September 12, 2025 • 38 mins
Not that long ago the US economy was wrestling with an interesting problem: jobs data looked very strong with historically low unemployment and historically low firings, but people didn’t feel good about the economy. The dissonance became known as the “vibecession” and was the topic of many economic and policy debates. The question was: Why do people feel bad about the economy when the economy is actually doing great?
With help of revised data, we now know that the vibes were right. This week, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics—part of the Trump administration’s Department of Labor—released its latest data, which included a massive revision. The US economy created roughly 900,000 fewer jobs between March 2024 and March 2025 than previously thought, the BLS says. That means only about half the jobs we thought had been created actually materialized, according to the agency. How did this happen and what does this mean?
This week, economist Kathryn Anne Edwards, host of the Optimist Economy podcast, joins us to talk about how a giant revision like this can happen, as well as how it reflects on the market and the economy. Also this week, Max Chafkin talks about his book The Contrarian, which looks at the world of Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel. We discuss his influence and what it reveals about the intersection of technology, money and ideology. Also why he is suddenly so interested in the “antichrist.”
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Welcome to Everybody's Business from Bloomberg BusinessWeek. I'm Max Chafkin
and I'm Stacy Bannocksmith. Stacy, I want to talk to
you about capitalism.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
About capitalism, all right?
Speaker 1 (00:23):
How people feel about it? Do they like it? Do
they not like it?
Speaker 2 (00:27):
We also have an interview with Catherine Edwards, are our
friend of the show economists, on the jobs numbers which
have been bad.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
I mean bad.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
I don't know. They're okay, it's like a B minus
instead of what you speak to A minus.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Okay, B minus. And then we'll talk about the question.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
That is on everyone's mind.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Which is is Peter Teel the Antichrist?
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Well, at least that's the question that's on your mind,
I'm asking you. We'll be talking about that.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
We're going to be talking about Silicon Valley and its
relationship with the Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
There's a lot happening there, a lot to chew over.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
And for our underrated story of the week.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
The rise and fall of the NFT, I would argue
is maybe the most overwrought expression of late stage capitalism
we've ever seen.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Save it for the end of the show.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
For the end of the show.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
All right, Stacy, if you had to rate capitalism on
a scale of one to ten, sort of a hot
or not of capitalism, where do you fall?
Speaker 3 (01:34):
I would say in eight I'm still bullish on capitalism.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
I bring this up because this is the point of
the show where we and by we, I guess I
mean you go to the streets of New York or wherever,
Idaho and ask people kind of how they're feeling about stuff.
And often the questions are about sort of things that
are in the culture or whatever, what kind of donuts,
you know, how they're feeling about laboo boos or whatever.
(02:02):
Instead of that, this week, I wanted to bring up
a survey, kind of a grander version of the thing
we normally do, which is that Gallup, as part of
their regular surveys, asked Americans how they feel about capitalism,
and the results were really interesting.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
Well, and among democrats now, socialism is more favorably looked
upon than capitalism, which is fascinating. I wasn't quite sure
what to make of that, but yeah, capitalism is maybe
its moment is waning a little bit, or at least
it's maybe not been canceled, but it's under question.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
So here's the thing.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Democrats have been pretty bullish on socialism for actually for
some time, right, it's been at least since I'm looking
at the numbers.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
Twenty eighteen, maybe when when.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Democratic views of socialism surpassed views of capitalism. I mean, obviously,
I think like there's a pretty obvious explanation there that
sort of coincides with the rise of democratic socialism. Bernie
Sanders Zoran Mandami, he's running from mayor in New York.
A couple of things that are interesting to me here.
What is that Republican views of socialism have actually gone
(03:11):
up since twenty twenty one, which I think is kind
of interesting and probably coincides with the way that the
Republican Party has been attacking big business. The other thing
here is like independent views of socialism have basically stayed
the same more or less.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
They've actually gone down a little bit.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
But independent views of capitalism have also gone way down,
dropped by eight percentage points from twenty twenty one to
twenty twenty five. So like there's a shift, and it's
not just like a partisan shift.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
M interesting.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
So talking about this made me think of this ad
that's been going around on social media from Zoron Mondami,
who's a candidate for mayor in New York. I mentioned
him earlier. Let's give it a quick listen.
Speaker 5 (03:52):
In August in the Hampton's Ocean Breezes, oversubscribed Tracy Anderson
classes Parking Worlds, and.
Speaker 6 (04:02):
This year the New York City mayoral election looming in
the fall, a freak out that the most sumptuous of
summer staples has ensued. Even overpriced lobster salad can't seem
to make people out here feel better.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
What I think is so interesting about this ad and
why I wanted to bring it up, is not only
because it's trading on the trends that we're talking about,
which is that capitalism and big business are becoming less popular,
including less popular with independence, but also because of the tone.
Right Like, this ad is not editorializing. It's just reading
the quotes from the New York Times from rich people
(04:39):
who don't like Zora Mamdami. And the only hint that
you get that where the ad is coming from is
that the billionaire character in this ad sort of makes
a face, and the face he makes is like super offended.
And what I think is interesting here is Basically, we've
gone from a period where if a rich person, if
(04:59):
a a big investor, if a big CEO criticized a candidate,
that would be like a point against that candidate, And
that has changed. Now you're seeing candidates essentially take those
comments and stick them straight into an advertisement. So like, Mom,
Dammy says like, oh, billionaires don't like me, like, don't
threaten me with a good time, and he's using that
to attract voters. I think that's like really interesting. It
(05:21):
really shows like that there's a cultural shift happening.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
I don't know. I would argue that populism is nothing new,
and leveraging criticisms from rich people is not necessarily a
new tactic, but it is. It is super interesting, especially
in the city, which is like kind of the capital
of capitalism. I guess you could say, I.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Mean, populism nothing new, is just more popular, right, I.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
Mean, historically speaking, it's it's definitely had its moments.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Stacey, there's one thing I know about you. It's that
you are a believer in the importance of vibes and
the vibe session.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
Do you think the vibes are important?
Speaker 1 (06:04):
That's true, Yeah, And.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
We've been talking on this show about the kind of
disconnect between the way like normal people feel about the
economy when they go to their jobs or when they
negotiate for raises or whatever, and what they're reading when
they read, you know, Wall Street analysts or people like
us or reporters or whatever talking.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
About the economy.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
The economy on paper has looked pretty good, but the
way people feel about it has not been great.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Yeah, that's true, And in fact, we got a big
example of that this week, and here to talk about
it is economists Katherine and Edwards. She's host of the
podcast Optimist Economy and a contributor to Bloomberg Opinion, and
she joins us in the studio. Now, hey, Catherine, Hey all,
I'm so glad to be here.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Catherine.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
We're recording this on Wednesday, September tenth. Yesterday, the big
economic news was that the BLS revised the number of
jobs that were created over the last year down word
that basically, we have a million fewer jobs over the
last year than we thought we.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
Did a million.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
I basically called this a Mondo Mondo number, a Mondo revision.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
Unguarded moment. When I was absorbing the number, it was
that big that I somehow reverted back to my twelve
year old self. I was shocked. How does this number
get calculated and why did it get revised so much?
Speaker 4 (07:24):
I think, in some ways the easiest to understand it
is to start at the end, which is, if I
wanted to know with incredible precision the number of jobs
in the United States, there's a very easy way to
find out. I would look at tax records. And every
employer has to pay payroll taxes on their employees with
a specific account for each specific worker. So if I
(07:46):
want to know the number of jobs I just need
to look at the taxes filed. The problem is that
number takes two years to get right because it's a
census of every worker in the United States and every job.
It's one hundred and sixty million records.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
But aren't companies paying taxes like every quarter?
Speaker 4 (08:00):
Yes, but they have you know, there's lags and how
they fill it out, and then of course the data itself.
We don't actually have the BLS dip into your record.
They clean the data, they verify that people aren't being
double counted. Just because it's an administrative source doesn't mean
it comes like hot off the press, ready to go.
It takes you know, about six months to a year
to process it to make sure it's not duplicative or
that they missed anybody every quarter. But being two years
(08:24):
to final process, that's useless for understanding the economy in
real time, especially if you're in a time like we
are now when we're very worried about the economy weakening
each day. So you know, most of the BLS's job
is to work back from this number that we know
we'll be right in two years to something that we
can use today. And the first big part of that
(08:45):
is having a survey that they send to the people
who file those taxes. And so if it's one hundred
and sixty million workers, about one hundred to one hundred
and twenty thousand businesses will get the survey, and that
survey is released within days of the month ending, so
we know the number of jobs added in August by
the fifth of September. And so every revision from the
(09:07):
BLS is basically working your way from here's our first
estimate on the survey to here's our final estimate based
on the census, and every time they get closer from
you know, the starting point to this ending point they
tell us what changed.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Let me just ask, Like, the old estimate was that
the economy had added one point eight million jobs over
the last twelve months or twelve months before March.
Speaker 4 (09:30):
It's April twenty four to March twenty five.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Right, Okay, So, and then the new number is basically
nine hundred thousand, nine hundred and eleven thousand less than that,
which leaves like about nine hundred thousand, one hundred and
fifty thousand jobs per month, like historically, is that a
and I feel like this is always a question we're
talking about pulling is to what extent is.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
The way I feel like representative of?
Speaker 2 (09:55):
And if somebody is saying like I don't feel I
don't feel secure in my job, the economy feels off,
I'm not s ending as much money, all these kind
of vibe session type feelings, and then the economy's adding
one hundred and fifty thousand jobs. Does that basically line
up with the vibe session feeling or is that even still?
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Is there still a disconnect there?
Speaker 4 (10:12):
Well? Yeah, well it's a lot of moving targets. So first,
is it a big number? Yeah, I mean it's huge,
it's almost a million. It's a psychological hit to have
a million fewer jobs than we thought. If you put
it in terms of the percentage of total jobs in
the economy, it's a lot smaller because we're adding jobs
almost every month. The US economy adds jobs, whether it's
a big or small number, So in percentage terms, it
(10:34):
would be the largest revision since two thousand and nine
if it holds, because of course, being the BLS, they're
going to revise this one again.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Remind me two thousand and nine that it happens great
Financial Crisis or the Aftermathing crisis.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
It was the after it. It was really the dear
of the labor market during the Great Recession. Was the
last revision of this magnitude, and it speaks to the
precarity that our labor market has. And I think that's
what makes it a big number for me, is that
it's not in good company with years that have big
downward revisions. The revision itself is part of the process.
(11:12):
We've had a huge upward revision before these last two
downward ones. Like that's how the statistics work out when
you are trying to estimate economy thirty trillion dollars in size.
I think what worries me is that it's downward and
it's on par at least at the moment with the
Great Recession. And so to your point and to your
question about, you know, how do we feel and how
do we interpret these things? The fact that it's you know,
(11:36):
big and bad matters because I think people have been
looking for validation that their struggle and the economy over
the past couple of years have been real. But at
the same time, you know, the ground is shifting under
our feet. How many jobs is a good number of
jobs to add in a month in the US economy?
Speaker 3 (11:55):
I mean, I would say like like one hundred thousand
would be great, Like between fifteen a hundred thousand solid.
Under fifty thousand doesn't.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Feel According to the most recent numbers, we're adding like
seventy five thousand a month, which is still in Stacy's
good zone.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
But the good zone has also shifted because we have
a large number of people leaving the labor market, retiring,
and so the replenishment rate of the labor market is
really this number of the number of jobs is really
it's about jobs for the people who need them. So
what has also happened over the last two years, is
that with fluctuation and immigration policy and preferences. Most people
(12:34):
don't understand that if you look at the working age population,
like the prime working age population between twenty five and
fifty four this century, in some years most of the
growth has come from immigrants. In other years, all of
the growth has come from immigrants. If our country tomorrow
said no more immigrants can enter, our population would immediately decline.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
So as we.
Speaker 4 (12:58):
Pursue this very I would say cold blooded, heartless immigration
policy of picking people off the streets and taking them
out of their workplaces, you know that filters down to
what is a good job's number. In an era in
which we had normal levels of immigration, you would need
to hit one or one fifty. But in an era
where we're not taking immigrants into the labor force, you know,
(13:20):
maybe twenty five or fifty is enough. And I think
what's interesting about this big revision is that it raises
questions of what is a good number and what that
good number reflects. No one thinks zero is a good number,
But of course, if we kick out all immigrants, zero
would be an overestimate of how many jobs we need.
So it's it all comes down to where the number
(13:43):
comes from in process, and then what the number means
in terms of reflecting the economy back that's all numbers do,
is reflect the economy and economic stories back to our understanding,
and that's where the interpretation comes in.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
So the president, President Trump has spoken about how unreliable
this data is, and of course this infuriated me because
I was like, no, the data. You got to trust
the data. And I've worked something I did reporting, like
where I followed BLS people around to get inflation data,
and like, I just love the whole process of data.
And this shook me because it feels like President Trump
(14:18):
had a point when he said that the data collection
is flawed, that the revisions, that it's not accurate, that
there are too many revisions. This feels like an indictment
of the data and like a justification. You know, he
threw out the head of the BLS. I was like
really shocked because I love the BLS and I was
(14:40):
distressed to see this, like on a personal level, but.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
We should clarify that a broken clock is right twice
a day. And that's kind of what he's doing right now.
He's picking it out in terms of his own narrative.
Of what he wants to project. But there are problems
with our statistical agencies and the gathering of statistics that
have to do with funding levels. I mean, a third
of the political appointee staff positions the BLS are not
filled air. There are problems that the statistical agencies have
(15:07):
had for a decade, which is why they've been for
a decade not only advocating for more funding, but have
been coming up with plans of let's move statistics into
the next era. What I think is making it acute
right now is that a faltering economy is much harder
predict than a growing one. If you were to step
back and look at America post war, this is one
(15:28):
of the most tenuous economic time periods we have ever
been in. You do not predict a recession for two
and a half years. When they raised interest rates in
twenty twenty two, it was immediate predictions that we're going
to have a recession. Here we are three years later,
still looking for that recession behind the door that we
think is waiting for us. That's not normal to be
(15:48):
in three years of potential and slow decline, and I
think the statistics being off is reflecting more the economy
and less the statistics. This always happens in recessions and
the run up to them. We just don't normally hang
out there for three years. That's normally like a three
month period.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
All right.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
I have a question, which is like, every time I
read and maybe this has just been going on for
so long because of like the dynamic that you're talking
about where we're just sort of waiting for that recession
around the corner. But you read these stories about downward
job revisions and the next line is the SMP went
up today that and yesterday I looked okay, And as again,
(16:26):
the markets are volatile. We're not talking about huge swings,
but often when you get some bad job numbers, the
market's actually the stock market I should say, goes up.
And the explanation that's off for Catherine is like, well,
this suggests that there'll be a rate cut. And in
the Bloomberg story about this yesterday, they you had economists
(16:46):
and analysts talking about, well, maybe maybe we'll get a
half point rate cut instead of a quarter point rate cut.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Star stock market loves that.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
I guess there's something just weird about having this dark
economic conversation.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
And meanwhile, you know market self.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
It's like the enemy of my enemy is my friend
data edition or something.
Speaker 4 (17:04):
That's probably the right way to think about it. I mean,
the most important thing to understand is that the stock
market is not a barometer of economic strength. To the
extent that the stock market reflects the value of US companies,
it is an important indicator, but to the extent that
it reflects betting on the value of US companies, it
gets a lot less instructive for our purposes about the
(17:25):
underlying you know, economy that we actually care about. And
so I think, especially with around these data releases, these
are betting days. This is like all night at the casino.
Like they you know, they've got their like little you know,
quarters in the.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Big tub of corner. They've got the tub of quarters.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
And they're like they're ready to go because this is
I mean, you make a bet in the stock market,
and you're making a bet against a bet, and this
is a chance for them to make money. And then
like they want to be positioned out front. So there
are some genuine and incredible economic analysis that goes on,
but the fluctuations that make the news tend to be
the bets, and the bets are not helpful for knowing
(18:02):
what is actually hurting American families, which is what this
all comes down to. Do we have the best economy
that Americans can have? The answer is clearly know and
you get something like a downward revision, and we know
what that means. Whatever the stock market bet song.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Like, the problem here isn't the It's not the data,
it's the economy. Like that's what Catherin's saying.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
Like the data, like the vibes, like the vibes, you
can believe data.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
Did not give you bad vibes.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
The economy is giving you bad vibes, and that those
bad vibes are actually, as Catherine saying, like they're in
the data.
Speaker 4 (18:32):
You just gotta we're just you know, got to see
see everything. I mean, yeah, and I and how how
the economic narrative, like the overall narrative gets told. You know,
we always have to remember that, like the people who
are really like the key you know, arbiters of economic
vibe and mood are people who have a vested interest
(18:53):
and not panicking in the economy. Like you did not
want Joe Biden to go up there and be like
it's really bad, so bad, We do not excel whatever
you have, Like in leadership, there is a little bit
of like we cannot go out there and tell people
like go panic like you you don't. There are vibes
to our economy, and I think people again, it's hard
to appreciate that, Like you don't want the bad vibes
(19:15):
to come from the president. You don't want Jerome Powell
up there with like with all the power he has
at the Federal Reserve being like, yeah, it's pretty bad.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
Catherine Edwards, thanks for coming here.
Speaker 4 (19:25):
Oh thanks, y'all. Anytime you want to talk Mondo numbers, you.
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Come, you'll be under yumando number. Economist Max, you have
a story in BusinessWeek this week comparing Peter Teal to
the Antichrist, and in fact, Peter Teele seems to sort
of be comparing himself to the Antichrist. So why don't
(19:49):
you talk to us about this?
Speaker 1 (19:51):
All right?
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Yeah, so Stacy, Yes, I've spent a lot of time
reporting on this guy, Peter tele who, if you don't know,
is a Silicon Valley investor and like a really important
sort of right wing intellectual and political figure. What Peter
tel is doing next week, which is just hilarious is
especially if you have followed his career or whatever is.
He's giving a four part lecture series on the subject
(20:15):
of quote, the Antichrist, and that has led to a
lot of amusing jokes about Peter Teel. I should probably
just play a little clip from the Joe Rogan podcast
the other day. This is Joe Rogan talking to the
comedian Tim Dillon. He's kind of like a conservative comedian
(20:36):
big on the internet.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Well, here's what's really wild to me.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Four parts.
Speaker 7 (20:41):
It's not just one one lecture on the anti Christ
would be in Shane. This guy's doing a series. He's
doing a four part lecture on the anti Christ, and
nobody in his inner orbit went, Peter, how about one
lecture on the Anti Christ?
Speaker 3 (20:58):
Or no lectures?
Speaker 1 (21:00):
Not four? All right?
Speaker 2 (21:01):
This goes on. The joke is essentially that Peter Teal
is a little anti Christy because he is this kind
of like shadowy power player. He's a subject of all
sorts of conspiracy theories, and there's something just sort of
inherently funny about it.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
I do think Peter Teal's sort of doing this on purpose.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
He is like kind of deliberately trying to be provocative,
and I will just spoil the question of what is
in these lectures for listeners, Like I haven't heard them.
They're going to be off the record. I don't expect
that they will be reported. But Teal has talked quite
a bit about the Antichrist in the past, and his
idea essentially is that the left is the Antichrist, and
in particular Greta Thurnberg, the diminutive Swedish environmental activist. The
(21:46):
sort of idea is that these figures on the left
who are trying to like rein in businesses because of
reasons of climate or because of AI safety or whatever,
are bad. And I think that's the that's what's going
to I'm out of this, you know, sixteen or so
hours worth of Antichrist stuff, But I wanted to talk
about it because there's this other.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
Thing happening right now in Washington, which.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
Is that all of these tech CEOs are like closer
to Donald Trump than they've ever been.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
I mean, it certainly does seem like we've been hearing
a lot from them, for sure. I mean they were
there at his inauguration and there was a dinner a
couple of weeks ago.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Yeah, yeah, last last week, actually featuring Mark Zuckerberg and
Tim Cook a lot of funny little moments in it.
There was one where Trump asked Zuckerberg, how much money
are you investing in data centers in the US or
something like that. Zuckerberg kind of squirms a little says
six hundred million, and then there's like a hot Mike
moment later where you can hear Zuckerberg saying like, oh,
(22:49):
I wasn't really sure what number you wanted me to say,
And so there's just like it's like a very like
deferential pose.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
It's interesting. I wonder why are these CEOs being so
different him. I mean, these are people who have tons
of money, some of the most successful businesses. If anyone
has the muscle to sort of make their case to
the president or who would not have to count out
to a president, it seems like it would be this
group of men.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
Yeah, you would think. And actually this is why, you know,
full disclosure. Part of why I want to talk about
this is because like.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
This, you have a book. Come, yeah, exactly exactly.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
You plug Alert the Contrarian, The book I wrote about
Teal is out in paperback this week. If you haven't
bought it. Please give it a shot. But the whole
argument in that book is essentially about Silicon Valley's lurch
to the right, and the way in which the twenty
sixteen election in particular kind of send it in that direction,
(23:46):
and the role that Teal played. And you asked, like,
why would somebody as powerful as say Tim Cook. Tim
Cook runs this amazing global manufacturing colossus that spans you know,
like millions of people in and some of the most
popular products in the world.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
A couple of weeks ago.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
He went to the White House and presented Donald Trump
in this hilarious fashion with this like golden paper weight
and like thanked, you know, said congratulations, sir, Like here's
this great paperweight. And of course we've been talking about
this podcast that Trump has been threatening Tim Cook with tariffs,
Like right, there's no particularly good reason for them to
have such a good relationship or for Tim Cook to
(24:23):
be so differential, at least from the surface.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Now.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
I think two things are going on. One is that
Trump has been attacking businesses and has been creating a
situation where I think a lot of these CEOs feel
like they have no choice but to flatter him, like
this is the only way they're going to avoid some
sort of more severe regulatory action.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
The other thing is I think that.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
Trump's sort of politics and his whole stance with respect
to business, it actually works better for a lot of
these guys than for the Democrats. And that is a
thing that I think we saw sort of most vividly
during the Biden administration and the Biden campaign, when you
saw a lot of CEOs who in the past have
(25:07):
been you know, either centrist or even left leaning, really
get behind Trump. We saw this exact thing happen during
the last Trump presidency where you had these events. There
was one at Trump Tower right after the election where
all these CEOs like went to Trump Tower and had
a meeting with Trump. Teal was presiding, and as I
(25:28):
wrote in the book, if you watched the like ninety
or so seconds that was released publicly, it looked kind
of like an uncomfortable meeting for these CEOs, And there
were a lot of stories written at the time like, oh,
they must be so uncomfortable. But then when the cameras
went away, they all basically turned around and flattered him.
It sounded exactly like what's happening now. The only difference
(25:48):
is what was happening before in private, is now happening
in public.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
But my question is why, like, why do you think
the CEOs still feel the need to be so accommodated
to President Trump. I mean, obviously it's in their business interest,
but it seems like they come to the table with
a lot of economic power, a lot of jobs. It's
been remarkable.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
Well, I think, first of all, Trump's politics are in
line with theirs. Is I think the easiest and simplest explanation.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
There are a bunch of other ones.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
I mean, tariffs wouldn't be absolutely I mean Apple is
one that you would think would be would be kind
of in the cross here. Some of these other companies
like definitely are not because like they essentially sell software
or something like that, or even chips right where Trump
is like cracking down on the Chinese chips industry, which
sensibly is going to help some of these guys. But
in the case of Apple, they've basically just been able
(26:40):
to negotiate exceptions. Apple got a exemption on semiconductor imports,
a very important and valuable part of the iPhone. And
behind the scenes, of course, these companies are all lobbying
for things like that, so yes, the tariffs possibly a negative.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Right.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
The other thing is regulation is a huge part of
their concers earn right. The big story these days is
AI regulation. Trump has put this guy, David Sacks, close
friend of Peter Thiel, was an early PayPal executive, as
his ais are. There's been all of this effort within
the Trump administration to essentially like go hands off, completely
(27:19):
hands off on AI. Just let Apple, Microsoft, all of
these companies sort of develop the models as quickly as
they can. We're seeing some stuff coming out of Washington
around copyright. The argument here is that we're in this race.
This is the conservative argument, the trumpst argument, as well
as the argument that the tech companies are making. We're
(27:40):
in this race with China to see who can develop
the most AI. Because of that, we need to take
our hands off our wonderful national champions and let them
do as much as they can. And you see that
coming out of Trump's messaging, as well as the messaging
of folks like David Sacks and these other kind of
right wing allies of Donald Trump. The last thing is
(28:01):
anti trust, and so the Biden administration was really cracking
down on tech companies and you saw all of these
anti trust actions. You got a DOJ case against Google,
you had an FTC case against Facebook, Like pretty much
every big tech company was facing some sort of scrutiny
either from the DOJ or from the FTC, the Federal
(28:21):
Trade Commission, And like, the reason is pretty obvious, Like
these companies have gotten just like way more powerful, and
there's been a bit of a dialing back of that
under Trump. So Google just got a very favorable ruling
in its Justice Department case. It looked like Google was
going to have to sell basically divest Google Chrome, it's
web browser. Now doesn't look like that's going to happen. Now,
(28:42):
that's a thing that happened in the court. It's not
necessarily something that Trump had control of.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
Though.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
About a month ago, a couple of deputies in the
DOJ's Anti Trust Enforcement Division were essentially forced out in
what was interpreted at least by some Democrats and some
folks who are in favor of greater regulation as kind
of a way that is beneficial to the tech companies. Basically,
these guys were anti trust talks who were forced out.
(29:07):
And we'll see, I don't think we know, but what
these companies want is lighter touch regulation.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
So tie this back into Peter Teal and the Antichrist, Like,
where does he fit in here? He wasn't at the dinner,
he wasn't at the inauguration, but he's in the orbit.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
All right.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
So my theory here is that Teal, you know, a
lot of people really don't like him because he's got
some fairly extreme political beliefs and some weird beliefs, like
his stuff about the Antichrist. But he is a brilliant
investor no matter what you think about him, And his
sort of approach is essentially to take money off the
(29:44):
table whenever he can. So he's in a very good
political position.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
What does that mean take money off the table?
Speaker 2 (29:49):
I mean in an investing perspective, that means like selling
when you're up, so by the dip, it's the opposite
to buy the dip, sell the p So very famously,
TiAl was the first investor in Facebook. It's like regarded
as the best venture capital investment, like of all time.
If til had held on to the Facebook shares that
(30:09):
he bought and like I can't remember his two thousand
and four, two thousand and five for five hundred thousand dollars,
like he would be so much richer than he is today,
Like he's he's worth the last I checked someone around
twenty billion, like he'd be worth like two hundred billion
or something crazy. But he sold shortly after Facebook's IPO
because he wasn't sure what was going to happen. He essentially,
like I said, he took money off the table. He
limited his risk, And I think that's kind of what's
(30:31):
happening politically. So you're at a time when Teal is
in certain ways, like has never been more powerful. He's
got all of his buddies in Washington, his worldview is ascendant.
Jd Vance, who was basically like one of his proteges,
is the Vice president. And you have all of these
CEOs flying to Washington, tripping over themselves to be as
(30:55):
flattering to Donald Trump as possible, to do whatever they can,
even if it makes them look like totally lame in
the process. TiO meanwhile, is kind of at a safer move,
just being weird. But I think what he's doing is
trying to create some distance with like the Trump administration
at this moment because he's sort of achieved all he
can achieve, and there's downside here right, Like Donald Trump
(31:18):
is unpopular. His you know, his approval ratings are bad.
We talked about the gallop pole at the top. We've
already seen some of these tech guys face real backlash
from their association with Donald Trump. So Elon Musk, of course,
sort of the most famous of the tech guys who
have like really gone you know, all in and in,
like you know, embracing Trump, he's dealing with like a
(31:39):
huge backlash, like his his car sales have gone down,
he hasn't actually got a lot of the sort of
policy considerations he really wanted. And I think these other guys,
Tim Cook, the Google guys, Mark Zuckerberg, they're all in
this position where they are now going to be very
closely tied with Donald Trump, and it's going to be
very easy for competitive or activists or whatever to like say, hey,
(32:03):
you shouldn't buy an iPhone. Like look at this picture
of Tim Cook gifting Donald Trump this weird golden paperweight
thing and saying how awesome he is. They're essentially like
getting tied to an unpopular administration. Teal meanwhile, is kind
of staying above the fray, being the you know, intellectual
where he's most comfortable and giving these kind of like
(32:25):
you know, slightly provocative lectures on the Antichrist.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
And if you want to learn more about that, you
can pick up a copy of The Contrarian, which is
out in paperback this week, but also out in hardback.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
So my kids need to go to college.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
Yeah, everybody Max's children. Buy a copy of The Contrarian,
available wherever you get your books.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
It's time, Stacey to talk about our underrated story. Normally
there's like one story that jumps at us, but there
were so many different ones this week.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
You know.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
We talked about Scott Bessett, the treasure secretary, threatening to
punch people.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
We talked about lumber prices.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
I had this one that I wanted to talk to
about how hallucinogenic mushrooms are making it harder for state
park police to do their job because so many people
has a great star Stone Times, but the one we
ultimately selected, Stacy, was yours.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
So it has to do with NFTs. Those are the
little pieces of digital art that sort of captivated the
art market, but also a lot of the market a
few years ago, not that long ago, but very famously,
a lot of this kind of came to the four
when Christie's, the art auction house, basically opened up a
(33:37):
department specializing in NFTs, had a huge sale of an
NFT non fungible token. It was almost seventy million dollars.
It was this work from the artist people, and it
was basically a collection of a whole bunch of different
pieces of art. But it sold at auction for seventy
million dollars. And Christie's is so venerated it's more than
(33:58):
two hundred and fifty years old. People were like, oh,
my gosh, NFTs are real, the value is real. They're
being vouched for. Well, Christie's just closed their NFT division,
and this is after a precipitous fall in the value
of NFTs. Because for a while people were really spending
big on these, especially there was the bored Ape series
(34:20):
that I think a lot of people heard of. Justin
Bieber very famously spent over a million dollars. People were
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on these and many
of them turning lots of profits. And then and.
Speaker 8 (34:30):
Then, you know what I'm gonna say, But what are
you gonna say? Everyone who was associated with a story
should be embarrassed. I mean, this is so I disagree
with one exception. Hey, you make seventy million dollars selling
a jpeg. I feel like, you know, that's impressive. But
like Christie's the sort of art world that embraced this,
(34:54):
obviously dopey, obviously pumped up, unnecessarily quote unquote aret no
disrespect to like a kind of dorm room style sketch
of an ape or whatever, but like that crap is
not worth like how much did you say? Just a
million dollars like for a jpeg?
Speaker 3 (35:16):
Like, but I found compelling about NFTs and I think
the reason that people bought in was, first of all,
they were sort of on the tale of crypto, and
crypto is really hard for people to wrap their brains
around a lot of times, and so it was like, oh, okay, well,
crypto's obviously people are making big fortunes. It's becoming more
and more legitimate. So I think that was part of it. Also,
(35:40):
the way that it was explained to me that I
found compelling was that it's a new way to own property.
It's a new kind of property. It's a property where
you can own a thing inside of the Internet that
you can move around and you've seen this happen on
like games on the World of Warcraft, there was a
secondary market of people selling like broad swords and stuff
and making a lot of money.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
Okay, I understand, Like the intellectual point you're making, I
agree with you. Like crypto is super interesting and it
raises all these questions about the the nature of money
and the nature of.
Speaker 3 (36:12):
Property, like stone questions.
Speaker 2 (36:14):
Yeah, really cool stoner questions that if you're walking in
the woods with your buds high on mushrooms like you
can talk about and then call the New York State
Park Police and have them rescue you because you're so high.
But I really think institutions like Christie's, like their job
is like like what kind of gatekeeper are you? If
you're just like, oh, yeah, sure, whatever.
Speaker 3 (36:36):
Digital are and like subject of some loss and yea, you.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
Can understand why because if Christie's convinced you to pay
millions of dollars for a stupid jpeg of an ape
like with smoking a cigar or whatever, like, you might
feel that you'd been had.
Speaker 3 (36:53):
Obviously, for the NFT owners out there, of which there
are many, it's a.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
Rough week, all right. If you bought an NFT y
you want to hear, you know, like if you have
thoughts on this, like either because you're like an investor
in crypto or a believer in fts, or if you've
got your beautiful board ape, you know, print it out
somewhere in your home and you look at it and think, wow,
that was a great investment. Send us an email. Everybody's
at Bloomberg dot net. That's everybody's with an s at
(37:18):
Bloomberg dot net. Of course, hater emails are also welcome.
We as Stacy likes to say, I hate listen, is
still listen and we appreciate it. This show is produced
by Stacy Wong. Magnus Hendrickson is our supervising producer, and
Amy Kean is our executive producer. We get engineering help
(37:39):
from Blake Maples and Dave Purcell. Fact checks Sage Bauman
has Bloomberg Podcasts special thanks to Jeff Muscus, Julia Rubin
and Maria Ling. If you have a minute, please rate
and review the show. It means a lot to us.
And if you have a story that should be our
business that you want to hear about on the show,
email us at Everybody's at Bloomberg dot net. That's everybody
with an s at Bloomberg dot net. Thanks for listening,
(38:01):
and we'll see you next week.
Speaker 3 (38:08):
Mm hmm.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Welcome to Everybody's Business from Bloomberg BusinessWeek. I'm Max Chafkin
and I'm Stacy Bannocksmith. Stacy, I want to talk to
you about capitalism.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
About capitalism, all right?
Speaker 1 (00:23):
How people feel about it? Do they like it? Do
they not like it?
Speaker 2 (00:27):
We also have an interview with Catherine Edwards, are our
friend of the show economists, on the jobs numbers which
have been bad.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
I mean bad.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
I don't know. They're okay, it's like a B minus
instead of what you speak to A minus.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Okay, B minus. And then we'll talk about the question.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
That is on everyone's mind.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Which is is Peter Teel the Antichrist?
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Well, at least that's the question that's on your mind,
I'm asking you. We'll be talking about that.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
We're going to be talking about Silicon Valley and its
relationship with the Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
There's a lot happening there, a lot to chew over.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
And for our underrated story of the week.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
The rise and fall of the NFT, I would argue
is maybe the most overwrought expression of late stage capitalism
we've ever seen.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Save it for the end of the show.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
For the end of the show.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
All right, Stacy, if you had to rate capitalism on
a scale of one to ten, sort of a hot
or not of capitalism, where do you fall?
Speaker 3 (01:34):
I would say in eight I'm still bullish on capitalism.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
I bring this up because this is the point of
the show where we and by we, I guess I
mean you go to the streets of New York or wherever,
Idaho and ask people kind of how they're feeling about stuff.
And often the questions are about sort of things that
are in the culture or whatever, what kind of donuts,
you know, how they're feeling about laboo boos or whatever.
(02:02):
Instead of that, this week, I wanted to bring up
a survey, kind of a grander version of the thing
we normally do, which is that Gallup, as part of
their regular surveys, asked Americans how they feel about capitalism,
and the results were really interesting.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
Well, and among democrats now, socialism is more favorably looked
upon than capitalism, which is fascinating. I wasn't quite sure
what to make of that, but yeah, capitalism is maybe
its moment is waning a little bit, or at least
it's maybe not been canceled, but it's under question.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
So here's the thing.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Democrats have been pretty bullish on socialism for actually for
some time, right, it's been at least since I'm looking
at the numbers.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
Twenty eighteen, maybe when when.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Democratic views of socialism surpassed views of capitalism. I mean, obviously,
I think like there's a pretty obvious explanation there that
sort of coincides with the rise of democratic socialism. Bernie
Sanders Zoran Mandami, he's running from mayor in New York.
A couple of things that are interesting to me here.
What is that Republican views of socialism have actually gone
(03:11):
up since twenty twenty one, which I think is kind
of interesting and probably coincides with the way that the
Republican Party has been attacking big business. The other thing
here is like independent views of socialism have basically stayed
the same more or less.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
They've actually gone down a little bit.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
But independent views of capitalism have also gone way down,
dropped by eight percentage points from twenty twenty one to
twenty twenty five. So like there's a shift, and it's
not just like a partisan shift.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
M interesting.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
So talking about this made me think of this ad
that's been going around on social media from Zoron Mondami,
who's a candidate for mayor in New York. I mentioned
him earlier. Let's give it a quick listen.
Speaker 5 (03:52):
In August in the Hampton's Ocean Breezes, oversubscribed Tracy Anderson
classes Parking Worlds, and.
Speaker 6 (04:02):
This year the New York City mayoral election looming in
the fall, a freak out that the most sumptuous of
summer staples has ensued. Even overpriced lobster salad can't seem
to make people out here feel better.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
What I think is so interesting about this ad and
why I wanted to bring it up, is not only
because it's trading on the trends that we're talking about,
which is that capitalism and big business are becoming less popular,
including less popular with independence, but also because of the tone.
Right Like, this ad is not editorializing. It's just reading
the quotes from the New York Times from rich people
(04:39):
who don't like Zora Mamdami. And the only hint that
you get that where the ad is coming from is
that the billionaire character in this ad sort of makes
a face, and the face he makes is like super offended.
And what I think is interesting here is Basically, we've
gone from a period where if a rich person, if
(04:59):
a a big investor, if a big CEO criticized a candidate,
that would be like a point against that candidate, And
that has changed. Now you're seeing candidates essentially take those
comments and stick them straight into an advertisement. So like, Mom,
Dammy says like, oh, billionaires don't like me, like, don't
threaten me with a good time, and he's using that
to attract voters. I think that's like really interesting. It
(05:21):
really shows like that there's a cultural shift happening.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
I don't know. I would argue that populism is nothing new,
and leveraging criticisms from rich people is not necessarily a
new tactic, but it is. It is super interesting, especially
in the city, which is like kind of the capital
of capitalism. I guess you could say, I.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Mean, populism nothing new, is just more popular, right, I.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
Mean, historically speaking, it's it's definitely had its moments.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Stacey, there's one thing I know about you. It's that
you are a believer in the importance of vibes and
the vibe session.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
Do you think the vibes are important?
Speaker 1 (06:04):
That's true, Yeah, And.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
We've been talking on this show about the kind of
disconnect between the way like normal people feel about the
economy when they go to their jobs or when they
negotiate for raises or whatever, and what they're reading when
they read, you know, Wall Street analysts or people like
us or reporters or whatever talking.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
About the economy.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
The economy on paper has looked pretty good, but the
way people feel about it has not been great.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Yeah, that's true, And in fact, we got a big
example of that this week, and here to talk about
it is economists Katherine and Edwards. She's host of the
podcast Optimist Economy and a contributor to Bloomberg Opinion, and
she joins us in the studio. Now, hey, Catherine, Hey all,
I'm so glad to be here.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Catherine.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
We're recording this on Wednesday, September tenth. Yesterday, the big
economic news was that the BLS revised the number of
jobs that were created over the last year down word
that basically, we have a million fewer jobs over the
last year than we thought we.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
Did a million.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
I basically called this a Mondo Mondo number, a Mondo revision.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
Unguarded moment. When I was absorbing the number, it was
that big that I somehow reverted back to my twelve
year old self. I was shocked. How does this number
get calculated and why did it get revised so much?
Speaker 4 (07:24):
I think, in some ways the easiest to understand it
is to start at the end, which is, if I
wanted to know with incredible precision the number of jobs
in the United States, there's a very easy way to
find out. I would look at tax records. And every
employer has to pay payroll taxes on their employees with
a specific account for each specific worker. So if I
(07:46):
want to know the number of jobs I just need
to look at the taxes filed. The problem is that
number takes two years to get right because it's a
census of every worker in the United States and every job.
It's one hundred and sixty million records.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
But aren't companies paying taxes like every quarter?
Speaker 4 (08:00):
Yes, but they have you know, there's lags and how
they fill it out, and then of course the data itself.
We don't actually have the BLS dip into your record.
They clean the data, they verify that people aren't being
double counted. Just because it's an administrative source doesn't mean
it comes like hot off the press, ready to go.
It takes you know, about six months to a year
to process it to make sure it's not duplicative or
that they missed anybody every quarter. But being two years
(08:24):
to final process, that's useless for understanding the economy in
real time, especially if you're in a time like we
are now when we're very worried about the economy weakening
each day. So you know, most of the BLS's job
is to work back from this number that we know
we'll be right in two years to something that we
can use today. And the first big part of that
(08:45):
is having a survey that they send to the people
who file those taxes. And so if it's one hundred
and sixty million workers, about one hundred to one hundred
and twenty thousand businesses will get the survey, and that
survey is released within days of the month ending, so
we know the number of jobs added in August by
the fifth of September. And so every revision from the
(09:07):
BLS is basically working your way from here's our first
estimate on the survey to here's our final estimate based
on the census, and every time they get closer from
you know, the starting point to this ending point they
tell us what changed.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Let me just ask, Like, the old estimate was that
the economy had added one point eight million jobs over
the last twelve months or twelve months before March.
Speaker 4 (09:30):
It's April twenty four to March twenty five.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Right, Okay, So, and then the new number is basically
nine hundred thousand, nine hundred and eleven thousand less than that,
which leaves like about nine hundred thousand, one hundred and
fifty thousand jobs per month, like historically, is that a
and I feel like this is always a question we're
talking about pulling is to what extent is.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
The way I feel like representative of?
Speaker 2 (09:55):
And if somebody is saying like I don't feel I
don't feel secure in my job, the economy feels off,
I'm not s ending as much money, all these kind
of vibe session type feelings, and then the economy's adding
one hundred and fifty thousand jobs. Does that basically line
up with the vibe session feeling or is that even still?
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Is there still a disconnect there?
Speaker 4 (10:12):
Well? Yeah, well it's a lot of moving targets. So first,
is it a big number? Yeah, I mean it's huge,
it's almost a million. It's a psychological hit to have
a million fewer jobs than we thought. If you put
it in terms of the percentage of total jobs in
the economy, it's a lot smaller because we're adding jobs
almost every month. The US economy adds jobs, whether it's
a big or small number, So in percentage terms, it
(10:34):
would be the largest revision since two thousand and nine
if it holds, because of course, being the BLS, they're
going to revise this one again.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Remind me two thousand and nine that it happens great
Financial Crisis or the Aftermathing crisis.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
It was the after it. It was really the dear
of the labor market during the Great Recession. Was the
last revision of this magnitude, and it speaks to the
precarity that our labor market has. And I think that's
what makes it a big number for me, is that
it's not in good company with years that have big
downward revisions. The revision itself is part of the process.
(11:12):
We've had a huge upward revision before these last two
downward ones. Like that's how the statistics work out when
you are trying to estimate economy thirty trillion dollars in size.
I think what worries me is that it's downward and
it's on par at least at the moment with the
Great Recession. And so to your point and to your
question about, you know, how do we feel and how
do we interpret these things? The fact that it's you know,
(11:36):
big and bad matters because I think people have been
looking for validation that their struggle and the economy over
the past couple of years have been real. But at
the same time, you know, the ground is shifting under
our feet. How many jobs is a good number of
jobs to add in a month in the US economy?
Speaker 3 (11:55):
I mean, I would say like like one hundred thousand
would be great, Like between fifteen a hundred thousand solid.
Under fifty thousand doesn't.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Feel According to the most recent numbers, we're adding like
seventy five thousand a month, which is still in Stacy's
good zone.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
But the good zone has also shifted because we have
a large number of people leaving the labor market, retiring,
and so the replenishment rate of the labor market is
really this number of the number of jobs is really
it's about jobs for the people who need them. So
what has also happened over the last two years, is
that with fluctuation and immigration policy and preferences. Most people
(12:34):
don't understand that if you look at the working age population,
like the prime working age population between twenty five and
fifty four this century, in some years most of the
growth has come from immigrants. In other years, all of
the growth has come from immigrants. If our country tomorrow
said no more immigrants can enter, our population would immediately decline.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
So as we.
Speaker 4 (12:58):
Pursue this very I would say cold blooded, heartless immigration
policy of picking people off the streets and taking them
out of their workplaces, you know that filters down to
what is a good job's number. In an era in
which we had normal levels of immigration, you would need
to hit one or one fifty. But in an era
where we're not taking immigrants into the labor force, you know,
(13:20):
maybe twenty five or fifty is enough. And I think
what's interesting about this big revision is that it raises
questions of what is a good number and what that
good number reflects. No one thinks zero is a good number,
But of course, if we kick out all immigrants, zero
would be an overestimate of how many jobs we need.
So it's it all comes down to where the number
(13:43):
comes from in process, and then what the number means
in terms of reflecting the economy back that's all numbers do,
is reflect the economy and economic stories back to our understanding,
and that's where the interpretation comes in.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
So the president, President Trump has spoken about how unreliable
this data is, and of course this infuriated me because
I was like, no, the data. You got to trust
the data. And I've worked something I did reporting, like
where I followed BLS people around to get inflation data,
and like, I just love the whole process of data.
And this shook me because it feels like President Trump
(14:18):
had a point when he said that the data collection
is flawed, that the revisions, that it's not accurate, that
there are too many revisions. This feels like an indictment
of the data and like a justification. You know, he
threw out the head of the BLS. I was like
really shocked because I love the BLS and I was
(14:40):
distressed to see this, like on a personal level, but.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
We should clarify that a broken clock is right twice
a day. And that's kind of what he's doing right now.
He's picking it out in terms of his own narrative.
Of what he wants to project. But there are problems
with our statistical agencies and the gathering of statistics that
have to do with funding levels. I mean, a third
of the political appointee staff positions the BLS are not
filled air. There are problems that the statistical agencies have
(15:07):
had for a decade, which is why they've been for
a decade not only advocating for more funding, but have
been coming up with plans of let's move statistics into
the next era. What I think is making it acute
right now is that a faltering economy is much harder
predict than a growing one. If you were to step
back and look at America post war, this is one
(15:28):
of the most tenuous economic time periods we have ever
been in. You do not predict a recession for two
and a half years. When they raised interest rates in
twenty twenty two, it was immediate predictions that we're going
to have a recession. Here we are three years later,
still looking for that recession behind the door that we
think is waiting for us. That's not normal to be
(15:48):
in three years of potential and slow decline, and I
think the statistics being off is reflecting more the economy
and less the statistics. This always happens in recessions and
the run up to them. We just don't normally hang
out there for three years. That's normally like a three
month period.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
All right.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
I have a question, which is like, every time I
read and maybe this has just been going on for
so long because of like the dynamic that you're talking
about where we're just sort of waiting for that recession
around the corner. But you read these stories about downward
job revisions and the next line is the SMP went
up today that and yesterday I looked okay, And as again,
(16:26):
the markets are volatile. We're not talking about huge swings,
but often when you get some bad job numbers, the
market's actually the stock market I should say, goes up.
And the explanation that's off for Catherine is like, well,
this suggests that there'll be a rate cut. And in
the Bloomberg story about this yesterday, they you had economists
(16:46):
and analysts talking about, well, maybe maybe we'll get a
half point rate cut instead of a quarter point rate cut.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Star stock market loves that.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
I guess there's something just weird about having this dark
economic conversation.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
And meanwhile, you know market self.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
It's like the enemy of my enemy is my friend
data edition or something.
Speaker 4 (17:04):
That's probably the right way to think about it. I mean,
the most important thing to understand is that the stock
market is not a barometer of economic strength. To the
extent that the stock market reflects the value of US companies,
it is an important indicator, but to the extent that
it reflects betting on the value of US companies, it
gets a lot less instructive for our purposes about the
(17:25):
underlying you know, economy that we actually care about. And
so I think, especially with around these data releases, these
are betting days. This is like all night at the casino.
Like they you know, they've got their like little you know,
quarters in the.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Big tub of corner. They've got the tub of quarters.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
And they're like they're ready to go because this is
I mean, you make a bet in the stock market,
and you're making a bet against a bet, and this
is a chance for them to make money. And then
like they want to be positioned out front. So there
are some genuine and incredible economic analysis that goes on,
but the fluctuations that make the news tend to be
the bets, and the bets are not helpful for knowing
(18:02):
what is actually hurting American families, which is what this
all comes down to. Do we have the best economy
that Americans can have? The answer is clearly know and
you get something like a downward revision, and we know
what that means. Whatever the stock market bet song.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Like, the problem here isn't the It's not the data,
it's the economy. Like that's what Catherin's saying.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
Like the data, like the vibes, like the vibes, you
can believe data.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
Did not give you bad vibes.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
The economy is giving you bad vibes, and that those
bad vibes are actually, as Catherine saying, like they're in
the data.
Speaker 4 (18:32):
You just gotta we're just you know, got to see
see everything. I mean, yeah, and I and how how
the economic narrative, like the overall narrative gets told. You know,
we always have to remember that, like the people who
are really like the key you know, arbiters of economic
vibe and mood are people who have a vested interest
(18:53):
and not panicking in the economy. Like you did not
want Joe Biden to go up there and be like
it's really bad, so bad, We do not excel whatever
you have, Like in leadership, there is a little bit
of like we cannot go out there and tell people
like go panic like you you don't. There are vibes
to our economy, and I think people again, it's hard
to appreciate that, Like you don't want the bad vibes
(19:15):
to come from the president. You don't want Jerome Powell
up there with like with all the power he has
at the Federal Reserve being like, yeah, it's pretty bad.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
Catherine Edwards, thanks for coming here.
Speaker 4 (19:25):
Oh thanks, y'all. Anytime you want to talk Mondo numbers, you.
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Come, you'll be under yumando number. Economist Max, you have
a story in BusinessWeek this week comparing Peter Teal to
the Antichrist, and in fact, Peter Teele seems to sort
of be comparing himself to the Antichrist. So why don't
(19:49):
you talk to us about this?
Speaker 1 (19:51):
All right?
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Yeah, so Stacy, Yes, I've spent a lot of time
reporting on this guy, Peter tele who, if you don't know,
is a Silicon Valley investor and like a really important
sort of right wing intellectual and political figure. What Peter
tel is doing next week, which is just hilarious is
especially if you have followed his career or whatever is.
He's giving a four part lecture series on the subject
(20:15):
of quote, the Antichrist, and that has led to a
lot of amusing jokes about Peter Teel. I should probably
just play a little clip from the Joe Rogan podcast
the other day. This is Joe Rogan talking to the
comedian Tim Dillon. He's kind of like a conservative comedian
(20:36):
big on the internet.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Well, here's what's really wild to me.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Four parts.
Speaker 7 (20:41):
It's not just one one lecture on the anti Christ
would be in Shane. This guy's doing a series. He's
doing a four part lecture on the anti Christ, and
nobody in his inner orbit went, Peter, how about one
lecture on the Anti Christ?
Speaker 3 (20:58):
Or no lectures?
Speaker 1 (21:00):
Not four? All right?
Speaker 2 (21:01):
This goes on. The joke is essentially that Peter Teal
is a little anti Christy because he is this kind
of like shadowy power player. He's a subject of all
sorts of conspiracy theories, and there's something just sort of
inherently funny about it.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
I do think Peter Teal's sort of doing this on purpose.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
He is like kind of deliberately trying to be provocative,
and I will just spoil the question of what is
in these lectures for listeners, Like I haven't heard them.
They're going to be off the record. I don't expect
that they will be reported. But Teal has talked quite
a bit about the Antichrist in the past, and his
idea essentially is that the left is the Antichrist, and
in particular Greta Thurnberg, the diminutive Swedish environmental activist. The
(21:46):
sort of idea is that these figures on the left
who are trying to like rein in businesses because of
reasons of climate or because of AI safety or whatever,
are bad. And I think that's the that's what's going
to I'm out of this, you know, sixteen or so
hours worth of Antichrist stuff, But I wanted to talk
about it because there's this other.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
Thing happening right now in Washington, which.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
Is that all of these tech CEOs are like closer
to Donald Trump than they've ever been.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
I mean, it certainly does seem like we've been hearing
a lot from them, for sure. I mean they were
there at his inauguration and there was a dinner a
couple of weeks ago.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Yeah, yeah, last last week, actually featuring Mark Zuckerberg and
Tim Cook a lot of funny little moments in it.
There was one where Trump asked Zuckerberg, how much money
are you investing in data centers in the US or
something like that. Zuckerberg kind of squirms a little says
six hundred million, and then there's like a hot Mike
moment later where you can hear Zuckerberg saying like, oh,
(22:49):
I wasn't really sure what number you wanted me to say,
And so there's just like it's like a very like
deferential pose.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
It's interesting. I wonder why are these CEOs being so
different him. I mean, these are people who have tons
of money, some of the most successful businesses. If anyone
has the muscle to sort of make their case to
the president or who would not have to count out
to a president, it seems like it would be this
group of men.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
Yeah, you would think. And actually this is why, you know,
full disclosure. Part of why I want to talk about
this is because like.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
This, you have a book. Come, yeah, exactly exactly.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
You plug Alert the Contrarian, The book I wrote about
Teal is out in paperback this week. If you haven't
bought it. Please give it a shot. But the whole
argument in that book is essentially about Silicon Valley's lurch
to the right, and the way in which the twenty
sixteen election in particular kind of send it in that direction,
(23:46):
and the role that Teal played. And you asked, like,
why would somebody as powerful as say Tim Cook. Tim
Cook runs this amazing global manufacturing colossus that spans you know,
like millions of people in and some of the most
popular products in the world.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
A couple of weeks ago.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
He went to the White House and presented Donald Trump
in this hilarious fashion with this like golden paper weight
and like thanked, you know, said congratulations, sir, Like here's
this great paperweight. And of course we've been talking about
this podcast that Trump has been threatening Tim Cook with tariffs,
Like right, there's no particularly good reason for them to
have such a good relationship or for Tim Cook to
(24:23):
be so differential, at least from the surface.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Now.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
I think two things are going on. One is that
Trump has been attacking businesses and has been creating a
situation where I think a lot of these CEOs feel
like they have no choice but to flatter him, like
this is the only way they're going to avoid some
sort of more severe regulatory action.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
The other thing is I think that.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
Trump's sort of politics and his whole stance with respect
to business, it actually works better for a lot of
these guys than for the Democrats. And that is a
thing that I think we saw sort of most vividly
during the Biden administration and the Biden campaign, when you
saw a lot of CEOs who in the past have
(25:07):
been you know, either centrist or even left leaning, really
get behind Trump. We saw this exact thing happen during
the last Trump presidency where you had these events. There
was one at Trump Tower right after the election where
all these CEOs like went to Trump Tower and had
a meeting with Trump. Teal was presiding, and as I
(25:28):
wrote in the book, if you watched the like ninety
or so seconds that was released publicly, it looked kind
of like an uncomfortable meeting for these CEOs, And there
were a lot of stories written at the time like, oh,
they must be so uncomfortable. But then when the cameras
went away, they all basically turned around and flattered him.
It sounded exactly like what's happening now. The only difference
(25:48):
is what was happening before in private, is now happening
in public.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
But my question is why, like, why do you think
the CEOs still feel the need to be so accommodated
to President Trump. I mean, obviously it's in their business interest,
but it seems like they come to the table with
a lot of economic power, a lot of jobs. It's
been remarkable.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
Well, I think, first of all, Trump's politics are in
line with theirs. Is I think the easiest and simplest explanation.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
There are a bunch of other ones.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
I mean, tariffs wouldn't be absolutely I mean Apple is
one that you would think would be would be kind
of in the cross here. Some of these other companies
like definitely are not because like they essentially sell software
or something like that, or even chips right where Trump
is like cracking down on the Chinese chips industry, which
sensibly is going to help some of these guys. But
in the case of Apple, they've basically just been able
(26:40):
to negotiate exceptions. Apple got a exemption on semiconductor imports,
a very important and valuable part of the iPhone. And
behind the scenes, of course, these companies are all lobbying
for things like that, so yes, the tariffs possibly a negative.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Right.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
The other thing is regulation is a huge part of
their concers earn right. The big story these days is
AI regulation. Trump has put this guy, David Sacks, close
friend of Peter Thiel, was an early PayPal executive, as
his ais are. There's been all of this effort within
the Trump administration to essentially like go hands off, completely
(27:19):
hands off on AI. Just let Apple, Microsoft, all of
these companies sort of develop the models as quickly as
they can. We're seeing some stuff coming out of Washington
around copyright. The argument here is that we're in this race.
This is the conservative argument, the trumpst argument, as well
as the argument that the tech companies are making. We're
(27:40):
in this race with China to see who can develop
the most AI. Because of that, we need to take
our hands off our wonderful national champions and let them
do as much as they can. And you see that
coming out of Trump's messaging, as well as the messaging
of folks like David Sacks and these other kind of
right wing allies of Donald Trump. The last thing is
(28:01):
anti trust, and so the Biden administration was really cracking
down on tech companies and you saw all of these
anti trust actions. You got a DOJ case against Google,
you had an FTC case against Facebook, Like pretty much
every big tech company was facing some sort of scrutiny
either from the DOJ or from the FTC, the Federal
(28:21):
Trade Commission, And like, the reason is pretty obvious, Like
these companies have gotten just like way more powerful, and
there's been a bit of a dialing back of that
under Trump. So Google just got a very favorable ruling
in its Justice Department case. It looked like Google was
going to have to sell basically divest Google Chrome, it's
web browser. Now doesn't look like that's going to happen. Now,
(28:42):
that's a thing that happened in the court. It's not
necessarily something that Trump had control of.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
Though.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
About a month ago, a couple of deputies in the
DOJ's Anti Trust Enforcement Division were essentially forced out in
what was interpreted at least by some Democrats and some
folks who are in favor of greater regulation as kind
of a way that is beneficial to the tech companies. Basically,
these guys were anti trust talks who were forced out.
(29:07):
And we'll see, I don't think we know, but what
these companies want is lighter touch regulation.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
So tie this back into Peter Teal and the Antichrist, Like,
where does he fit in here? He wasn't at the dinner,
he wasn't at the inauguration, but he's in the orbit.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
All right.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
So my theory here is that Teal, you know, a
lot of people really don't like him because he's got
some fairly extreme political beliefs and some weird beliefs, like
his stuff about the Antichrist. But he is a brilliant
investor no matter what you think about him, And his
sort of approach is essentially to take money off the
(29:44):
table whenever he can. So he's in a very good
political position.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
What does that mean take money off the table?
Speaker 2 (29:49):
I mean in an investing perspective, that means like selling
when you're up, so by the dip, it's the opposite
to buy the dip, sell the p So very famously,
TiAl was the first investor in Facebook. It's like regarded
as the best venture capital investment, like of all time.
If til had held on to the Facebook shares that
(30:09):
he bought and like I can't remember his two thousand
and four, two thousand and five for five hundred thousand dollars,
like he would be so much richer than he is today,
Like he's he's worth the last I checked someone around
twenty billion, like he'd be worth like two hundred billion
or something crazy. But he sold shortly after Facebook's IPO
because he wasn't sure what was going to happen. He essentially,
like I said, he took money off the table. He
limited his risk, And I think that's kind of what's
(30:31):
happening politically. So you're at a time when Teal is
in certain ways, like has never been more powerful. He's
got all of his buddies in Washington, his worldview is ascendant.
Jd Vance, who was basically like one of his proteges,
is the Vice president. And you have all of these
CEOs flying to Washington, tripping over themselves to be as
(30:55):
flattering to Donald Trump as possible, to do whatever they can,
even if it makes them look like totally lame in
the process. TiO meanwhile, is kind of at a safer move,
just being weird. But I think what he's doing is
trying to create some distance with like the Trump administration
at this moment because he's sort of achieved all he
can achieve, and there's downside here right, Like Donald Trump
(31:18):
is unpopular. His you know, his approval ratings are bad.
We talked about the gallop pole at the top. We've
already seen some of these tech guys face real backlash
from their association with Donald Trump. So Elon Musk, of course,
sort of the most famous of the tech guys who
have like really gone you know, all in and in,
like you know, embracing Trump, he's dealing with like a
(31:39):
huge backlash, like his his car sales have gone down,
he hasn't actually got a lot of the sort of
policy considerations he really wanted. And I think these other guys,
Tim Cook, the Google guys, Mark Zuckerberg, they're all in
this position where they are now going to be very
closely tied with Donald Trump, and it's going to be
very easy for competitive or activists or whatever to like say, hey,
(32:03):
you shouldn't buy an iPhone. Like look at this picture
of Tim Cook gifting Donald Trump this weird golden paperweight
thing and saying how awesome he is. They're essentially like
getting tied to an unpopular administration. Teal meanwhile, is kind
of staying above the fray, being the you know, intellectual
where he's most comfortable and giving these kind of like
(32:25):
you know, slightly provocative lectures on the Antichrist.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
And if you want to learn more about that, you
can pick up a copy of The Contrarian, which is
out in paperback this week, but also out in hardback.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
So my kids need to go to college.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
Yeah, everybody Max's children. Buy a copy of The Contrarian,
available wherever you get your books.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
It's time, Stacey to talk about our underrated story. Normally
there's like one story that jumps at us, but there
were so many different ones this week.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
You know.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
We talked about Scott Bessett, the treasure secretary, threatening to
punch people.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
We talked about lumber prices.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
I had this one that I wanted to talk to
about how hallucinogenic mushrooms are making it harder for state
park police to do their job because so many people
has a great star Stone Times, but the one we
ultimately selected, Stacy, was yours.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
So it has to do with NFTs. Those are the
little pieces of digital art that sort of captivated the
art market, but also a lot of the market a
few years ago, not that long ago, but very famously,
a lot of this kind of came to the four
when Christie's, the art auction house, basically opened up a
(33:37):
department specializing in NFTs, had a huge sale of an
NFT non fungible token. It was almost seventy million dollars.
It was this work from the artist people, and it
was basically a collection of a whole bunch of different
pieces of art. But it sold at auction for seventy
million dollars. And Christie's is so venerated it's more than
(33:58):
two hundred and fifty years old. People were like, oh,
my gosh, NFTs are real, the value is real. They're
being vouched for. Well, Christie's just closed their NFT division,
and this is after a precipitous fall in the value
of NFTs. Because for a while people were really spending
big on these, especially there was the bored Ape series
(34:20):
that I think a lot of people heard of. Justin
Bieber very famously spent over a million dollars. People were
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on these and many
of them turning lots of profits. And then and.
Speaker 8 (34:30):
Then, you know what I'm gonna say, But what are
you gonna say? Everyone who was associated with a story
should be embarrassed. I mean, this is so I disagree
with one exception. Hey, you make seventy million dollars selling
a jpeg. I feel like, you know, that's impressive. But
like Christie's the sort of art world that embraced this,
(34:54):
obviously dopey, obviously pumped up, unnecessarily quote unquote aret no
disrespect to like a kind of dorm room style sketch
of an ape or whatever, but like that crap is
not worth like how much did you say? Just a
million dollars like for a jpeg?
Speaker 3 (35:16):
Like, but I found compelling about NFTs and I think
the reason that people bought in was, first of all,
they were sort of on the tale of crypto, and
crypto is really hard for people to wrap their brains
around a lot of times, and so it was like, oh, okay, well,
crypto's obviously people are making big fortunes. It's becoming more
and more legitimate. So I think that was part of it. Also,
(35:40):
the way that it was explained to me that I
found compelling was that it's a new way to own property.
It's a new kind of property. It's a property where
you can own a thing inside of the Internet that
you can move around and you've seen this happen on
like games on the World of Warcraft, there was a
secondary market of people selling like broad swords and stuff
and making a lot of money.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
Okay, I understand, Like the intellectual point you're making, I
agree with you. Like crypto is super interesting and it
raises all these questions about the the nature of money
and the nature of.
Speaker 3 (36:12):
Property, like stone questions.
Speaker 2 (36:14):
Yeah, really cool stoner questions that if you're walking in
the woods with your buds high on mushrooms like you
can talk about and then call the New York State
Park Police and have them rescue you because you're so high.
But I really think institutions like Christie's, like their job
is like like what kind of gatekeeper are you? If
you're just like, oh, yeah, sure, whatever.
Speaker 3 (36:36):
Digital are and like subject of some loss and yea, you.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
Can understand why because if Christie's convinced you to pay
millions of dollars for a stupid jpeg of an ape
like with smoking a cigar or whatever, like, you might
feel that you'd been had.
Speaker 3 (36:53):
Obviously, for the NFT owners out there, of which there
are many, it's a.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
Rough week, all right. If you bought an NFT y
you want to hear, you know, like if you have
thoughts on this, like either because you're like an investor
in crypto or a believer in fts, or if you've
got your beautiful board ape, you know, print it out
somewhere in your home and you look at it and think, wow,
that was a great investment. Send us an email. Everybody's
at Bloomberg dot net. That's everybody's with an s at
(37:18):
Bloomberg dot net. Of course, hater emails are also welcome.
We as Stacy likes to say, I hate listen, is
still listen and we appreciate it. This show is produced
by Stacy Wong. Magnus Hendrickson is our supervising producer, and
Amy Kean is our executive producer. We get engineering help
(37:39):
from Blake Maples and Dave Purcell. Fact checks Sage Bauman
has Bloomberg Podcasts special thanks to Jeff Muscus, Julia Rubin
and Maria Ling. If you have a minute, please rate
and review the show. It means a lot to us.
And if you have a story that should be our
business that you want to hear about on the show,
email us at Everybody's at Bloomberg dot net. That's everybody
with an s at Bloomberg dot net. Thanks for listening,
(38:01):
and we'll see you next week.
Speaker 3 (38:08):
Mm hmm.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.