We Study Billionaires - The Investor’s Podcast Network - TIP331: Inflation w/ Cullen Roche

Starting point is 00:00:00 You're listening to TIP. On today's show, we have a good friend Colin Rhodes with us. Colin has managed hundreds of millions of dollars for the past two decades, and is always a wealth of information. During the 2008 financial crash, Colin's private investment partnership was up 15% for the year. He's the founder of Pomeratic Capitalism, the author of multiple investing books,

Starting point is 00:00:22 and a regular guest on Bloomberg and major financial news outlets. On today's show, we talk about inflation, the state of the economy, and whether there is a rational argument for stocks to be trading in 50 times earnings. So with that, let's go ahead and get started. You are listening to The Investors Podcast, where we study the financial markets and read the books that influence self-made billionaires the most. We keep you informed and prepared for the unexpected. Welcome to the show. I'm your host Dick Broderson.

Starting point is 00:01:03 Today I'm here with one of our good friends of We Study Billionaires. Thank you so much for joining me here today, Colin. Thanks for having me on. So, Colin, let's jump right into the first question. And that question is about money supply. What you previously said here in the show is that it doesn't tell you anything that the money supply is going to grow because that's just an operational reality of the way we structure a debt-based financial system.

Starting point is 00:01:31 And you also said that the amount of deposits and the amount of loans are always going to grow in the long term. So going into this, really also to preface this conversation with you, could you please elaborate more on that and how the money supply impacts the economy? So obviously money is an extremely important component of what goes into the economy, how we measure blation and things like that. One of the, I think, problems that I have with, for instance, some people might be surprised to hear this. I used to be a pretty strict adherent of the Austrian School of Economics, kind of coming out of college, I read a lot of Mises and Hayek. And I think that one of the problems I eventually ran into working in the financial

Starting point is 00:02:14 industry and working specifically with a lot of bankers and people that were literally the money creators in the economy was that the Austrian school defines inflation as an increase in the money supply. And I started to find this problematic because if you look at the money supply over the course of history, it basically always expands. Over any really long time horizon, the money supply will always expand. And the reason for that is basic in that essentially, when you look at what really creates money, a lot of people think that the central bank is the money creator. And really, what we kind of found coming out of the financial crisis, especially with like quantitative easing, was that when the Fed makes reserves, so the Fed makes, the Fed makes,

Starting point is 00:03:03 It makes reserves, which is money for banks, and it's only in the banking system. The reserve money or money as reserves doesn't get outside of the banking system. So we kind of know like this whole concept of the money multiplier is misleading it best in that when the Fed creates $1 of reserves, this doesn't necessarily multiply into $10 of deposits or $10 of loans. And that's the kicker is that loans create deposits, okay? So when a bank makes a loan, they're creating a new deposit liability for the bank. That's an asset for the borrower, basically.

Starting point is 00:03:39 The real kicker with this is that as the economy grows over time and expands, people want more money. They need to borrow more to produce things. And the banking system is just sort of the liquidity provider that they create the deposits it's through a loan agreement, essentially, that literally liquidates the economy. It creates the liquidity that makes it possible to go out and, say, invest in new technologies that we think might create a return on investment or to build a new home or to purchase existing homes or there's a lot of bad uses for credit.

Starting point is 00:04:20 I mean, you could argue that, for instance, a high rate credit card is, you know, that you're just buying frivolous nonsense with is a really bad use of credit. But even that is an expansion of the money supply. And that's just kind of a function of growing population and growing demand for goods and services over time. And so if you look at the quantity of loans and deposits over any long historical period, they're always trending up. I mean, always virtually over any really long time period. And that, in a way, is actually a good thing. Because it means that there's more demand in the economy. There is more output being created because people are using a lot of this. And this is the big kicker, is that a lot of the borrowing that's

Starting point is 00:05:06 done is done for real investment. It's done to innovate. It's done to build homes. And a lot of this is just accounting. So when the money supply expands, they're not creating liabilities. We like to talk in the sort of binary ways where people will tend to focus on only one half of the equation. They'll sort of demean debt in a way that has a very negative connotation. And the reality is that, yeah, debt can be really bad, but debt can also be really good because the side of a liability is an asset. When somebody takes out a new loan, there are not just liabilities. There isn't just the debt.

Starting point is 00:05:44 There are the assets that are created. And those assets are potentially good. They're potentially bad. There's no like this or that when someone takes out. a loan. And the result of borrowing really depends on, well, what ends up being done with the loan? When I go to a bank, let's say I want to build a new home or something and, you know, I go to the bank to take out a new loan, I get an asset deposit that is mine. I have a liability in the loan. The bank has an asset that is the loan and the deposit liability. So the balance sheets

Starting point is 00:06:18 are just completely balanced right there. The financial balance sheets are completely balanced. But if I then take that money and I take those deposits and I go out and with just sheer will and hard work, I go out and I build a home and I, let's say, then repay the loan at the end of the terms by selling that home, the balance sheets compress. The balance sheets go right back to where they were when I repay the loan because loans create deposits, but repaying loans destroys deposits. So the balance sheets compressed right back to where they were and from the start. But what's left over?

Starting point is 00:06:54 We have a house. We have a real asset. So we are demonstrably better off after all of this because I borrowed and used the debt in a way that was productive. And that's the ultimate kicker with inflation and money supply and all these things. It's not just about how much money is being produced, but it's more important to understand Well, what is the money really being used for? And are we creating more output? Are we creating more goods and services that create demand essentially for future money that makes the whole economy viable in the long run? I guess the follow question to that would be now that we've seen,

Starting point is 00:07:37 say, from November 2019 to November 2020, we've seen the money supply expansion of 25%. Does that mean that we have 25% inflation? You know, what is money? I like to think of money on a, I call it a scale of moneyness because money to me is really a medium of exchange. It is just the thing that is most liquid that gives you access to goods and services essentially. But there are different things that are good for that in different environments.

Starting point is 00:08:06 I mean, for instance, I mean, let's say that COVID ravages the whole economy. We very well could be in an environment where gold, for instance, is really good for instance, literally the best form of money because it's the thing that people will accept essentially for barter as money. In a modern technologically advanced economy, deposits are basically the ultimate form of money because they're the thing that is most widely created and acceptable across the entire economy. You can use deposits for virtually anything to purchase any goods and services in a modern technology-based economy. So the problem with the way that a lot of of people define money is, for instance, a lot of professional macroeconomists will define real

Starting point is 00:08:50 money as the stuff that the government creates, the actual physical currency, the reserve currency, as in literally bank reserves that the Federal Reserve creates, things like that, that they would argue are the real forms of money. And so you have all these sort of conflicting definitions and narratives about what is not only real money, but how that will actually filter into causing inflation. And so that's a big issue. I've seen, for instance, in recent weeks, I've seen a lot of charts about how M1 has increased by some huge amount in the last few weeks. And if you actually dig deeper into it and you look at something like M2 in the United States, M2 hasn't actually changed. And the reason why M1 increased and M2 didn't change is because

Starting point is 00:09:36 what essentially happened was you had something that is included in M1, which is basically savings deposits and it was converted into demand deposits, which at the M2 level, there was no change because there was just a conversion. But because the demand deposits aren't in M1, you had this sort of like technical increase in M1 that a lot of people would look at and say, oh, this is going to cause huge inflation. And really, it was just sort of an accounting chain. You have all these sorts of competing narratives and definitions of things. And ultimately, I think when we look at COVID, there is no denying that COVID has increased the money supply by virtually any definition.

Starting point is 00:10:25 The response to COVID was colossal. We talked last time about how I'm a lot more concerned about future inflation than I was coming out of 2000. I was actually pretty much a not a deflationist coming out of 2008, but a disinflationist, meaning that I believe that the rate of inflation was going to continue to decline. So the positive rate of inflation would continue to decline. I'm much more concerned at this time that you could see real inflation just because the response has been so humongous. For instance, I mean, we're talking about the latest stimulus in the United States here, which was roughly $900 billion, that's bigger than the entire fiscal stimulus that we enacted

Starting point is 00:11:10 in 2008. And people are complaining that this was tiny, that this wasn't big enough. So putting things in perspective, and this is in addition to the CARES Act, which was, you know, $2 trillion plus not including all the Fed policies and things like that. So the response here has been humongous. There has been, you know, by any technical definition, there has been, you know, let's just rather than using the term money, let's just say there's been a lot of financial assets created. And those financial assets, they are being held by the private sector and they've enriched the private sector in financial terms. You know, my big concern with inflation going forward is not just you've created a lot of financial assets in the last year,

Starting point is 00:11:55 but that we've seen a lot of real disruptions in supply chains that we're seeing filter through the real economy in a meaningful way that in the next two to three years could, I'm not worried about a hyperinflation, but I think you could easily be at an environment where we're at the 2018, 2019 levels of inflation or much higher than that, say three, four percent inflation by that point where the Fed is really backtracking. They're really on their heels jawboning about having to potentially raise rates. and concerned that all these big policies worked and maybe worked a little better than they had hoped. So let's continue talking about inflation and some of your thoughts on that, because if we look at

Starting point is 00:12:45 the five-year swap rate in the UK, United States, and also in continental Europe, it seems like the inflation expectations have turned upwards. How do we as investors persist ourselves accordingly if we agree with you and agree with the market that this trend of rising inflation continues? I think that from a domestic currency perspective, you just want to be somewhat hedged against that risk because you, I mean, for instance, in the fixed income markets, I mean, the problem with low interest rates when you're a bond investor is that when you have low rates, the percentage increases and interest rates impact your bond investments a lot more just because the math

Starting point is 00:13:30 is so much dirtier about it. For instance, when you have an interest rate that's 10%, and interest rates rise by 1%, well, you only had a 10% principal impact. So in terms of a 1% interest rate, when interest rates rise 1%, you've had a 100% principal impact. So mathematically, you know, you're not earning the same amount of interest, which basically means you're not earning the same amount of coupon protection from your fixed income payments as interest rates are rising. So that 1% increase in rates has a much bigger impact on your principal because over the course of the year, you're not earning that high interest rate that you would have been, for instance, when interest rates are 10%. So you have less interest rate protection when interest rates are low because you're

Starting point is 00:14:24 just naturally earning a lower coupon from your starting point. So fixed income investors are sort of exposed in an unusually negative way to rising interest rates in a low interest rate environment if they're exposed to very long duration instruments. So in the fixed income markets, you know, if inflation is your worry, you're eventually worried about interest rates increasing. And so you would want to be for certain shorter on the maturity. curve if you're a fixed income investor, I like to think of stocks very similarly to bonds in that I like thinking of all financial assets as having sort of a duration. And to me, stocks are just, they're an instrument that basically has either a perpetual duration or at

Starting point is 00:15:14 minimum of very, very long duration, 30, 40, 50 years. And that's part of what makes them so volatile is that they, by definition, because they're such long-term instruments, they are more volatile because their income streamer are less predictable. They provide the investors or the underlying financial asset owners with so much less protection from the way that they earn their income over time because corporations are just naturally long-term entities. The way they earn their cash flows is very long-term by nature. And so from a stock market perspective, if you're worried about rising interest rates, well, you're worried about the way that those cash flows are going to ultimately be repaid. And the kicker with that is that if you have rising interest rates,

Starting point is 00:15:58 you have probably rising inflation. And inflation makes managing a corporation very difficult because it disrupts supply chains, or you could argue that inflation is evidence of a supply chain disruption. And so by definition, when you have high inflation, you just have a lot more uncertainty inside of a corporation. And so this makes the whole management and cash flow management of a corporation much more difficult to predict over time. And so the cash flow streams become less predictable. So stocks should become not only more volatile, but they should become more volatile in specific types of sectors. And so if you're worried about domestic inflation, I think the obvious answer is that you'd want to be globally allocated. So allocating outside

Starting point is 00:16:47 of the domestic economy is generally going to be one way to protect against a higher rate of inflation. The obvious one is to own real goods and services. You want to be the owner of stuff. So if you can't be the owner of a corporation itself, you'd want to be the owner of physical assets, whether it's real estate or even things like precious metals. And then going looking kind of within the domestic stock markets, you're someone that say you still want to own a piece of your domestic economy, I would argue that you're probably better off owning or at least diversifying into something like a value type of stock versus a growth stock because typically what we find with value stocks is that they tend to be safer businesses by nature. So for instance, you

Starting point is 00:17:44 You know, you might argue that the typical sort of, you know, the classical sort of Warren Buffett type of value stocks, the old brick and mortar, the boring, reliable types of businesses, maybe the ones that aren't quite as sexy as the, you know, the peloton's and the Facebooks of the world, that those are going to do better a rising inflation. They're more boring businesses. They have more predictable cash flow streams. And so something like a Facebook, you know, potentially becomes a lot less. attractive in a high inflation environment just because their cash flow streams are somewhat

Starting point is 00:18:20 unpredictable. They're dependent on things that are not necessarily based on the real economy, but based on sort of this, you know, internet-based economy and whether or not the demand is there for those things consistently in a high inflation environment versus are people going to continue to pay their utility bill? It becomes a less certain bet. So value versus growth becomes sort of way to diversify within the domestic economy if you're worried about inflation. Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors. All right. I want you guys to imagine spending three days in Oslo at the height of the summer. You've got long days of daylight, incredible food, floating saunas on the Oslo Fjord,

Starting point is 00:19:03 and every conversation you have is with people who are actually shaping the future. That's what the Oslo Freedom Forum is. From June 1st through the 3rd, 2026, the Oslo Freedom Forum is enter. its 18th year bringing together activists, technologists, journalists, investors, and builders from all over the world, many of them operating on the front lines of history. This is where you hear firsthand stories from people using Bitcoin to survive currency collapse, using AI to expose human rights abuses, and building technology under censorship and authoritarian pressures. These aren't abstract ideas. These are tools real people are using right now. You'll be in the room with about

Starting point is 00:19:42 2,000 extraordinary individuals, dissidents, founders, philanthropists, policymakers, the kind of people you don't just listen to but end up having dinner with. Over three days, you'll experience powerful mainstage talks, hands-on workshops on freedom tech, and financial sovereignty, immersive art installations, and conversations that continue long after the sessions end. And it's all happening in Oslo in June. If this sounds like your kind of room, well, you're in luck because you can attend in person. Standard and patron passes are available at Osloof Freedomform.com, with patron passes offering deep access, private events, and small group time with the speakers. The Oslo Freedom Forum isn't just a conference, it's a place where ideas meet reality and where

Starting point is 00:20:28 the future is being built by people living it. If you run a business, you've probably had the same thought lately. How do we make AI useful in the real world? Because the upside is huge, but guessing your way into it is a risky move. With NetSuite by Oracle, you can put AI to work today. NetSuite is the number one AI cloud ERP, trusted by over 43,000 businesses. It pulls your financials, inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM into one unified system. And that connected data is what makes your AI smarter. It can automate routine work, surface actionable insights, and help you cut costs while making fast AI-powered decisions with confidence. And now with the Netsuite AI connector, you can use

Starting point is 00:21:12 the AI of your choice to connect directly to your real business data. This isn't some add-on, it's AI built into the system that runs your business. And whether your company does millions or even hundreds of millions, Netsuite helps you stay ahead. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, get their free business guide, demystifying AI at Nessuite.com slash study. The guide is free to you at netsuite.com slash study. NetSuite.com slash study. When I started my own side business, it suddenly felt like I had to become 10 different people overnight wearing many different hats.

Starting point is 00:21:50 Starting something from scratch can feel exciting, but also incredibly overwhelming and lonely. That's why having the right tools matters. For millions of businesses, that tool is Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. from brands just getting started to household names. It gives you everything you need in one place, from inventory to payments to analytics. So you're not juggling a bunch of different platforms. You can build a beautiful online store with hundreds of ready-to-use templates, and Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write

Starting point is 00:22:26 product descriptions and even enhance your product photography. Plus, if you ever get stuck, they've got award-winning 24-7 customer support. Start your business today with the industry's best business partner, Shopify, and start hearing sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com slash WSB. Go to Shopify.com slash WSB. That's Shopify.com slash WSB. All right. Back to the show.

Starting point is 00:23:00 It's interesting that you would say that, Colin, because last time we did, talked about how growth stocks typically perform better than value stocks in a low inflation environment. Now, if we continue this train of thought, growth stocks also perform better than value stocks with interest rate being so low, since the discount rate is correspondingly low. And this is also giving the assumption that you don't discount with something like the money supply or something like that, but you would discount with something like the treasury rate or similar to that. And I've been really trying to wrap my head around this.

Starting point is 00:23:30 Can we really consider future earnings being almost equivalent earnings today because of the low interest rate? And how should we as investors look at the valuation between value? And let's just call that earnings now and then growth stocks and let's call that earnings later, giving this way of discounting back with something very close to zero. It's always kind of confounded me that the way that I think people tend to, for instance, they think of the equity risk premium as something is. being at least highly impacted by the discount rate with a zero percent interest rate. A lot of people

Starting point is 00:24:06 would argue that the equity risk premium, basically the premium that equities deserve to earn over bonds is vastly superior than it is when interest rates are high. And to me, I've always found that using interest rates as the kind of central component of a valuation metric can be misleading because interest rates are a function of future inflation expectations. So, you know, I would say that I prefer to use the term the equity inflation premium, that when interest rates are low, it really means that inflation is low and that future inflation expectations are low. So the Fed, for instance, they have interest rates at zero because they expect inflation to remain really low. If inflation was to rear its head in the next few years, the Fed would start

Starting point is 00:24:59 raising interest rates over time to try to get ahead, to try to create more demand for money by getting people to basically earn an interest rate that makes them want to hold more money, in essence, to kind of oversimplify things. So to me, this really isn't about interest rates. This is about really understanding what is the future rate of inflation going to be. And there's no ironclad rule that says that when inflation rises and let's say interest rates rise, correspondingly, there's no ironclad rule that says that equities have to earn more or less premium inside of those environments. I mean, if you were an investor in Zimbabwean corporations when their inflation was raging out of control and the Zimbabwe and central bank was raising

Starting point is 00:25:49 interest rates, well, you know, no one was talking about an equity risk premium in that environment. You know, the rate of profit is for most corporations inside of an environment. that because your economy is just being completely ravaged by the rate of inflation that's going on. And so we kind of have this privilege of in the United States having, you're not just low inflation, but very stable inflation, where we have a great amount of predictability. So to me, you know, to kind of answer your question, I think people would be better off looking at inflation rates in the future. When you make an interest rate bet of any type, you're really making an inflation bet.

Starting point is 00:26:31 And if you think that inflation is going to remain low in the next five to 10 years, well, you're really making a bet that the Fed is right, basically, that the Fed is going to keep interest rates low and that you're not going to really see a high rate of inflation. And if that's the situation, then, well, I mean, all the trends that have been in place basically for the last, you know, 20 years are going to continue. Values are going to continue to be terrible versus growth. The U.S. domestic economy probably continues to outperform foreign stocks, just especially on a domestic

Starting point is 00:27:05 currency basis. And real assets do okayish versus everything else. So if you believe in the opposite, if you believe that inflation is going to be high, then you go out and you kind of diversify into all the things we talked about in the previous segment. But to me, interest rates kind of confuse the whole narrative because the interest rate is just set based on what the future inflation expectations are going to be. So keeping that in mind what you just said, I have to ask, one of the billionaires that we follow closely here on we studied billionaires is billionaire Red Alio. And he was recently doing an Ask Me Anything on Reddit.

Starting point is 00:27:41 And we will, of course, make sure to link to that in the show notes. And so he was asked whether he thought that the current equity prices were a house of cuts. He answered with bond interest rates where they are, bonds are trading at roughly 75 times earnings. With the amount of money out there and cash being such a bad alternative, there is no good reason that stocks shouldn't trade at 50 times earnings. And just to give the list of some context, we're trading around 33 times earnings in the U.S. right now. So do you agree with that assessment? You're essentially arguing that this paradigm that we're in is sustainable and going to be prolonged. So you're basically arguing that this environment of very low inflation,

Starting point is 00:28:24 with really poor demographic trends and rapidly changing technological changes, you're basically arguing that that is the dominant macro paradigm that we're not just in, but that we're going to continue to be in that paradigm. People have been saying, for instance, with like the CAPE ratio, they've been saying, oh, valuations are too high, they've got to come down, you know, and people have been saying that for 20 years. But the real fact of the matter is that as long as we're in this sort of alternative, an economist would call it an alternative equilibrium, basically, that the economy has shifted into a new equilibrium where now the current equilibrium is this low rate of inflation and this sort of stagnant growth period where certain types of firms

Starting point is 00:29:10 just do really, really well inside of that type of environment. And growth stocks, obviously, are the big beneficiaries of something like that because their cash flow streams because this becomes so predictable to a large degree. But if we're in this new paradigm of permanently low inflation, a sort of Japanification of the entire developed world economy, there's a justification. You could argue that there's a rational argument for why valuations are the way they are in that environment. And you could argue that if we were to, let's say the rate of inflation was to go lower. Let's say that we become more Japanese in the next 10 or 20 years. Inflation falls to zero or interest rates go negative like they are in a lot of European countries. Yeah, you could argue

Starting point is 00:29:58 that the corresponding valuations are going to be even higher because the demand for these really high-flying, crazy expensive stocks become more attractive versus everything else because the rate of inflation is so low that corporate cash flows are just, they're the obvious beneficiary of all of this. You know, they become the hot potato that everybody wants to own because there's kind of nowhere else to earn such a reliable, relatively low risk type of return. Is that the environment that is going to continue? I mean, me personally, I think that we are in an environment where you're not likely to go back to the 1970s. So I just don't think that there's the dynamics for, say, double-digit high inflation. But would I be comfortable being at, let's say, the 10-year

Starting point is 00:30:51 treasury right now is at 1%. Would I be, from a risk management perspective, would I be more comfortable betting on a three-year treasury bond versus a 0.5 or 0% 10-year treasury bond in the next 10 years, I would certainly want to be hedged against the 3% outcome because I view it as such an asymmetric bet in my mind, given the way that the politics and the government response seems to be changing. And to me, that's one of the big kickers here is that we do seem to be entering this different paradigm where, and this is the thing where Dahlio might be wrong about this, is that from a political perspective, you're seeing a real serious sea change, especially the way that economists view inflation and fiscal policy. And, you know, coming out of the financial

Starting point is 00:31:42 crisis, you will never see fiscal packages that the likes of what Europe has agreed to recently. Austerity was the name of the game. You had to, you know, suffer a little bit to be able to grow. And that was the way that macroeconomists, a lot of macroeconomists viewed the policy response in 2008, 2009, the current environment is completely different. I mean, we just spent, I can't even keep track of the numbers, three, four, five trillion dollars this year in the United States. And hardly anyone is batting an eyelash at that. You know, the numbers are just so big that the way we've seen just a huge sea change in the mentality in the way that people perceive fiscal policy and government spending relative to the risk of inflation is, you know,

Starting point is 00:32:32 is such a huge sea change that that to me feels like a trend that is not only just starting, but is going to continue into the next 10, 20 years. We just had one of the biggest recessions ever in economic history. And all we did was we slammed a ton of money at it. And what happened? The economy just snapped right back. What do you think policymakers are going to do the next time we have a big recession, they're going to do the same exact type of thing. So fiscal policy is going to be front and center. And the worrisome thing, the reason I say this is such an asymmetric bet to me is that no one knows what really causes inflation. I mean, there's sort of general theories about, oh, well, more money chases more goods. But, you know, that theory to some degree

Starting point is 00:33:22 has been debunked in that, you know, we printed a lot of money coming out of 2008. And what did we get. We got even lower rates of inflation over time. No one really knows all of the moving parts that really contributes to a high inflation. And this is just a much more confusing phenomenon than most people have made it out to be, and certainly the way that economic textbooks have made it out to be. And that's worrisome in that let's say we had this huge explosion in fiscal policy. Well, let's say we do find out that to avoid the term money, more financial assets is really the way to create more inflation in certain types of economies. Well, we're going to find out whether or not that's true in the coming five to 10 years

Starting point is 00:34:12 potentially. So that, to me, the political sea change makes this a really somewhat asymmetric bet that if you're betting on the permanently low inflation, you are to a certain degree. you're betting that the politics aren't going to change. And I don't know, I feel like the politics are starting to change. The sort of the MMT advocates of the world and the Bernie Sanders of the world are going to become more vocal types in creating this, I think, sort of perception that fiscal policy doesn't have a lot of downside.

Starting point is 00:34:46 And I've been a big advocate of actually fiscal responses for the last 10 years, but there's something about the C change here that it starts to make me a little uncomfortable. And from maybe I'm just too much of a risk manager, but in terms of managing the risks, I'd want to be hedged against that risk for certain. Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors. No, it's not your imagination. Risk and regulation are ramping up and customers now expect proof of security just to do business. That's why VANTA is a game changer. VANTA automates your compliance process and brings compliance, risk, and customer trust together on one AI-powered platform. So whether you're prepping for a SOC 2 or running an enterprise GRC program, VANTA

Starting point is 00:35:30 keeps you secure and keeps your deals moving. Instead of chasing spreadsheets and screenshots, VANTA gives you continuous automation across more than 35 security and privacy frameworks. Companies like Ramp and Ryder spend 82% less time on audits with Vantza. That's not just faster compliance, it's more time for growth. If I were running a startup or scaling a team today, this is exactly the type of platform I'd want in place. Get started at vanta.com slash billionaires. That's vanta.com slash billionaires. Ever wanted to explore the world of online trading, but haven't dared try? The futures market is more active now than ever before, and plus 500 futures is the perfect place to Start. Plus 500 gives you access to a wide range of instruments, the S&P 500, NASDAQ, Bitcoin, gas,

Starting point is 00:36:24 and much more. Explore equity indices, energy, metals, 4X, crypto, and beyond. With a simple and intuitive platform, you can trade from anywhere, right from your phone. Deposit with a minimum of $100 and experience the fast, accessible futures trading you've been waiting for. See a trading opportunity, you'll be able to trade it in just two clicks once your account is open. Not sure if you're ready, not a problem. Plus 500 gives you an unlimited, risk-free demo account with charts and analytic tools for you to practice on. With over 20 years of experience, Plus 500 is your gateway to the markets. Visit Plus500.com to learn more. Trading in futures involves risk of loss and is not suitable for everyone. Not all applicants will qualify.

Starting point is 00:37:12 Plus 500, it's trading with a plus. Billion dollar investors don't typically park their cash in high-yield savings accounts. Instead, they often use one of the premier passive income strategies for institutional investors, private credit. Now, the same passive income strategy is available to investors of all sizes, thanks to the Fundrise income fund, which has more than $600 million invested in a 7.97% distribution rate, With traditional savings yields falling, it's no wonder private credit has grown to be a trillion dollar asset class in the last few years. Visit fundrise.com slash WSB to invest in the Fundrise income fund in just minutes.

Starting point is 00:37:57 The fund's total return in 2025 was 8%, and the average annual total return since inception is 7.8%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, current distribution rate as of 1231, 2025. carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the income funds prospectus at fundrise.com slash income. This is a paid advertisement. All right.

Starting point is 00:38:25 Back to the show. So let's continue talking about inflation here because inflation is seen by many as the savior of the growing public debt to GDP ratio. And many countries have in the past deliberately used this. and this meaning inflation as a tool to reset the debt situation. Do you think that using inflation to erase debt or at least minimize debt is a viable solution in Europe and in the US and what would be the potential negative consequences if that was the approach that was taken?

Starting point is 00:39:00 The first thing I would say is that the debt to GDP ratio, I don't know if there's anything about that number that is really meaningful. You know, we use it as kind of a general barometer of what's going on, but I don't know what this number really tells us. You know, there was a famous study back in, I can't remember 2009 or 2010, Reinhard and Rogoff came out with a paper, and then they later released, I think, the Excel spreadsheet that they used. And they had argued that something like a 90% debt to GDP ratio was kind of like the breaking point for government and debt basically. And a lot of people had a problem with that because there's, I mean, first of all, there's a lot of evidence that that's just empirically wrong. I mean, Japan has

Starting point is 00:39:46 a, what, something like a 250 or 300 percent debt to GDP ratio. And they have crazy low inflation and have for, you know, 20 years. So there doesn't seem to be anything magical about this line. But the funny thing with the Ryan Hart Rogoff study was that it ultimately had a spreadsheet error, like a basic math error in the spreadsheet where they, had come up with this number, not in just a sort of phony theoretical way, but they made a basic math mistake within it. So I don't know that there's anything about this number that is really that meaningful to begin with. And kind of, again, going back to the balance sheet accounting of it, to me, people just, I think, talk about debt in a sort of lazy way where they say,

Starting point is 00:40:32 oh, well, more debt is bad. And, well, again, more debt. It doesn't just, mean more liabilities. It also means more assets. And there's, I'm by no means a believer in the idea that the government necessarily creates financial assets and does so efficiently, but there's nothing necessarily negative about creating more debt. And if you have an economy where the underlying private sector is just super, super productive, well, you know, if you're creating more debt, in theory, you might have a big multiplier effect within that economy where more assets actually, they liquefy the domestic economy in a way where that economy might actually become even more productive because it hasn't an underlying inherent level of

Starting point is 00:41:18 productivity already in it where maybe you just didn't have enough liquidity to begin with. Maybe there were tons and tons of entrepreneurs out there that had great ideas that were going to change the world in really big, meaningful ways. And they just didn't have the liquidity to be able to enact those ideas. There's a chance. that what we're seeing here with a lot of this government stimulus and the way that it hasn't been really explosively inflationary, there's some evidence that that's actually what's happening, that like you're adding liquidity to the economy, which is just, you know, in a lot of ways, I think creating a little bit of a multiplier effect where you're giving liquidity to people

Starting point is 00:41:56 that really just needed it and that the domestic economy might just benefit from having that greater amount of liquidity, but there's nothing, you know, again, kind of trying to hammer home the point that there's nothing necessarily good or bad about debt in and of itself. And that, you know, the other thing is that I think when people look at government finances, they'll have a tendency to think of them in sort of household terms. And so a lot of people talk about, for instance, repaying the national debt. And this is basically just a big fallacy of composition in that the national debt will never get repaid. You literally cannot repay the national debt without, again, reducing the size of the balance sheet correspondingly on the asset side. And the kicker is

Starting point is 00:42:45 is that the government debt is a humongous portion of the private sector's financial assets in that people who have social security or government pensions or even just bond investors broadly who own all of these assets. These are assets that they own. And in order to repay the government debt, you're not just repay the liability side of the balance sheet. You'd have to shrink the asset side of the balance sheet. And at an aggregate economic level, really financial assets, they don't get repaid. And you actually don't want them to be repaid over the long term. I mean, going back to the household sector, for instance, when I talked about that example earlier, or building the home where I borrowed money to build the home, you don't want people to just

Starting point is 00:43:35 be repaying all those loans. What ends up happening over time is that, especially as the population grows, you just have more and more debt. But again, you not only have more liabilities, you have more assets. And over the course of any really long economic period, you're just going to see a natural growth in both the assets and the liabilities, mainly because the other component of the balance sheet is equity. So the equity component is going to grow over time. Our net worths are going to grow because ultimately the value of our assets should in a healthy economy expand versus the

Starting point is 00:44:13 value of the liabilities, which creates net worth, which ultimately is the real and non-financial capital that makes all of the economy sustainable over very long periods of time. So to me, I think people are, you know, kind of going back to the confusion and the question marks around what causes inflation. I think a lot of people look at government debt and they automatically say, well, more government debt is bad. And so this or that ratio will contribute to inflation. And I think the sort of scary thing about inflation is that no one knows what level of government debt causes inflation or causes, you know, the economy to start performing worse or, not. And that's the problem with big ratios, like a debt to GDP ratio or this idea that you

Starting point is 00:45:04 want to inflate your way out of debt because ultimately we don't know the actual relationship between government debt and inflation. And so to specifically answer the question of whether inflation you can really grow the inflation rate to retire or to kind of erase debt over time. Well, inflation is not a good thing. I mean, in a perfect world, you would have basically a zero percent inflation rate. You know, you'd have growing money supply over time because people would be borrowing more money and creating more things. We'd be so innovative and so productive that, you know, our technology would put a downward pressure on the rate of inflation to the point where there was virtually zero inflation. Our economy is not perfect like that

Starting point is 00:45:51 because there really is scarcity in the economy, especially on the real side of things. And we see that, you know, anyone who's tried to buy things during COVID knows, you know, how true that is. I mean, I've looked at the price of a two by four sort of jokingly over the course of the last few years as I've been building my house here and just watch the price explode during COVID because of the scarcity of a two by four during the last year. So these dynamics are real and you're likely to pretty much always have some positive rate of inflation just because real resources really are scarce. And so that's going to create dynamics where we've created this technology that is sort of a double-edged sword in that we create money from nothing, but we can't create the corresponding

Starting point is 00:46:37 goods and services from nothing. But you would never use inflation to grow your way out of debt because very high rates of inflation are a sign of huge economic problems. I mean, when you have an economy where you go from, say, 10% to 100% inflation, your economy is essentially broken. I mean, people talk about the problems that we have in the United States where we have very low rates of inflation and low growth. But boy, those things are a blessing compared to very high inflation because very high inflation, it will ruin everyone's life. You know, we talk about the problems that you have with low inflation where there's inequality and things maybe aren't quite as good as they could be, but it very, very high inflation ruins

Starting point is 00:47:27 everyone's life. It doesn't just ruin the poor people's lives or, you know, certain components of the economy. And so the whole idea that you'd want to inflate your way out of debt, it's just sort of, I don't know, it seems sort of nonsensical to me. And, you know, why would you blow your whole body up to save yourself from what you view as sort of a miserable life? It just doesn't make any sense to me. Because once you've destroyed it. the domestic economy, yeah, you might be able to come out and say, oh, we reduced our, you know, our real debt levels, but we did so by blowing up the whole system. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So I don't think that's what policymakers are trying to do. I think policymakers are,

Starting point is 00:48:06 you know, when they're enacting these policies, I think they're really trying to grow their way out of debt. They know that inflation is going to be a byproduct of increased demand to some degree, just because of the basic dynamics I was talking about earlier, but they're really trying to grow their way out of debt. Let's talk about that strategy, because another way for a country to repay its debt is to grow this economy. And as long as the economy grows at a higher nominal rate than the normal interest rate, meaning the debt, in time, debt will be repaid.

Starting point is 00:48:39 And so that really takes me to the next point about productivity. We often hear productivity mentioned in various debates. and read about the need to increase productivity. So let's first start by defining what is productivity? Well, this is one of those sort of macroeconomic debates that nobody really knows the answer to. So, I mean, productivity at the most basic level is just output per hour. You know, how much stuff are we creating per unit of work, basically? So one of the things that a lot of people find disconcerting about the last 20 to 30 years,

Starting point is 00:49:15 really since the 1970s is that the rate of productivity has declined and nobody really knows why. And I don't know how much of this is a just sort of a natural sort of basic trend that's occurring in the economy because of, I'll give you my personal view on the whole productivity debate is that basically, sure, people have become slightly less productive in terms of the amount of real stuff we produce, but that the way we quantify whether or not that's really impacted our lives positively or negatively is very, very subjective. And a lot of people use this as sort of a measure of our living standards over time. And I would argue that since the 1970s, for instance, the BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, releases a survey every like 10 years.

Starting point is 00:50:09 it shows the household share of income expenditures as a percentage of total necessities. And the basic, we're talking very basic necessities. And the three big metrics that they use are food, housing, and apparel. And if you look at the three of those, the housing component has obviously increased. But the apparel and food component as a share of household income expenditures has declined really significantly. In total, the share of that has declined since 1970 from. from about 58% to about 45%.

Starting point is 00:50:42 So the amount of money that we spend on what we deem as very basic necessities has declined substantially. And sure, even if we've become less productive, our living standards haven't necessarily declined over that period of time. And a modern home is a technological miracle from top to bottom. The insulation is magnitudes better. the things you can't even see. The drywall is better.

Starting point is 00:51:10 You know, when I was building my house here, I couldn't believe how different every single material was all along the way. I mean, I used things in our foundation construction that epoxyes that have been invented in the last 10 years, that these things, you couldn't blow them up with dynamite. I mean, these are things that are just leaps and bounds superior to everything that existed in the 1970s. And so when people talk about, you know, our living standards and productivity, you get a lot of very subjective ideas that go into this.

Starting point is 00:51:46 And the BLS, they come under attack a lot because they, you know, like hedonic adjustments and things like that. This is all very subjective. You know, you could argue they're very somewhat sloppy necessarily so about the way they sort of subjectively, you know, attribute gains to a lot of these things. But the world's just become really, really complex in the last 10, 20 years, where I think that the idea of productivity gains and whether or not we're better off as an entire economy has become so subjective.

Starting point is 00:52:20 And to a large degree, a lot of this is great in that, for instance, in today's economy, people would argue that a college education and health care are now necessities. 100 years ago, you would never make that argument. Nobody went to college 100 years ago. Very, very few people did. Nobody had good access to good health care 100 years ago. But objectively, we now consider those things to be necessities in a modern economy. That alone is evidence that regardless of how productive we are or how much stuff we create,

Starting point is 00:52:57 our living standards have increased over this time. I'm not making excuses for things like inequality. There's definitely been a lot of winners and losers over the course of time. But in the aggregate, I don't think you can make a really convincing argument that our living standards have declined over the last 30 or 40 years, regardless of productivity. So in the way we measure these things, because a lot of it's just so subjective. And I think that we just have a very hard time objectively analyzing these things. because living standards to a large degree, they're like beauty to some degree. I mean, you know, back in the Roman

Starting point is 00:53:35 empire, a big overweight woman was considered beautiful. And today, we look at runway models, these, you know, pencil thin women, and that's the essence of beauty in today's economy or today's society. And so there's so much subjectivity about the way we perceive these things. And I think living standards are very, very similar. So let's go back to this theme of corona and it's on everyone's minds. Assuming that we use 2019 as the benchmark and that the world will have somewhat normalized in 2022 and we can always talk about what a normalized world would look like today. But which countries and regions do you expect that would have whether the pandemic best

Starting point is 00:54:22 measured in economic growth. And how should we as investors position ourselves accordingly? Yeah, so this is kind of the big question coming out of really since the financial crisis was the whole monetary policy versus fiscal policy response. I think one of the things that people missed, you know, I was saying I was really vocal in April about this idea that a lot of people thought the stimulus was going to be really bad for the economy. And my argument was basically the economy was going to be really good for whether or not it was good for households, whether or not it was targeted really efficiently was meaningless for a stock market investor because the basic math of corporate profits is that when the cover spends more money,

Starting point is 00:55:11 where does that money go ultimately? Well, if you assume, for instance, that the personal savings rate during a recession, it increases. Okay, so if the government's sending checks to households, households are saving that. But as the economy heals over time, and let's just say that regardless of what the government is doing, that the economy heals naturally over time. Let's say we get a vaccine, COVID slowly goes away. Well, all that spending went to households. They saved the money. What ultimately happens with it? If the savings rate declines, all else equal, that money ends up going to corporations. That's where the money flows.

Starting point is 00:55:52 Okay. So my ultimate argument was basically that when the government spent all that money back in April, that eventually you were going to see, assuming that COVID goes away and that the economy normalizes to some degree, you were going to see all this money hit corporate balance sheets at some point. It was all going to flow down to the bottom line of corporations because that's the basic math of the profits equation. when you look at the aggregate economy.

Starting point is 00:56:19 And of course, I'm assuming that the savings rate will decline, but that's pretty much, you know, if I had to bet the farm on something happening, it would be that Americans will not save money in the future, that they will spend, spend, spend, and they ultimately, the personal savings rate will decline as the economy heals over time. And that money just all flows to corporations in the end.

Starting point is 00:56:40 So, yeah, I think that, you know, measuring things from sort of a basic metric like that, You'd want to be exposed to the countries that were just throwing money at this thing because that ultimately, those are the countries where corporations within those domestic economies are going to perform really well. And from a fiscal stimulus perspective, the countries that have thrown the most money at this thing are Japan, Canada, Australia, and the United States. I don't know what the updated numbers are with the U.S. after the most recent.

Starting point is 00:57:11 But those are the four who have thrown the most money at this thing. And so you could make a strong argument that if you're a stock market investor, those are the four economies where the underlying corporations are likely to perform the best over not just the COVID period, but the post-COVID period because as the savings rate declined, the money will ultimately flow to those corporate coffers. And so, you know, again, you're making a bet on the virus to some degree, but I don't know, there seems to be some evidence. I was also really vocal in April that I thought life would largely return to normal or that I thought the GDP would at least recover within 18 to 24 months. It

Starting point is 00:57:53 looks like that might be pretty much dead on. Whether or not life will have normalized, I mean, again, that's kind of a subjective term, I guess. We've kind of been knocked into a different paradigm to some degree. I think the COVID trends kind of accelerated a lot of the trends that were already happening. And so, you know, that's probably a whole different discussion. But if you're looking at this just from a really top down macro perspective, it's all about fiscal stimulus. You know, looking at the central bank policies, ignore the central bank policies because the central bank policies as much as people like to focus on them as the real money printers. You know, I always described, for instance, quantitative easing as being an asset swap. But the kicker with quantitative

Starting point is 00:58:37 easing is that if the Fed creates a bunch of reserves and swaps them with treasury bonds, okay, so they expand their balance sheet, they issue new reserves, which creates deposits in the banking system. The bank swaps a treasury bond with a household for a deposit. So the household now holds a deposit. The bank temporarily owns a treasury bond, which sells it to the Fed. What does the Fed do with that treasury bond? It basically buries it in the backyard. It's not in the real economy. It has no monetary impact at all on the economy, except for the remuneration that the Fed ultimately

Starting point is 00:59:15 ends up paying to the Treasury, which are pretty insignificant in the long run. But the kicker is that this is a clean asset swap. But the big component there is, well, what if the Treasury expands their balance sheet by $3 trillion like they did this year. Well, that changes the way we have to view QE because QE in a vacuum with just the monetary policy side of it, it's just a clean asset swap. It's not money printing in any meaningful way because all you've done is you've created a reserve that's 0% interest bearing and you've swapped it with a treasury bond in the private sector. That to me actually has the potential to be slightly disinflationary or deflationary because the household

Starting point is 01:00:01 now has a lower interest-bearing government asset, basically. And the government has, for all practical purposes, retire the treasury bond from circulation. But if the treasury is actually expanding their balance sheet, well, that's a whole different dynamic. So you have to look at all these other dynamics. And looking at COVID, I think that was the big thing that a lot of people missed, that when people were calling the Fed's policies money printing, they missed the fact that the real money printing was occurring from all these treasuries and that the basic math of it was that as much as you might hate the results of all of this government spending, the ultimate beneficiary of it was going to be corporate America. And I've had big long debates with people about

Starting point is 01:00:46 why, you know, whether or not QE causes asset inflation and things like that. And I always say, you've got to look at the underlying fundamentals. And is there an underlying fundamental rational for why asset prices have increased. In this case, I would argue definitively there has been because, you know, mark my words on this, you're going to see record corporate profits next year and probably in 2022. And so, yeah, asset prices have gone up and you could argue that's all government policy, but you could also argue that there's an underlying rationale for why that has occurred. And so if you're pinpointing the countries that are the kind of parts of the global economy that are likely to weather best had nothing to do with whether or not you did

Starting point is 01:01:31 shutdowns or not. I think one thing we've found with COVID is that nobody knows how to fight this thing from like the management perspective of can we manage the shutdowns and openings and people at times were saying, oh, Sweden's doing so great and now they're doing terrible. At times people were saying, oh, look, the United States is doing so great and now they're doing terrible. This thing seems like it's going to get you eventually and you either ride it out until the vaccine comes and save the day or not. You can shut down your economy and tell everybody to stay home.

Starting point is 01:02:07 But at the end of the day, the thing that really matters is how much fiscal policy is being pumped into the domestic economy and how much is that going to ultimately filter down to corporations in the long run. So, Colin, I would like to shift gears here at the end of the interview. As anyone can tell, we'll love speaking with you here on the show because you do such a great job explaining and simplifying advanced macroeconomic concepts. For someone listening to this who is super interested in becoming as knowledgeable as you, but perhaps also feel it's a little overwhelming to start on this journey.

Starting point is 01:02:43 Which three steps do you recommend they take to get started right away? It's funny. I'm mostly self-taught on all this stuff. It's so complex, I would argue, that no one knows a lot of these great big answers. Nobody knows what causes inflation. Nobody knows for certain whether Fed policy causes an asset price inflation, things like that. I think a lot of it requires just a super, super open mind. And one of the things that I think has been interesting over the kind of learning process that I've gone through is that I've managed, and I think part of this is the fact that I'm directly involved in managing people's money is that I have to try to be somewhat objective. I can't fall victim to political narratives and falling into, you know, kind of tribal

Starting point is 01:03:33 mentality where I align myself with a group of people that just have a generally a political narrative and they just, you know, through any type of environment, they have to promote that narrative. And that sort of, I think, really curious, open-mindedness is so useful because there's lots of good components of all different economic theories. You know, MMT is under a lot of attack these days and I attack it a decent amount, but there's actually a lot to like inside of MMT. There's a lot of good components that are really eye-opening and somewhat useful. The same is true of any economic theory. And I would argue any financial theory, too, you know, you don't have to be only a value investor. You don't only have to be a growth investor. You don't

Starting point is 01:04:18 only have to be a domestic technology investor. You can be open-minded about all these different things and understand that there's a lot of good in a lot of different aspects of all of these things. And I think you just have to explore these things in a very open-minded way. I did create a page on the Orcam group website So it's orcam, O-R-C-A-M group.com. And under the education page, there's a tab called Understanding Money. And I kind of just collected a whole bunch of links in there that are things like my big paper on understanding the modern monetary system. I linked to the Ray Dalio came out with a famous video back in 2013 called How the Economic

Starting point is 01:05:09 Machine Works. And there's a link in there to like Bill Ackman's video on everything you need to know about finance in 30 minutes. And there's so much to learn. I think one of the daunting things, especially with macroecon and macrofinance, is that the more you learn, the more you learn how little you know. And if you're not open-minded and you're really, I think, sort of, you know, politically driven into certain boxes, I think you just expose yourself to the potential that you're going to end up being wrong about big, big things. And you need to be more open-minded and just really curious and have this voracious appetite to try

Starting point is 01:05:51 to understand other people's perspectives because there's almost always something useful. Even all of the people's views that you disagree with, there's usually some rationale. You might think I'm the biggest idiot in the world. But I guarantee you there's at least some little bit of rationale. in the way that I'm approaching the world from my specific perspective and that there is some rationale for the way that everybody's sort of navigating the world. And, you know, I'm not an efficient market hypothesis believer, but I do believe there's at least shades of gray in the idea of efficiency in that you're better off trying to understand why people either

Starting point is 01:06:32 promote a certain theory or the things that they're teaching because there's usually tidbits of truth in there. So I think you just have to be really open-minded and try to really understand all of these different theories from all of these different perspectives. Well said, Colin. Thank you, as always, for coming here on the show. I would also like to give you the opportunity to tell the audience where they can learn more about you, pragmatic capitalism, and the Orcombe Group. Yeah, so pragmatic capitalism is my blog. It's kind of just where I have over the course of the last 10, 15 years, I've just sort of, you know, vomited all of my thoughts and knowledge or stupid ideas onto the website. That's pragcap.com, P-R-A-G-C-A-P-com.

Starting point is 01:07:21 I've listed a lot of different pages over time. Again, there's an education tab there, recommended reading, understanding money. I have some research papers on there. It's very top of the page. there's a new here, a welcome mat that just shows kind of the big, big, broad topics that I think are kind of the most important things to probably understand. You can get pretty wonky and, you know, it takes time to digest and understand a lot of these very, very big macro concepts. And it takes a lot of time and effort. And the idea is change over time. So you've got to keep up with the changing technologies and the changing paradigms and all this. But I think having a good sort of objective first principles-based mentalities, it creates a really

Starting point is 01:08:13 good foundation for being able to navigate these things, especially because it will help you, I think, avoid a lot of the politics that naturally get intertwined in a lot of these discussions where biases exposes to big, big risks. And so kind of create that foundation. And I have a forum on my website. I would love to answer questions there if people have any. You can also email me at Cullen Roach at orcamgroup.com if you have questions. And I'm always happy to help. I love, you know, so many people have been so helpful to me over the years learning all this stuff and answering my stupid questions that I really, I really love helping people learn and educate people where I can. So, fantastic. And we will definitely make sure.

Starting point is 01:09:04 sure to link to all of that in the show notes. Colin, once again, it's been an absolute pleasure. As always, we always have so much fun. We always learn so much from you. I really hope that we can bring you back on the show another time. All right, guys, that was all that I had for this week's episode of We Study Billionaires. On Wednesdays, remember Preston is back with a specific episode about Bitcoin, and then weekends, we're doing traditional We State Billionaires episodes.

Starting point is 01:09:30 Next weekend, Tray and I will be back with our interview with Tom Gainer, CEO of Markell. Thank you for listening to TIP. To access our show notes, courses or forums, go to theinvestorspodcast.com. This show is for entertainment purposes only. Before making any decisions, consult a professional. This show is copyrighted by the Investors Podcast Network. Written permissions must be granted before syndication or rebroadcasting.

We Study Billionaires - The Investor’s Podcast Network - TIP331: Inflation w/ Cullen Roche

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.