Apple go below 200. I think Apple comes back, not to where it was probably, but essentially all of the Trump trade or all of the Trump tariff reduction or hits or dents that some stocks have taken, those stocks recover. And taco, if you will, the taco

phenomena, the market is wising up to it the same way as you pointed out, the market is wising up to this Bitcoin exchange, ARB that is really there is no ARB there. It's kind of a sleight of hands that you're going to see a bunch of ridiculous statements around massively increasing tariffs where certain stocks should absolutely crash and they won't. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producer is Alison Weiss, Mia Salvaria is our research lead, Isabella Kintzel is our research associate, Dan Shalon is our intern, Drew Burris is our technical director, and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to ProfGMarkets from the Vox Media Podcast Network. Join us on Thursday for our conversation with

Robert Armstrong only on ProfGMarkets. You held me in kind reunion As the water and the blood flies In love, love, love, love