November 7, 2025 • 20 mins
Hosts Merryn Somerset Webb and John Stepek, senior reporter and author of the Money Distilled newsletter, unpack the week’s biggest market stories — from the Bank of England’s latest rate decision and Rachel Reeves’s fiscal “reset” to whether the AI boom is starting to wobble.
Don't forget to sign up for our live podcast taping in London on November 27:
https://go.bloomberg.com/attend/invite/post-budget-merryn-talks-money/
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. Welcome to the Marender's
Money Market Wrap, where we talk about the biggest moves
in the markets this week and what is driving them.
(00:22):
My Marrine unset, web Editor at Large for Bloomberg UK Wealth.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
And I'm John Stebeg, Senior Report a Bloomberg and the
author of the Money Distilled newsletter.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Hi.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
John, Hi, it's been a while, is it. Yeah, it
feels that he's been a while. With a few days.
It was that did one to Marcus and then I
think we may have skipped a week.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
I've spoken to a lot of interesting people, even if
I haven't spoken to you. There's been a a laughter
that was kind of cool. But Edward's coming up next week.
That was great. Rob Arnold really good. Yeah, a lot
of other good people coming up. I mean this podcast
is just a really holding its own at them. I mean,
Gus Wise and then there's you.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Well, obviously I'm the sort be to clear the palette
of all that equality.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
But none of that downbeat contrarianism exactly. John. You were
writing about the Bank of England today. We got a
hold on interest rates, which isn't very exciting, but nonetheless
is what we expected, isn't it?
Speaker 2 (01:20):
It is? But the unexpected bit was that the vote
was much tighter than Marcus have thought that there wasn't
much tighter. They thought that six people were going to
vote to hold and three were going to vote to cut,
and as it turned out, five people voted to hold
and four voted to cut. And by the sounds of it,
it sounds as if everything else being equal, Andrew Bailey
(01:42):
would like to go for a cut in December, if
you know, if Evyn remains, broadly speaking, the kind of
same as it is now. Obviously, the difficulty is there
is the budget before that. There's also another two inflation
data points before that. But the thing is, if in
flat she actually peaked at three point eight percent in September,
(02:03):
which is the most recent one we've got, it'll probably
come down about three and a half percent before the
bank's next meeting, and that would give them the leeway
to cut by a quarter point because one of the
problems I think we cutting this month would have been
that they'd actually have had a negative real bank rate
at that point, because the bank rate would be three
(02:23):
point seventy five and CPI would be three point eight.
By the time the end of the year comes around,
they haven't got that kind of visual huddle to get
over things. Interesting because one thing that you know, I
will say is that so Rachel Reeves had her emergency
fiscal narrative reset at the start of the week and
that it sort of came out of the blue. But
(02:45):
one of the points that she was trying to drive
home was that the thing she wants to tackle is
inflation and she wants to see interest rates come down.
And the kind of fact that she's been emphasizing that
it's sort of suggested to me, and also the timing
suggests that she did want to send a bit of
a signal to the Bank of England, and while they
might not have cut rates this month, it kind of
(03:07):
again makes it feel as if that's what they want
to do next month, especially because you know, to be fair,
it was her. A lot of the inflation over the
past year was her fault because the reason employer national
insurance contributions and raising minimum wage. So that's one of
the things that's helped to drive up the course to food,
(03:27):
for example, in supermarkets, because employers are pass knowing some
of their cost increases and the cost of the products,
and the fact that she's sort of come out and said,
but well, I'm not certainly tried to say I'm not
going to do that again. May she gives us at
least some sort of clue as to where she might
be leaning for the budget.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Yeah, and this is quite interesting, isn't it. And that
if we look at the budget and there's so many
things being floated around the place, if you can't divide
it up by thinking, well, she won't do anything that
will make the inflation numbers go up, you can remove
quite a few things from the list.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Well V eight first start. And actually the other interesting
thing is because there's been one of the things that's
come out today is the idea of charging a paer
mile tax on electric vehicles to replace kind of bex
you know, broad tax basically. And one of the things
I've been sort of thinking about is because the OBR,
(04:27):
every time you know, they do their budget forecast, they
act as if the Chancellor is going to unfreeze fuel duty,
even tho though no one has on frozen fuel duty
since twenty ten. So that means that I say, whatever
amount you're told the Chancellor has to make up. There's
about another five billion or so on top of it,
because their kid knowing that this is kind of baked
(04:50):
into the pie, and it absolutely isn't. So I was
thinking she might have to increase fuel duty, but of
course that would be inflationary. So I can see this
road tax substitute is coming in as a thing, which
means she can still keep petro duty where it is,
so that doesn't push up inflation, but it obviously cannot.
It's an added cost for anyone who's got an electric car.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
God the hoops, phaye jump through. Yeah, it's just ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
It's unfortunate. There's so many elements in these short term
politics that melitate against good longer term policy. And you
do have to wonder who who is the audience for
all this stuff? Ultimately, is it just that they care
about the headline and the newspaper, the attack angle they're
(05:39):
going to get kind of attacked on, because mostly this
is the reason we've got, you know, attacks Bible, which
is twenty four thousand pages long. It's ultimately about a Yeah,
you know, Chancellor's chasing short term headlines.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Anyway, we have to move on. We mustn't depress ourselves
over this any further. This week we have had the
what you call the emergency fiscal narrative reset, and I
call the emergency expectations reset. But same, same, same, same
from Rachel Reeves earlier in the week, and she would
(06:13):
like everyone to know that absolutely nothing is her fault,
never has been, never will be, and that is that.
But because of things that other people have done which
had nothing to do with her, everyone's going to have
to pay a lot more tax in When she says everyone,
she actually probably does mean everyone this time, right.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
I hope she means everyone, because as long as she
does mean everyone, then we may get a relatively simple watchet.
I don't. I think that's probably hoptant for too much.
But the thing at this point, Harkin, what I would
really like to see, But if Rachel Reeves stood up,
basically spoke for twenty minutes and said, I'm putting income
(06:53):
tax up across the board by two pins, and that's
basically it, then I'd be happy. It's probably right a
very nice money distilled about that in the context, because
that would be in this situation. But then in this situation,
she's kind of nice to stick herself in that would
be about the best way to deal with the problem,
(07:16):
the least disruptive way to deal with the problem. I mean,
not that any of us would be particularly happy about it.
It's not enough, is it, John, There's not enough. You
get maybe five billion, seven billion per penny I say,
top fifteen billions, nowhere near enough.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Doesn't touch the.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Sound you need. Maybe you need to do three pence,
But if you do two p on the basic rate,
you know, because I mean, there's no way that we're
not going to get a bit more than that when
the higher rates, just to show that the wretch are
getting squashed as well. I think that's maybe twenty billion
if you might if you do that, I mean, no,
it isn't enough. She ployed does still need a bit more.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
On top of that, if you go back to fifty
p fifty p and the pound at the top rate
fifty two percent with the National Insurance. We did have
half a lava on last week, and the laughter curve
we think kicks in well around there.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Oh yeah, think he's right, I mean, and that raises
buttons anyway, if it does make any money. I mean
already the top three attacks doesn't reise that much, and
if you bump up, you're talking millions rather than billions.
So it's always been a virtue signal and tax level.
But for some reason that seems to be important to politicians, but.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
To you signaling, well, you know, what we really need
is policy that works rather than policy if it makes
people feel good about themselves.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
But yeah, that's not even people feel good about themselves
at this point.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
But really doesn't feel good about herself? Does she poor thing? No?
Speaker 2 (08:44):
I suppose she's just torpingly hang on?
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Why why if I always heard you know, I would't
want to hang on. I wouldn't want to hang on.
I'd be looking at it going, well, this is absolutely
no fun at at all. Turns out everything that I
believed in doesn't work. I was completely wrong about everything.
Do you know what I think? I'll call don't go?
And that's what I would be doing if I was
messing something up this badly.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
It's very hard to wrap your doing the politicians psychology,
because I can't imagine that any of them in the
last ten to fifteen years of at any fine. The
last one that Luke Saphie was kind of enjoying himself
was twenty Blair and I mean, I've been deal has
to thinking about what goes on. That's it in a
daily basis.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
I suppose look at it the other way around. I mean,
someone said, you know, on social media the other day
talking about politicians and their general failure to growth, basic
financial concepts, et cetera. And someone said to me, Oh,
it's not that they don't understand, it's just so they
are all horrible people. And I was saying, this simply
isn't true. Pretty much every politician that I come in
contact with, these are people who really they mean well,
(09:46):
They mean well. They want a good outcome. Everyone wants
the same outcome, and they wanted to be when we're
living standards rise and people have betting living standards and
everyone is happier than they are, everyone wants that. No
one who goes into politics thinking well, maybe they are
a few thinking I'm just going into this.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
I means like, you're paid enough. I don't know why
you would go into it if you didn't mean well.
Most people mean well. But you meanwhile get into high
office and you find out that meaning well is not
enough and you are absolutely lousy at the job. And
therefore the result of your actions is to make things
worse for many millions of people and to make you
(10:21):
completely miserable. Why wouldn't you just down told and go home?
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Because I suppose it's just cognitive dessonance. They believe there's
stuff and a lot of the time, for example, they
believe in rent controls, you have to essentially be impervious
to history, to reason, to logic, and yeah, it keeps
coming back, and you're right. I don't think zorain, ma'am.
Danny wants to destroy New York or to make people's
(10:46):
He wants to make people's lives easier. But for some
reason he thinks that if he does rent controls then
it will work.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
And he absolutely refuses to look at decades and decades
and decades of evidence. And one of the few things
that pretty much everybody whoever looks at numbers actual numbers,
because numbers on opinions, their numbers agreees to. I'm writing
this week, by the way, about the end of rink
controls in Cairo.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Okidle I interested when.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Controls since in nineteen twenties has been rank controls in
Kira one way or another. So a lot of the
center of the city certainly all the old apartments are
all controlled. There are people paying the equivalent of twenty
five cents a month for gorgeous four bedroom apartments hanging
over the nile. Everything falls into massive disrepair because the
(11:38):
landlords have no money to sort them out in any
way whatsoever. And well, you know, you know the story.
Everyone knows the rank control story. And finally that is
being reversed.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
That's going to be fastinating first, that would be really interested.
I had no idea that was even a thing.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Right, Moving on from there, moving on from the from
the misery is of the UK fiscal situation and the
upcoming budget and how you're going to have to pay
more tax and I'm going to have to pay more tax,
and for what everyone's going to have to pay port next,
moving on from that to the market. Now, the AI
story seems to be slightly unwinding. Markets have had a
(12:17):
fairly volatile week and we've been talking about this for
ages U andizing is this a bubble? Isn't it a bubble?
Of course, it's a bubble. It's just a matter of
when it when it crashes, correct and then crashes, only
get a little correction before you get a crash. It's
just a matter of when, not of what right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
And the other interesting thing and this is something that
a're more here in mutterings of rather than something I
need you look at in a lot more detail. But
you know, the all things also tied up with stuff
like private creator and private equity and all of the
unlisted sort of like always the money coming from. But
I think the real issue seems to be more that
(12:59):
markets are finally getting a bit jittery about whether the
potential is going to match the amount of money being
spent right now, because you're starting to get to that
point where we're getting beyond It's not so much we're
getting beyond the hype, but we're getting to the point
where people are saying, right, well, we amut if you
can to be spending and if you're saying that you
don't care about the fact that you're spending hundreds of
(13:19):
billions on this stuff right now, we need some sense
of when that's ever going to come back to. And
the thing is that, more than anything else, it's this
idea that we're not seeing the return on the horizon
that we justify this amount of investment. Well, also, I
do think I still struggle with seeing how AI is
(13:44):
going to actually change a lot of stuff you know,
you keep, And I mean I think that the people
who run these companies tend to adopt a hyperbolic approach
to it, partly for political reasons. If you can convince
people that you're about to build a machine that could
end the world, then that also convinces people that, oh,
(14:06):
this is a world change in technology. I should be
invested in it. So I think a lot of the
scare mongering about it is also part of the hype.
Anytime I try to use AI, it's like getting a
really bad in tern to write an article for you,
and that you have to then go back and check
everything yourself. And I still can't find a particular use
for it. And I know that I'm not especially stupid,
(14:30):
and I am also not really a late adopter. I'm
kind of somewhere in the middle with technology. And if
I can't kind of get it to do something useful
for me, then I say, how is it going to
put all these people out of jobs? Really?
Speaker 1 (14:43):
Yeah? And how is it going to be monetized? Well?
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Yeah, I especially when it was that's I think people
don't see me. There's a lot of competition out there.
It's a bit like when if I just not like
when search engines launched, because when search engines came about,
it took a little while to shake out, but Google
was the top dog quite clearly, and they never really
got it surpassed. But it's now you've got GBT, you've
(15:06):
get clawed, you get anthropy, you get perplexity. There's all
kinds of ones that you can use, and I'm yeah,
I'm struggling to see the the kind of story actually
living up to the reality. And I guess maybe markets
are getting there too.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
And of course there's all that Chinese competition as well,
and we didn't have that back in the dot com days,
did we.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
There wasn't no.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Sense that there was an entire globe competing with the
companies in the US, So it's a different environment. Anyway,
on that, I would recommend that all listeners listen to
our podcast with Albert Edwards which comes out on Monday,
which is super interesting on all this stuff, comparing the
dot com bubble at bubble or what if you think
back actually we called it. We didn't call it the
(15:48):
dot com bubble in the data. We don't call it
the TMT bubble actually yeah, tech media and telecoms bubble.
Dot com bubble came came later. Anyway, we talked about
that quite a lot in the podcast on Monday, said,
listen to that. The one thing that I wanted to
mention before we go is the way the UK market
that for two one hundred is reacting to the volatility
(16:10):
in NASUAC and tech stocks, which is by not being
particularly volatile at all and looking like it would really
really like to get to ten thousand.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Yeah, this is a nice thing. It would being bording
comes down. It's in whenever all the exciting stuff is
going down, you can treat then you're a bit coin
for the fifty one hundred tracker well, and.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
You can also. I mean, the other thing you can
say is that while the UK market is also very concentrated.
Whenever people talk about the US market being very concentrated
and what a terrible signal, there's always someone who go, well,
the UK market is very concentrated as well. The top
ten companies may cover very last percent of it is true,
but they all do different things. It's the concentration in
the US is such that the top companies, the ones
(16:55):
we worry about all the time. They're all in the
same sector. Whereas in the UK up top you've got
mine as injurers in your banks, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
Very different Astro Seneca today is basically the top one
Astra Zenica, So you're big drug makers assuming Astra Zenica.
Just days here and as it so completely separate topic,
have brought up astro Zenica. The other thing budget related
I think is really interesting is what is she actually
going to do about stamp duty on equities because Astra's
(17:26):
decision he basically lists in the US, has meant that
it's not going to pay stamp duty anymore, even though
though it's listed in the foots one hundred and you've
suddenly created this. It's not even look bowl because it's
completely above board. But the point is there are lots
of foote one hundred companies that could do this. A
(17:46):
lot of them have got big US businesses, much bigger
than their kind of business that's generated here, so it
will be every rationale that they wanted for doing the
same sort of thing, and then you wouldn't be getting
any stamp duty, even though stamp duty would still be
on the statute books. So I kind of feel that
it's actually something that she needs to take a look at,
(18:07):
because down.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
You know, we've been saying this for forever, got to
do something about stamp your higher stamp duty in the world,
et cetera. And now you say, well, okay, look, something
has happened that proves that you need to do something
to make the UK market more attractive. And you're not
getting a stand duty anyway if people leave and you
and I think that that is a rational reason to
(18:31):
take action.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
Come full circle now, I bring you.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Back to the beginning of our conversation. I mean, if
that happened, If that happened, if in the budget we
saw stamp duty abolished on equities, stamp duty abolished or
maybe brought down to ten basis points it's three up
in one percent or something like that, then you know,
I go, well, okay, you're listening. You know you understand
something about incentive and the same if if she really
(18:54):
did go through with cutting the amount you can put
in an ISO in cash and putting some kind of
mandation on investing in UK equities if you're using a
UK based tax wrapper, I will go okay, well, you
know you're listening. You understand about flows, et cetera. But
you know, John at this point hopes he low, hopees
he low.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
She may be expectations if they were law.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
That's why I keep them low. All right, Anything else
you want to say? Do you want to do? You
want to point out to everybody how good, how good
it is that you don't hold bitcoin because it's gone
down so much.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
I know, I don't feel like it'd be small going
that one. Yeah, I mean, what is it still over
one hundred thousands? So yeah, maybe once it guys goes
back below twenty.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
Okay, you're stopping smug around twenty. All right, there's a
marker everybody around twenty. John's going to be smug, and
I'll be upset because my minutes you're bitcoin holding won't
won't be worth as much as it was.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
You'll never retire at this point.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
I'm never retiring anyway, never tiring one of those dB pensions.
Not like that. Rachel. Thanks for listening to this week's
Marin Talks Money Debrief. If you like us, show, rate, review,
and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts. Also be short
to follow me and John on ex or Twitter at
(20:15):
marins w and John underscore Stepic. This episode was produced
by Summersidi and Moses and
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. Welcome to the Marender's
Money Market Wrap, where we talk about the biggest moves
in the markets this week and what is driving them.
(00:22):
My Marrine unset, web Editor at Large for Bloomberg UK Wealth.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
And I'm John Stebeg, Senior Report a Bloomberg and the
author of the Money Distilled newsletter.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Hi.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
John, Hi, it's been a while, is it. Yeah, it
feels that he's been a while. With a few days.
It was that did one to Marcus and then I
think we may have skipped a week.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
I've spoken to a lot of interesting people, even if
I haven't spoken to you. There's been a a laughter
that was kind of cool. But Edward's coming up next week.
That was great. Rob Arnold really good. Yeah, a lot
of other good people coming up. I mean this podcast
is just a really holding its own at them. I mean,
Gus Wise and then there's you.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Well, obviously I'm the sort be to clear the palette
of all that equality.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
But none of that downbeat contrarianism exactly. John. You were
writing about the Bank of England today. We got a
hold on interest rates, which isn't very exciting, but nonetheless
is what we expected, isn't it?
Speaker 2 (01:20):
It is? But the unexpected bit was that the vote
was much tighter than Marcus have thought that there wasn't
much tighter. They thought that six people were going to
vote to hold and three were going to vote to cut,
and as it turned out, five people voted to hold
and four voted to cut. And by the sounds of it,
it sounds as if everything else being equal, Andrew Bailey
(01:42):
would like to go for a cut in December, if
you know, if Evyn remains, broadly speaking, the kind of
same as it is now. Obviously, the difficulty is there
is the budget before that. There's also another two inflation
data points before that. But the thing is, if in
flat she actually peaked at three point eight percent in September,
(02:03):
which is the most recent one we've got, it'll probably
come down about three and a half percent before the
bank's next meeting, and that would give them the leeway
to cut by a quarter point because one of the
problems I think we cutting this month would have been
that they'd actually have had a negative real bank rate
at that point, because the bank rate would be three
(02:23):
point seventy five and CPI would be three point eight.
By the time the end of the year comes around,
they haven't got that kind of visual huddle to get
over things. Interesting because one thing that you know, I
will say is that so Rachel Reeves had her emergency
fiscal narrative reset at the start of the week and
that it sort of came out of the blue. But
(02:45):
one of the points that she was trying to drive
home was that the thing she wants to tackle is
inflation and she wants to see interest rates come down.
And the kind of fact that she's been emphasizing that
it's sort of suggested to me, and also the timing
suggests that she did want to send a bit of
a signal to the Bank of England, and while they
might not have cut rates this month, it kind of
(03:07):
again makes it feel as if that's what they want
to do next month, especially because you know, to be fair,
it was her. A lot of the inflation over the
past year was her fault because the reason employer national
insurance contributions and raising minimum wage. So that's one of
the things that's helped to drive up the course to food,
(03:27):
for example, in supermarkets, because employers are pass knowing some
of their cost increases and the cost of the products,
and the fact that she's sort of come out and said,
but well, I'm not certainly tried to say I'm not
going to do that again. May she gives us at
least some sort of clue as to where she might
be leaning for the budget.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Yeah, and this is quite interesting, isn't it. And that
if we look at the budget and there's so many
things being floated around the place, if you can't divide
it up by thinking, well, she won't do anything that
will make the inflation numbers go up, you can remove
quite a few things from the list.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Well V eight first start. And actually the other interesting
thing is because there's been one of the things that's
come out today is the idea of charging a paer
mile tax on electric vehicles to replace kind of bex
you know, broad tax basically. And one of the things
I've been sort of thinking about is because the OBR,
(04:27):
every time you know, they do their budget forecast, they
act as if the Chancellor is going to unfreeze fuel duty,
even tho though no one has on frozen fuel duty
since twenty ten. So that means that I say, whatever
amount you're told the Chancellor has to make up. There's
about another five billion or so on top of it,
because their kid knowing that this is kind of baked
(04:50):
into the pie, and it absolutely isn't. So I was
thinking she might have to increase fuel duty, but of
course that would be inflationary. So I can see this
road tax substitute is coming in as a thing, which
means she can still keep petro duty where it is,
so that doesn't push up inflation, but it obviously cannot.
It's an added cost for anyone who's got an electric car.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
God the hoops, phaye jump through. Yeah, it's just ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
It's unfortunate. There's so many elements in these short term
politics that melitate against good longer term policy. And you
do have to wonder who who is the audience for
all this stuff? Ultimately, is it just that they care
about the headline and the newspaper, the attack angle they're
(05:39):
going to get kind of attacked on, because mostly this
is the reason we've got, you know, attacks Bible, which
is twenty four thousand pages long. It's ultimately about a Yeah,
you know, Chancellor's chasing short term headlines.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Anyway, we have to move on. We mustn't depress ourselves
over this any further. This week we have had the
what you call the emergency fiscal narrative reset, and I
call the emergency expectations reset. But same, same, same, same
from Rachel Reeves earlier in the week, and she would
(06:13):
like everyone to know that absolutely nothing is her fault,
never has been, never will be, and that is that.
But because of things that other people have done which
had nothing to do with her, everyone's going to have
to pay a lot more tax in When she says everyone,
she actually probably does mean everyone this time, right.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
I hope she means everyone, because as long as she
does mean everyone, then we may get a relatively simple watchet.
I don't. I think that's probably hoptant for too much.
But the thing at this point, Harkin, what I would
really like to see, But if Rachel Reeves stood up,
basically spoke for twenty minutes and said, I'm putting income
(06:53):
tax up across the board by two pins, and that's
basically it, then I'd be happy. It's probably right a
very nice money distilled about that in the context, because
that would be in this situation. But then in this situation,
she's kind of nice to stick herself in that would
be about the best way to deal with the problem,
(07:16):
the least disruptive way to deal with the problem. I mean,
not that any of us would be particularly happy about it.
It's not enough, is it, John, There's not enough. You
get maybe five billion, seven billion per penny I say,
top fifteen billions, nowhere near enough.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Doesn't touch the.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Sound you need. Maybe you need to do three pence,
But if you do two p on the basic rate,
you know, because I mean, there's no way that we're
not going to get a bit more than that when
the higher rates, just to show that the wretch are
getting squashed as well. I think that's maybe twenty billion
if you might if you do that, I mean, no,
it isn't enough. She ployed does still need a bit more.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
On top of that, if you go back to fifty
p fifty p and the pound at the top rate
fifty two percent with the National Insurance. We did have
half a lava on last week, and the laughter curve
we think kicks in well around there.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Oh yeah, think he's right, I mean, and that raises
buttons anyway, if it does make any money. I mean
already the top three attacks doesn't reise that much, and
if you bump up, you're talking millions rather than billions.
So it's always been a virtue signal and tax level.
But for some reason that seems to be important to politicians, but.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
To you signaling, well, you know, what we really need
is policy that works rather than policy if it makes
people feel good about themselves.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
But yeah, that's not even people feel good about themselves
at this point.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
But really doesn't feel good about herself? Does she poor thing? No?
Speaker 2 (08:44):
I suppose she's just torpingly hang on?
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Why why if I always heard you know, I would't
want to hang on. I wouldn't want to hang on.
I'd be looking at it going, well, this is absolutely
no fun at at all. Turns out everything that I
believed in doesn't work. I was completely wrong about everything.
Do you know what I think? I'll call don't go?
And that's what I would be doing if I was
messing something up this badly.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
It's very hard to wrap your doing the politicians psychology,
because I can't imagine that any of them in the
last ten to fifteen years of at any fine. The
last one that Luke Saphie was kind of enjoying himself
was twenty Blair and I mean, I've been deal has
to thinking about what goes on. That's it in a
daily basis.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
I suppose look at it the other way around. I mean,
someone said, you know, on social media the other day
talking about politicians and their general failure to growth, basic
financial concepts, et cetera. And someone said to me, Oh,
it's not that they don't understand, it's just so they
are all horrible people. And I was saying, this simply
isn't true. Pretty much every politician that I come in
contact with, these are people who really they mean well,
(09:46):
They mean well. They want a good outcome. Everyone wants
the same outcome, and they wanted to be when we're
living standards rise and people have betting living standards and
everyone is happier than they are, everyone wants that. No
one who goes into politics thinking well, maybe they are
a few thinking I'm just going into this.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
I means like, you're paid enough. I don't know why
you would go into it if you didn't mean well.
Most people mean well. But you meanwhile get into high
office and you find out that meaning well is not
enough and you are absolutely lousy at the job. And
therefore the result of your actions is to make things
worse for many millions of people and to make you
(10:21):
completely miserable. Why wouldn't you just down told and go home?
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Because I suppose it's just cognitive dessonance. They believe there's
stuff and a lot of the time, for example, they
believe in rent controls, you have to essentially be impervious
to history, to reason, to logic, and yeah, it keeps
coming back, and you're right. I don't think zorain, ma'am.
Danny wants to destroy New York or to make people's
(10:46):
He wants to make people's lives easier. But for some
reason he thinks that if he does rent controls then
it will work.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
And he absolutely refuses to look at decades and decades
and decades of evidence. And one of the few things
that pretty much everybody whoever looks at numbers actual numbers,
because numbers on opinions, their numbers agreees to. I'm writing
this week, by the way, about the end of rink
controls in Cairo.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Okidle I interested when.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Controls since in nineteen twenties has been rank controls in
Kira one way or another. So a lot of the
center of the city certainly all the old apartments are
all controlled. There are people paying the equivalent of twenty
five cents a month for gorgeous four bedroom apartments hanging
over the nile. Everything falls into massive disrepair because the
(11:38):
landlords have no money to sort them out in any
way whatsoever. And well, you know, you know the story.
Everyone knows the rank control story. And finally that is
being reversed.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
That's going to be fastinating first, that would be really interested.
I had no idea that was even a thing.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Right, Moving on from there, moving on from the from
the misery is of the UK fiscal situation and the
upcoming budget and how you're going to have to pay
more tax and I'm going to have to pay more tax,
and for what everyone's going to have to pay port next,
moving on from that to the market. Now, the AI
story seems to be slightly unwinding. Markets have had a
(12:17):
fairly volatile week and we've been talking about this for
ages U andizing is this a bubble? Isn't it a bubble?
Of course, it's a bubble. It's just a matter of
when it when it crashes, correct and then crashes, only
get a little correction before you get a crash. It's
just a matter of when, not of what right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
And the other interesting thing and this is something that
a're more here in mutterings of rather than something I
need you look at in a lot more detail. But
you know, the all things also tied up with stuff
like private creator and private equity and all of the
unlisted sort of like always the money coming from. But
I think the real issue seems to be more that
(12:59):
markets are finally getting a bit jittery about whether the
potential is going to match the amount of money being
spent right now, because you're starting to get to that
point where we're getting beyond It's not so much we're
getting beyond the hype, but we're getting to the point
where people are saying, right, well, we amut if you
can to be spending and if you're saying that you
don't care about the fact that you're spending hundreds of
(13:19):
billions on this stuff right now, we need some sense
of when that's ever going to come back to. And
the thing is that, more than anything else, it's this
idea that we're not seeing the return on the horizon
that we justify this amount of investment. Well, also, I
do think I still struggle with seeing how AI is
(13:44):
going to actually change a lot of stuff you know,
you keep, And I mean I think that the people
who run these companies tend to adopt a hyperbolic approach
to it, partly for political reasons. If you can convince
people that you're about to build a machine that could
end the world, then that also convinces people that, oh,
(14:06):
this is a world change in technology. I should be
invested in it. So I think a lot of the
scare mongering about it is also part of the hype.
Anytime I try to use AI, it's like getting a
really bad in tern to write an article for you,
and that you have to then go back and check
everything yourself. And I still can't find a particular use
for it. And I know that I'm not especially stupid,
(14:30):
and I am also not really a late adopter. I'm
kind of somewhere in the middle with technology. And if
I can't kind of get it to do something useful
for me, then I say, how is it going to
put all these people out of jobs? Really?
Speaker 1 (14:43):
Yeah? And how is it going to be monetized? Well?
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Yeah, I especially when it was that's I think people
don't see me. There's a lot of competition out there.
It's a bit like when if I just not like
when search engines launched, because when search engines came about,
it took a little while to shake out, but Google
was the top dog quite clearly, and they never really
got it surpassed. But it's now you've got GBT, you've
(15:06):
get clawed, you get anthropy, you get perplexity. There's all
kinds of ones that you can use, and I'm yeah,
I'm struggling to see the the kind of story actually
living up to the reality. And I guess maybe markets
are getting there too.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
And of course there's all that Chinese competition as well,
and we didn't have that back in the dot com days,
did we.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
There wasn't no.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Sense that there was an entire globe competing with the
companies in the US, So it's a different environment. Anyway,
on that, I would recommend that all listeners listen to
our podcast with Albert Edwards which comes out on Monday,
which is super interesting on all this stuff, comparing the
dot com bubble at bubble or what if you think
back actually we called it. We didn't call it the
(15:48):
dot com bubble in the data. We don't call it
the TMT bubble actually yeah, tech media and telecoms bubble.
Dot com bubble came came later. Anyway, we talked about
that quite a lot in the podcast on Monday, said,
listen to that. The one thing that I wanted to
mention before we go is the way the UK market
that for two one hundred is reacting to the volatility
(16:10):
in NASUAC and tech stocks, which is by not being
particularly volatile at all and looking like it would really
really like to get to ten thousand.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Yeah, this is a nice thing. It would being bording
comes down. It's in whenever all the exciting stuff is
going down, you can treat then you're a bit coin
for the fifty one hundred tracker well, and.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
You can also. I mean, the other thing you can
say is that while the UK market is also very concentrated.
Whenever people talk about the US market being very concentrated
and what a terrible signal, there's always someone who go, well,
the UK market is very concentrated as well. The top
ten companies may cover very last percent of it is true,
but they all do different things. It's the concentration in
the US is such that the top companies, the ones
(16:55):
we worry about all the time. They're all in the
same sector. Whereas in the UK up top you've got
mine as injurers in your banks, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
Very different Astro Seneca today is basically the top one
Astra Zenica, So you're big drug makers assuming Astra Zenica.
Just days here and as it so completely separate topic,
have brought up astro Zenica. The other thing budget related
I think is really interesting is what is she actually
going to do about stamp duty on equities because Astra's
(17:26):
decision he basically lists in the US, has meant that
it's not going to pay stamp duty anymore, even though
though it's listed in the foots one hundred and you've
suddenly created this. It's not even look bowl because it's
completely above board. But the point is there are lots
of foote one hundred companies that could do this. A
(17:46):
lot of them have got big US businesses, much bigger
than their kind of business that's generated here, so it
will be every rationale that they wanted for doing the
same sort of thing, and then you wouldn't be getting
any stamp duty, even though stamp duty would still be
on the statute books. So I kind of feel that
it's actually something that she needs to take a look at,
(18:07):
because down.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
You know, we've been saying this for forever, got to
do something about stamp your higher stamp duty in the world,
et cetera. And now you say, well, okay, look, something
has happened that proves that you need to do something
to make the UK market more attractive. And you're not
getting a stand duty anyway if people leave and you
and I think that that is a rational reason to
(18:31):
take action.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
Come full circle now, I bring you.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Back to the beginning of our conversation. I mean, if
that happened, If that happened, if in the budget we
saw stamp duty abolished on equities, stamp duty abolished or
maybe brought down to ten basis points it's three up
in one percent or something like that, then you know,
I go, well, okay, you're listening. You know you understand
something about incentive and the same if if she really
(18:54):
did go through with cutting the amount you can put
in an ISO in cash and putting some kind of
mandation on investing in UK equities if you're using a
UK based tax wrapper, I will go okay, well, you
know you're listening. You understand about flows, et cetera. But
you know, John at this point hopes he low, hopees
he low.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
She may be expectations if they were law.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
That's why I keep them low. All right, Anything else
you want to say? Do you want to do? You
want to point out to everybody how good, how good
it is that you don't hold bitcoin because it's gone
down so much.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
I know, I don't feel like it'd be small going
that one. Yeah, I mean, what is it still over
one hundred thousands? So yeah, maybe once it guys goes
back below twenty.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
Okay, you're stopping smug around twenty. All right, there's a
marker everybody around twenty. John's going to be smug, and
I'll be upset because my minutes you're bitcoin holding won't
won't be worth as much as it was.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
You'll never retire at this point.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
I'm never retiring anyway, never tiring one of those dB pensions.
Not like that. Rachel. Thanks for listening to this week's
Marin Talks Money Debrief. If you like us, show, rate, review,
and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts. Also be short
to follow me and John on ex or Twitter at
(20:15):
marins w and John underscore Stepic. This episode was produced
by Summersidi and Moses and
Host
Merryn Somerset Webb
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!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.