Pod Insights Prof G Markets Buy-The-Dip Mindset Fuels Historic Quarter For Stock Trading About this episode Scott and Ed unpack the latest inflation data and why it’s sparking so much debate. Then, they dig into a record-breaking quarter for trading. Finally, they look at why Amazon is hitching a ride on SpaceX to launch its satellites and discuss how SpaceX has quietly become the most powerful monopoly no one’s talking about.
Subscribe to the Prof G Markets newsletter
Order "The Algebra of Wealth," out now
Subscribe to No Mercy / No Malice
Follow the podcast across socials @profgmarkets
Follow Scott on Instagram
Follow Ed on Instagram and X
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Transcript 10,663 words · 6 speakers
Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
0:00 Speaker 00 Are your ad campaigns lighting up the dashboard? But not the pipeline? That's bull spend. And marketers are calling it out in dashboard confessions.
0:09 Speaker 01 My boss asked for results, so I opened my dashboard for the only positive sounding metric I had: impressions.
0:17 Speaker 00 Cut the bull spend. See revenue, not just reach. LinkedIn delivers the highest return on ad spend of major ad networks. Advertise on LinkedIn. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a $250 credit. Go to LinkedIn.com/campaign. Terms and conditions apply.
0:30 Speaker 02 Energía baja. Falta de concentración? Nebla mental? You might be dehydrated. Gatorade Zero Powders han sido diseñados científicamente para ayudarte a mejorar el balance de hidratación en el cuerpo. Hechos con la mezcla número uno de electrolitos, sin colores ni sabores artificiales. Shop now online or at retailers nationwide. Gatorade hydrates better than water. Is it in you? Signos de dehidratación leve y moderada. Consulta a tu médico si los síntomas persisten.
1:03 Speaker 03 Hey, Bose here. When your next track starts, listen for the decisions that the artist makes. The vocal pushed right up front. The bass that waits half a beat. That sample from a 70s underground gem. Every choice deliberate. With Bose, you'll hear it all. Your music deserves Bose.
1:29 Scott Galloway? Today's number, 80. That's a percentage decrease in wine consumption in France since 1945. Ed True Story, my sponsor from AA, said that I should stop going to the places where I drink the most. So I've decided to sell my house and car.
1:45 Ed Elson? That's good. That's good. He's back. I love it.
2:00 Scott Galloway? Ed doesn't laugh as much at my jokes now that he realizes he's more powerful than me. Now that he...
2:04 Ed Elson? No.
2:05 Scott Galloway? I'm fucking Rupert Murdoch. You're Tucker Carlson, bitch. I will fire your ass if you...
2:09 Ed Elson? That's true. I agree with that part. But no, I'm just, I'm, I give you an unbiased, honest reaction. I get, you got like a little chuckle there.
2:17 Scott Galloway? I get that from my family. I don't get that from you.
2:21 Scott Galloway? How are you, Ed?
2:22 Ed Elson? I'm doing well. Are you a big wine guy? That just occurred to me with that opening number. Do you drink wine?
2:27 Scott Galloway? I don't drink wine or buy art because I feel like I'm trying to pretend to be something I'm not. True story.
2:32 Ed Elson? Interesting.
2:33 Scott Galloway? All my friends, I noticed when my friends started, or some of my friends started making a lot of money, they immediately became total douchebags around wine, ordering expensive wine and buying art. And I'm like, you're not fooling anyone. You're fucking white trash. Just lean into the beer. Lean into the, you know, the bad Leroy Neiman art or like, or sports posters. But yeah, I don't, I don't drink wine or buy art.
2:57 Ed Elson? Where does luxury hotels fit on this douchebag spectrum?
3:01 Scott Galloway? What, what is? That's embracing life.
3:03 Ed Elson? Okay.
3:04 Scott Galloway? That's embracing life. Wait, wait, so you're calling bullshit on the 7,000 euro a night hotel to cap room? But I don't order wine because I'm part of the people. I'm part of the people. Yes, that's right.
3:18 Ed Elson? No, I think, I think I actually am with you. There is a difference. I think the wine is a sort of made up snobbiness.
3:24 Scott Galloway? Do you like wine?
3:25 Ed Elson? Uh, enough.
3:27 Scott Galloway? That means yes. So you're, in other words, you're, you're, you're easing right into that douchebaggery. You're starting to order now. So do you know what the most, this is a true story. Do you know what the most ordered bottle of wine is on a menu?
3:37 Ed Elson? I was gonna say the cheapest. I'm gonna change my answer to the second cheapest.
3:40 Scott Galloway? That's exactly right. You are learning, Sensei.
3:43 Ed Elson? Cause that's what I, that's what I do. I'm always second cheapest because I don't want to be the cheapskate, but I also want to save some money.
3:49 Scott Galloway? You know what I do love? I love champagne. And I think it's because of the, the pop and the ceremony makes me feel like, oh, we're celebrating something. Or the person across from me is about to find me much more charming and attractive.
4:04 Ed Elson? I, I heard that you used to have a thing called Champagne Fridays at your old company. You'd come around with a, with a champagne cart and everyone would drink.
4:12 Scott Galloway? That's right. I was like a flight attendant on Emirates Airlines. I'd come around and, and, and, uh, yeah, I'd give everyone champagne. I love, I absolutely love champagne and, uh, Trying to think if I've, do you ever drink alone?
4:24 Ed Elson? No, not really.
4:25 Scott Galloway? Yeah, neither do I, except if it's a weekday and I'm feeling bad about myself.
4:33 Ed Elson? But just, sorry, I just want to go back to Champagne Friday.
4:38 Ed Elson? What is the management philosophy behind that? I, I assume that it's not just, you just want to drink. I assume there's, there's a, there's a shareholder value argument behind it.
4:47 Scott Galloway? So the hardest thing in a small company, a team with best players wins. It's all about, and I recognize this early, and I think my superpower, my competence is communications, but my superpower is the ability to attract and retain really talented people. And you probably see that, you don't see it, you don't appreciate it.
5:04 Ed Elson? I just look at myself. Yeah, yeah.
5:06 Scott Galloway? There you go. Look in the mirror. But you don't appreciate it because you haven't worked for other companies. You're working with 22 really strong professionals. We are very good. I spent a lot of time thinking about finding great people, reference hiring, and then really thinking a lot about their compensation, both economic and psychological, to keep them because it is so much easier to keep someone great than find someone great. And I read this, this, I think it was in Psychology Today, saying that the number one source of retention at a company is not compensation, it's not culture, it's not the stock price going crazy, it's whether or not the person has a good friend at work. That if you walk into your office and/or a meeting and there are people you like and
5:50 Scott Galloway? you consider your friend, it literally releases a hormone where you, you basically start hating work less and maybe even liking it. And so from a very early point, I did this at my first firm, Profit, I always spent a lot of money on social stuff. We used to, from day one at Profit, we used to take the entire firm to Cabo San Lucas, and there was three rules. No spouses, the senior management had to leave by 10 or 11 PM so the kids could go crazy, and other than that, there were no rules. We used to do this in March of every year and I knew, because the problem is after you pay people their bonus, a lot of times that's when your most vulnerable people leave. And I thought, all right, we'll, we'll extend, we'll announce the Cabo trip for March after
6:33 Scott Galloway? we pay bonuses. And I'm not exaggerating, no one would leave until the trip. So I think have creating a social atmosphere where people, and we don't do it as much because I'm not as social now and Catherine and I are both old and just want to be at home. We don't want to hang out with you guys. But the, I think it's fun. I think it makes for a great culture when you, within reason and, and all that. People, HR gets worried about people being disrespectful or getting too drunk. And I generally find unless you hire fucking idiots, people know how to, know how to handle themselves. I don't think I've ever seen you drunk, Ed. Have I seen you drunk?
7:06 Ed Elson? You've seen me drunk plenty of times. You just don't see it. I maintain the facade.
7:12 Scott Galloway? You're a good drunk.
7:12 Ed Elson? Of competence.
7:14 Scott Galloway? You keep it together.
7:14 Ed Elson? Yeah.
7:15 Scott Galloway? I will say this, after a few drinks, you are an excellent kisser.
7:18 Ed Elson? That's good. That's good. Even Claire's laughing there. Even Claire couldn't resist that. Okay. Shall we get into today's episode? We're talking about inflation and we're talking about trading and what else? SpaceX. Shall we get into it?
7:36 Scott Galloway? Let's light this candle.
7:46 Ed Elson? Last week's inflation data offered a mixed picture and some early clues on how tariffs might be impacting the economy. The Consumer Price Index showed that prices rose in June, especially on tariff sensitive items. However, the Producer Price Index, which was released later in the week, that showed that prices were flat from the month before. So Scott, there's been a lot of debate online and in the media as to what is going on in terms of inflation. We saw the CPI, the Consumer Price Index, rose and we covered that in one of the daily episodes. And as I pointed out, what we're seeing is that, yes, it wasn't a gigantic rise, but the things that are rising are the things that you would think.
8:31 Ed Elson? Are most impacted by tariffs, the imported items, the tariff sensitive items, things like toys and furniture and home appliances, et cetera. Then we got this producer price index, which showed that prices were flat. And a lot of people were looking at that and saying, okay, well, look, the PPI is flat, so tariffs aren't impacting prices. Inflation isn't here. And before we get into this, I just want to highlight one crucial detail that is missing from this conversation. And I think this sort of gets at what people don't really realize about the PPI, about this producer price index, which is it is a measure of the price
9:15 Ed Elson? at which American producers sell their goods and services. So this is looking at domestic production. It's stuff that is produced within the US, which means that we're not looking at imports here. We're not looking at stuff that we ship in from abroad. We're only looking at domestic goods and services. So I think the first thing I would say, because there are a lot of people who are saying, look at the PPI, the tariff isn't impacting prices. The idea that that disproves the tariff impact is just not true. It's nonsense. Having said that, we've got a slightly mixed picture in terms of we don't see massive price increases anywhere.
9:58 Ed Elson? You know, this is all kind of soft data that we're digging into. And it's creating this big debate about tariffs. But I just want to get that first point on the table because I want to show people where I stand on this. My belief is tariffs are impacting prices. We're only seeing a little bit. The PPI doesn't negate that, but it's only a little bit. And this is probably just the beginning.
10:19 Scott Galloway? I think this is sort of a. It's like modern art. You see in it what you want to see in it, and that is there's something for everyone here because catastrophists like me have been wrong. I thought that the economy and the markets were going to register more impact from what I feel are just irrational, low IQ economic policies. This trade war, pressure on the Fed, I mean, it just, none of this, a tax cut that just transfers wealth from the bottom 90 to the top 10. I think all of this at some point, you know, comes back to bite us in the ass. Having said that, economy grinds on, markets are hitting all time highs, and I do worry that we studied to the wrong test, that the markets are basically have become a wealth index of the top 10%, and
11:03 Scott Galloway? we don't track teen self-harm, or happiness, or obesity, or anxiety, or divorce rates. I think we're studying to the wrong test. But be that as it may, I think people such as myself have been not wrong, but mostly wrong about the cadence of the impact. And you said all along that you thought these tariffs were going to show up until it kind of snakes through the supply chain, and that would be sometime in the fall. There is some evidence that the more tariff-sensitive categories have ticked up, and ticked up substantially. But at the same time, inflation up 2.7%, I think the target is 2%. If you didn't know that Trump was out declaring economic warfare on our allies, if you didn't know that this
11:45 Scott Galloway? thing, this, this bill had been passed, which quite frankly, obviously, we don't feel the impact of that yet, you would look at the economy and you would say, okay, I'll take that. It's clear that Trump and maybe even the administration's policies aren't as important as we thought. And that is, the economy sort of grinds on regardless of what the president is tweeting about or thinking about. Now, around the inflation number, the only thing I want to add to this is that Trump, in a never-ending attempt to crowd out the news cycle with anything but Epstein, decided to wave a letter around saying that he was going to fire Chairman Powell, which he cannot do. And then the next day said, I'm only kidding,
12:26 Scott Galloway? and managed to push the term Epstein out of the news cycle for another 24 hours if he wasn't threatening to revoke the citizenship of people he doesn't like, or 85% tariffs on Canada. But what I would remind people when they think about inflation is that after the supply chain shocks of COVID and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, inflation spiked to 9%. And he managed, within, I think, two years, to take inflation from 9% into the 2s without a recession. I taught micro and macroeconomics in graduate school. I can guarantee you that we are going to be teaching or talking about how this guy managed to get inflation down
13:08 Scott Galloway? 700 basis points without pushing us into a recession. That is literally sticking the landing.
13:13 Ed Elson? When economists were surveyed and said that there was a 100% chance of recession in the next 12 months, when everyone said that a soft landing was not possible at all, and somehow it happened while everyone was shouting at him, saying, you know, you're being too aggressive with holding these rates up. So I'm completely with you. Like, we have to call balls and strikes. And the reality is what Jerome Powell did in order to get inflation under control is pretty remarkable. We can have other conversations about how inflation got there in the first place. A lot of people blame Powell. I don't
13:55 Ed Elson? because we saw inflation rise. It skyrocketed all around the world. It wasn't just America. This was a global supply chain problem that happened as a result of COVID. But the reality is, he led the charge in getting inflation down when everyone said there was no way it was possible.
14:13 Scott Galloway? It's so hard to make decisions and kind of have a code and do the right thing. And I find there are certain tells that inform your decision making. And one of them is, if you're really thinking about something too long, you can't make a decision, then the chances are the best decision is no. So if I get invited to an event or I'm struggling around something, whether to do it or not to it, if I struggle with it too long, I generally find that means the answer should be no, because there's something haunting you from saying yes.
14:37 Ed Elson? We're gonna need to unpack that later, because I've been struggling with this in my life.
14:42 Scott Galloway? Really?
14:42 Ed Elson? And that is very interesting. Yeah, totally.
14:44 Scott Galloway? Put a ring on it, bitch. She's not gonna be around forever.
14:47 Ed Elson? I'm not referring to that.
14:48 Scott Galloway? I don't even know her, and I know she's higher quality and higher character and hotter than you. And I haven't even met her. You keep, you do not introduce me to your girlfriend.
14:56 Ed Elson? That is not what I'm referring to.
14:57 Scott Galloway? I will not take it. I will not take it personally. But the second thing is, is that whenever the far left and the far right agree to meet on anything, it's a really bad fucking idea. Negative forty, I call it the negative forty test. Negative forty is where Celsius and Fahrenheit meet. And that is, minus forty Fahrenheit is minus forty Celsius. That is an inhospitable environment where nothing good happens. Right? Nothing grows, nothing survives in that environment. When people, senators on the far left and on the far right, at the same moment, and people don't remember this, were all calling for Chairman Powell to lower interest rates for different reasons, right? The quote unquote,
15:40 Scott Galloway? the far right was saying, oh, we need to spur the economy. And the far left was saying, this is taking a toll on people because they have higher student loan payments, mortgage payments. Whenever the far left and the far right agree on something, watch the fuck out. It's a really, really bad idea. Bringing this back to what we're talking about, Chairman Powell was getting shit from all sides.
16:03 Ed Elson? Everywhere.
16:03 Scott Galloway? About what was a historic increase of, I think, 500 bips in the Fed funds rate in about 15 months. And he did it. He ignored everybody, which goes back to this other notion. It's really important that the Fed maintain independence from the From the presidency, and we can talk more about that. But whenever, whenever you hear the far left or the far right agree on anything, that means go the other way.
16:28 Ed Elson? Just going back to your point there about how we sort of, we read in this data what we want to see, and that you can look at this data and depending on what you believe and depending on basically what your political opinions are, that will sort of determine your reaction and what you draw from the data. I'm going to read you some headlines here that we collected about these CPI and these PPI reports that we saw last week. So this is from Breitbart, quote, producer prices crush tariff inflation doom mongers. This is from the Daily Wire. Economists wrong again. Wholesale inflation remained unchanged in June. This is from the White House.
17:12 Ed Elson? Inflation remains right on target under President Trump. Then you compare it to something like the Washington Post, where they say, the tariff-driven inflation that economists feared begins to emerge. HuffPost, US consumer prices increases as expected in June. I've got to say, these, these sort of paint the right, the right-leaning outlets as a bit more sensationalist and cartoonish than the left. But the point being, you're seeing two very different sides, depending on what you believe. If you, if we are to believe that HuffPost and Washington Post are generally left-leaning, then perhaps that is sort of coloring what they're trying to find.
17:55 Ed Elson? And it, it brings up this, this strange dynamic here, where we're all looking at this economic data, and it's almost becoming distracting what the point of this data is, because we're also busy trying to prove our political points.
18:17 Ed Elson? And I find that to be a struggle in my own work, too, where I'm burying myself in these PPI numbers and these CPI numbers. I am trying desperately to figure out, did the tariffs have an impact? And why am I doing that? Yes, because it's important to know what impact the tariffs are having. But I'm mostly doing it because I'm like, I said this, and I want to show everyone that I'm right. And it's very difficult to not get caught in that cycle. Because if you were to take a completely unbiased perspective, or at least if you were to zoom out, what you would say is, prices rose a little bit,
18:59 Ed Elson? but not that much. And hopefully that things stay that way. Versus diving so far into it, and trying to show, this is why Trump's wrong.
19:09 Scott Galloway? You're zeroing in on one of the biggest issues facing our society, and that is how consumers interact with and shape information. And also, the economic incentives now are not to have a balanced, critical viewpoint, it's to be an extremist, and tickle people's censors. Both get, you know, have them agree with you violently because you're validating their own gut or anger, or B, inflame them such that they weigh in and get angry at you and provide more comments and more, you know, the social media algorithms love R. K. Junior. They just love the guy. Because some people are very much on board with them, and other people who maybe, I don't know, graduated from high school or ever took the
19:49 Scott Galloway? first three weeks of biology class are horrified by the guy. But the algorithms love that. They love polarization. And also, it is very difficult, because these entities have become so polarized. I mean, the reality is, there's never going to be a hit TV show called Preventive Medicine. There's ER, right? There's, I want to see, I want to see a disaster. I don't want to see the hydrologist at the San Antonio Weather Service putting in place the requisite infrastructure. I want to see disaster and anger and fights. And the news used to be boring, because critical thinking, balanced reporting is boring. And then they did point counterpoint, then that turned into CNN, it turned into Fox, and news became entertainment.
20:35 Ed Elson? Yes.
20:35 Scott Galloway? And because we now expect, we kind of know what they're going to say based on the logo, I find in our society now, the media outlet, the person, the identity of the person, Shape your view more than what is actually being said. We've just moved into this massive area of identity politics or shaping, and we aren't teaching our kids to think critically, to say, all right, be intellectually honest. Not every viewpoint from either political party is going to be right. You have an obligation to go issue by issue and acquit yourself of your own opinions. And instead, we all digress to like, oh, everything Republicans or Democrats, whatever
21:20 Scott Galloway? my team say is correct, or this person is this identity, which must mean that they're right on this, these issues and wrong on these.
21:27 Ed Elson? I like what you said about it's a point counterpoint society. Like, no piece of data, no economic indicator, even from as neutral a source as the government. And today, that sounds like I'm being sarcastic, but, you know, it should be that the CPI and the PPI is just a neutral statement about this is what is happening in the economy. But instead, it is actually becoming part of that point counterpoint system. And, you know, I could just explain why it's important to me that we prove why tariffs are being passed through in inflation and why I'm so obsessed with those CPI numbers.
22:09 Ed Elson? It's because I want to provide a counterpoint to the lie that I was told by the administration that tariffs aren't raising inflation. And I keep on being told that lie, whether it's from Donald Trump or from Scott Besant, who said that actually, you know, tariffs are moderating inflation. That's what he said after the April report. And it angers me. And so I want to come in and say, no, you're wrong, and here's the counterpoint. But it, but it is so interesting how it does seep into, into everything. And even something specific as the difference between the CPI and the PPI, who would have been talking about this five, six, seven years ago?
22:53 Ed Elson? But suddenly, this is a giant debate on Twitter, and we're all going crazy about this. And I think it does get back to probably your point at the beginning, which is, these conversations feel a lot more important than perhaps they actually are. And there are bigger things to fight about. But I think it is indicative of where we're headed. And the point counterpoint society, I think, is very true.
23:18 Scott Galloway? Well, these numbers embody that saying. And this is what we're all guilty of and increasingly guilty of is we use every point or data point like a drunk uses a lamppost for support, not illumination. Right. And that is, I'm going to backfill my narrative with everything I can and find evidence of whatever it is my narrative already is. And just to try and drill it down to a learning, what I advise young people to do is something I couldn't do when I was young. I would make an assessment of the situation, a snap judgment, put forward my opinion. And then I was all in on my opinion. And it was die on that hill. Try and it was more important to me, and this is one of my many failures as a manager. It was more important to me to convince everyone that I was right and for them to
24:01 Scott Galloway? sign up for my strategy or viewpoint than it was to actually be right. And the only way you get towards the truth is, or the best strategy is that when the data changes or you hear someone who's smarter than you on this specific domain is to be open to changing your mind. And I find is a good practice. And I did this last week on my Prof G Conversations pod with Professor Heather Cox Richardson, who I just think is a genius. We were talking about America, and I'm kind of a catastrophist about it. And she went through and she talked about how there are several points in history, the Gilded Age and everything where the threats to democracy actually strengthened our democracy and we came out of them stronger. And she had disagreed with my viewpoint.
24:43 Scott Galloway? And I'm trying to make actively the practice of saying, you're right, I'm wrong. After listening to you, I think your view is better. And it's sort of liberating to every once in a while, admit that, wait, I'm a thoughtful person. And when I, when, when presented with better evidence and changed data, that I am capable of learning and acknowledging your point. And unfortunately, the media doesn't reward you for that. The media rewards you and voters reward you for just doubling down, just saying something so fucking stupid and then leaning into it and doubling down.
25:21 Ed Elson? We'll be right back after the break with a record run for traders in 2025. If you're enjoying the show so far and you haven't subscribed, be sure to give Prof G Markets a follow wherever you get your podcasts.
25:41 Speaker 00 Are your ad campaigns lighting up the dashboard? But not the pipeline? That's bull spend, and marketers are calling it out in. Dashboard Confessions.
25:50 Speaker 01 My boss asked for results, so I opened my dashboard for the only positive sounding metric I had: impressions.
25:58 Speaker 00 Cut the bull spend. See revenue, not just reach. LinkedIn delivers the highest return on ad spend of major ad networks. Advertise on LinkedIn. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a $250 credit. Go to LinkedIn.com/campaign. Terms and conditions apply.
26:11 Speaker 02 Energía baja. Falta de concentración? Nebla mental? You might be dehydrated. Gatorade Zero Powders han sido diseñados científicamente para ayudarte a mejorar el balance de hidratación en el cuerpo. Hechos con la mezcla número uno de electrolitos, sin colores ni sabores artificiales. Shop now online or at retailers nationwide. Gatorade: Hydrates better than water. Is it in you? Signos de dehidratación leve y moderada. Consulta a tu médico si los síntomas persisten.
26:44 Speaker 03 Hey, Bose here. When your next track starts, listen for the decisions that the artist makes. The vocal pushed right up front. The bass that waits half a beat. That sample from a 70s underground gem. Every choice deliberate. With Bose, you'll hear it all. Your music deserves Bose.
27:17 Ed Elson? We're back with Prof G Markets. Retail investors traded a record $6.6 trillion worth of stocks in the first half of 2025. Massive volatility from tariffs and geopolitical conflict fueled a buy the dip mentality. Back in April, individuals bought a record $4.7 billion in stocks in one day alone as the initial tariff announcement sent markets plummeting. But second quarter earnings from the banks show institutional investors got in on the action as well, and it was a record-breaking quarter. JP Morgan stock traders posted their best Q2 ever, and Goldman Sachs delivered a historic trading revenue haul. So, Scott, let's just sort of start with...
27:58 Ed Elson? I think the bank earnings here, which we were previewing in our episode last week. Most of the banks beat on expectations and the strong point, as we thought it would be, was that the trading revenue exploded. And this is the money that the banks make when they execute the stock trades of their clients. So the numbers here, Goldman Sachs had its best ever quarter of stock trading, $4.3 billion in equity trading revenue, exceeding its estimates by $600 million. Morgan Stanley also had their best ever quarter, trading revenue up 23% year over year. Every major bank reported double-digit year-over-year gains in trading revenue. In total, you put JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citi, Morgan
28:43 Ed Elson? Stanley and Goldman Sachs, you put the trading revenue together, it was a cumulative $34 billion from executing these trades. And then you zoom out, you look at trading revenue worldwide, global trading volume hit an all-time high of $165 trillion, a daily average turnover of $2.6 trillion, up 32% year-over-year. So I think the first point that I'd like to get your reaction to is just the explosion in trading that we saw not just in Q1, but in Q2 as well. And why was that happening? Because of the volatility that was being initiated
29:24 Ed Elson? by Trump and by the administration. And so I think it is quite remarkable how much of a boon that is for brokerages and for these Wall Street banks who make money every time someone makes a trade, every time someone buys or sells a stock. Any reactions to what we saw here?
29:42 Scott Galloway? I think the way you become a billionaire, or the way you create a massive amount of shareholder value, is you invent a product that exploits a flaw. In our instincts, or specifically the fact that our instincts have not cut up to institutional production of items or technology. And the flaw in the species here that's emerging is that people, smart people who pay, who want to believe that they deserve better money management, pay a bunch of smart people to try and find signal from the noise and make trades and hedge and get in a stock and out of a stock and oh, there's opportunity in energy now and get in and out of crypto and oh, definitely sell this stock and buy this stock. And the reality is there's a huge industry that has a vested interest in tapping
30:26 Scott Galloway? into that flaw and that instinct and making you believe that if you hedge your exposure here, that's smart. If you buy this stock, that's smart, or you should sell this stock because this is happening. And this is an industry that, similar to, I would describe, the industrial food complex, basically creates a ton of activity and almost no progress. I think if people just were taught at an early age, you invest. Investing means holding for a long time and not letting your returns be eaten up by fees and be clear. You have no, nobody has any fucking idea. The basis of the markets is that with demographic growth and productivity gains from technology and democracy, that the markets will, over the
31:08 Scott Galloway? medium and long term, go up into the right. So buy assets and then don't ever sell them, don't ever trade them. But this trading volume is essentially the world freaking out about some very serious things and then believing that they can outmaneuver these shifts in the market.
31:22 Ed Elson? I think that's exactly right. And to your point, it emphasizes what, what a great thing it is to be the middleman. I mean, you look at the banks, you look at the brokerages. I mean, the banks have done phenomenally well off of this trading revenue. But you look at these brokerages, I mean, Schwab is up almost 30% year to date. Robinhood is up 170% year to date. I mean, all of this is so good for those companies. And I think it also highlights why being a bank is such a great business because, on the one hand, when there's stability, you have a great business in terms of deposits and interest
32:04 Ed Elson? and you can make nice money off of your net interest income. When there's volatility and people are going crazy, You make a bunch of money off of your trading revenue. And it's almost like what you want to do as a business, the idea, as you say, to become a billionaire is you want to put yourself in the position where you are necessary despite everything. And that's sort of what we're seeing here with all of this, all of this trading. In terms of the retail point that we made at the beginning, so retail trading is exploding. And this is a big part of the story here. Retail investors bought $270 billion worth of stocks and ETFs in the first half of 2025. According to research, that is the most in over a decade.
32:48 Ed Elson? That is from Vanda Research. JP Morgan also estimates that retail investors will buy even more stocks in the second half of this year. And if you look at just the, the share of retail investors in terms of overall market participation. Get this, at the end of April, the share of retail participation in the market reached an all time high. Thirty six percent of total order flow. And that might sound like not that much, but for comparison, prior to the pandemic, the retail share of, of market trading volume rarely went higher than 10%. And we're at 36%. So the institutional investors are still in charge of the market here.
33:32 Ed Elson? That's really the institutions, the ones that are driving most of these price increases or decreases. But it is increasingly becoming the retail investors market. We're seeing way more participation from retail and it is increasingly having an effect on the price movement of the overall market. I, I'd be curious to get your reaction to that change, which is quite a systemic change in the way global markets work. It used to kind of just be, this is Wall Street's reaction. It is increasingly, this is Wall Street's reaction and also the Reddit army's reaction and Robin Hood traders' reaction, et cetera. I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on why, how that changes things for investors going forward.
34:18 Scott Galloway? Well, the traditional wisdom is that when retail investors pile into something, you go the other way. There's, you know, they, the term they use is dumb money. I don't know if that's as true anymore because the institutional investors have underperformed the S and P by the amount of their fees. So see above a giant scam. If you see anyone advertising on CNBC, it means you should not invest. The democratization of investing is actually a good thing. Bringing people into the markets and making it easy for them to start investing, that is a good thing. And I also think that our nation is becoming slowly but surely a little bit more financially literate because, because of these, the accessibility of these investment apps and also just generally making it easier and less intimidating.
35:03 Scott Galloway? What you also have here, which is sort of a negative effect, is that I think one of the reasons that America is investing more, retail investors are a greater percentage of the total trading volume, is the same reason that America is more depressed and more anxious. And that is, it feels like everyone's making money but you. If you, you hear these stories and you maybe know someone who bought crypto, who bought Bitcoin eight years ago and is now a multimillionaire, or you hear about someone who bought Netflix, you know, 10 years ago and they've made 120 times their money. And so you start thinking, wow, I need to get in on this game. And you get seduced when every piece of information
35:45 Scott Galloway? is buy this, sell this, or you see these really compelling people on CNBC and they convince you, I'm constantly wanting to buy stocks. I hear about stuff, we talk about stuff and I think, oh, I should be investing in nuclear, I should be doing that. So the, the feel that everyone's making money but you, the sense that you know better than the market, all leads to the same thing. People are deciding and also an instinct around a lack of free play on the savanna and risk aggressiveness, especially of the young male brain. A lot of people just love.
36:17 Scott Galloway? Speculating, I mean, let's be honest, and I'm guilty of this. I know I should never do this. I buy and sell options. That's just fucking stupid. It goes against everything I'm telling everyone else to do. But I imagine it's the same thrill you get from, you know, betting on Chelsea, which by the way, brought home the trophy, Ed. Congratulations.
36:36 Ed Elson? That's right. Do you know what the trophy was called?
36:38 Scott Galloway? It's the, what is it? The world, the, the American World Cup or the Team World Cup?
36:43 Ed Elson? Club, Club World Cup, Club World Cup. The most important moment, and then we're going to get back to the stock market, but the most important moment.
36:49 Scott Galloway? Player of the match.
36:50 Ed Elson? Cole Palmer, but when he received the Player of the Match trophy from the President of the United States. That was my favorite image of the year is Cole Palmer shaking hands with Donald Trump in the middle of MetLife Stadium. I could not believe my eyes.
37:04 Scott Galloway? Yeah, my favorite image was an audio image of, of the president being booed.
37:10 Scott Galloway? It all comes back to the same thing. If these companies, these companies are exploiting a flaw in our instincts. And I'll, I'll, and where I started, buy assets, don't believe you can beat the market, work hard, be disciplined, spend less than you make, consistently put money into the market and never believe that you can outsource or you can outsmart or time the market. And that these bank earnings are a incorrect philosophy that you can respond to and protect yourself against the markets. Be clear, the market could give a shit about how smart you think you are. And I would not have bet that the market would be touching
37:55 Scott Galloway? all time highs right now. So I didn't bet. What I did was I keep investing in good companies that I want to hold for at least, at least a decade.
38:05 Ed Elson? It's so funny how the answer always comes back to Warren Buffett almost every time. It's all about value investing. It's all about staying in, buying at a good price and holding for the long term. That's always the answer. I mean, people are constantly trying to come up with the, the cheat code in investing. It's the only cheat code that has ever held up, is the, is the value investing Benjamin Graham, Warren Buffett philosophy, which is why I'm, I'm still such a big fan of him. Just one note to your point, we often hear about.
38:38 Ed Elson? The success stories, we rarely hear about all the people who lose money. And so that's, that's something that I think needs, probably needs more attention. But retail investors bought the dip. They bought $36 billion in March, then they bought $40 billion in April. Record buys and the S and P is up nearly 30% since we hit that bottom in April. So retail investors might've done pretty well so far. We'll see what happens over the next year or so. And just to look at what, what they are buying, this is according to Business Insider. The top three buys among retail investors right now are one Nvidia. So they're crushing there. Two Tesla, not crushing.
39:20 Ed Elson? And three, and this is good news, the S and P 500. So I think right now, most retail investors are actually sitting pretty. All time highs. Exactly. We'll be right back after the break with a look at the biggest monopoly that no one is talking about. If you're enjoying the show so far, hit follow and leave us a review on Prof G Markets.
39:53 Speaker 00 Flowing ad budget on metrics that look great till the CFO sees them. That's bull spend and marketers are calling it out in Dashboard Confessions.
40:02 Speaker 01 I remember telling my boss, it'll be good for the brand when leads were slow. Yeah, it, it wasn't.
40:10 Speaker 00 Cut the bull spend. LinkedIn lets you target by company, job title and more. Advertise on LinkedIn. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a $250 credit. Go to LinkedIn.com slash campaign. Terms and conditions apply.
40:23 Speaker 02 Energía baja, falta de concentración, nebla mental. You might be dehydrated. Gatorade Zero powders han sido diseñados científicamente para ayudarte a mejorar el balance de hidratación en el cuerpo. Hechos con la mezcla número uno de electrolitos, sin colores ni sabores artificiales. Shop now online or at retailers nationwide. Gatorade hydrates better than water. Is it in you? Signos de dehidratación leve y moderada. Consulta a tu médico si los síntomas persisten.
40:56 Speaker 03 Hey, Bose here. When your next track starts, listen for the decisions that the artist makes. The vocal pushed right up front. The bass that waits half a beat. That sample from a 70s underground gem. Every choice deliberate. With Bose, you'll hear it all. Your music deserves Bose.
41:27 Ed Elson? We're back with Prof G Markets. The next batch of Amazon's Project Kuiper satellites launched last week on SpaceX's Falcon 9. This move was crucial as Amazon must deploy half of its Kuiper satellite constellation by next summer to meet FCC requirements. The partnership follows with three launch deals struck in December 2023, and that agreement came together just weeks after Amazon shareholders filed a lawsuit alleging the company unfairly excluded SpaceX from its initial round of launch contracts. So it's got a kind of an interesting partnership going on here. You've got Project Kuiper, which is Amazon's satellite project, which is using infrastructure
42:10 Ed Elson? that is built by SpaceX. And SpaceX obviously owns Starlink, and those are the two main competitors in the satellite space right now. So you have two competitors that are joining forces. So it's kind of a strange move for Amazon. You would think that they would be trying to avoid using SpaceX rockets to get their satellites up into space. And then on the SpaceX side, you would think that SpaceX would avoid shooting up those Amazon satellites into space because SpaceX wants to own the satellite network. So an interesting partnership between two fierce competitors in the space industry. Break down for us why this is happening.
42:54 Scott Galloway? So the best and the worst products of the last five years are both from the same person. And that is, I think the worst product of the last five years is the Tesla Cybertruck. I think it is just so fucking stupid, overpriced. It's like exceptionally expensive but bad, almost like a parody. It reminds me of that car that Homer Simpson designed in one of those episodes or something that's like a bad. It's not like something you'd see at Universal Studios and they laugh. Remember Battlestar Galactica in the eighties? Yeah, and the, the market has spoken, this thing is kind of over before it started. Uh, maybe with the exception, maybe the worst product launch would be the Oculus or, uh, the mixed reality headset from Apple.
43:36 Scott Galloway? But the best product you could argue is either Starlink or if you were going to be trying to sound smarter, the Falcon Heavy Rocket, the Falcon nine, because it can put shit into, it can, the ability to put stuff into space is incredibly important. There's a huge market and it's a growing market and it's really, really expensive. I mean, essentially you have, what SpaceX, their Falcon Heavy, they can put shit into the low Earth orbit for $1,500 a kilogram. And the closest competitor, the Ariane 5G out of Europe is $9,000 per kilogram. So this is in terms of, uh, innovation, leadership, incredible vision,
44:19 Scott Galloway? and a product that is just miles ahead of everybody else with huge modes. Uh, I would say, okay, it's Starlink, but maybe really it's the Falcon Heavy Rocket that can just get shit into space faster than anyone. What happened here is that I believe both, both organizations saw good reasons to work together despite the fact I think they hate each other. And that is, okay, Amazon is trying to build out the satellite network. Uh, SpaceX's ability to get those satellites into space is just far superior than any competitor. So their shareholders are saying, all right, if you need to put satellites into space, you have a fiduciary obligation, your shareholders, to get them into space for the lowest cost possible, regardless of how distasteful you find the company or the person.
45:04 Scott Galloway? At the same time, in 2024, SpaceX conducted 52% of all global orbital launches and launched 84% of all satellites by mass.
45:16 Scott Galloway? So if you think that space or everything other than Earth in the entire universe might offer economic and geopolitical advantage at some point, and one company controlling this much of it is probably not a good idea. And my guess is, is that the good lawyers at SpaceX said, hey, Elon, you realize at some point, the FTC and the DOJ, specifically now that you've decided to accuse the president of being a pedophile every seven minutes on Twitter, at some point, the FTC and the DOJ are going to notice that we have the strongest monopoly in history on what may be actually, literally and figuratively, the final frontier. And so they said, one way to avoid scrutiny, or a good data point,
45:56 Scott Galloway? would be, we are leasing this capacity out to other firms, including our competitors. And what it reminds me of is the, I don't know if it was a consent decree or DOJ, but basically, the entire telco network in the United States, or at least the land-based network, is controlled by, it's either two or three companies, AT&T, Verizon, and I think, I don't know if T-Mobile rents it or has their own. But the ability to cover the United States with cell towers is pretty expensive. And so they've granted them that kind of oligopoly power, duopoly power, and said, it's okay. But what you have to do is rent it or lease it out to other MVNOs that want to start a telco, and you have to give them, give it to them at a market price. So for example, Mint Mobile, which
46:40 Scott Galloway? is a sponsor of this podcast, they didn't make a, you know, $100 billion investment in cell towers and networks and routing equipment. They're renting the network under a consent decree where it said, you have to rent this infrastructure out. Because I think that's what's going to happen potentially at SpaceX, is there will be some sort of agreement where it says, okay, if you're going to control space, you have to offer other people the ability to have commercial applications in space.
47:08 Ed Elson? This whole story highlights exactly this point, which is probably the most dominant monopoly in the world right now, is SpaceX. And, you know, you think about what happened here between Amazon and SpaceX. Amazon didn't want to use those SpaceX
47:26 Ed Elson? Rockets. And so they were trying to go with Blue Origin and then the shareholders sue Amazon and say, this is ridiculous. You can do a Falcon Heavy for 20% of the price. So Amazon has no choice but to go with SpaceX because of SpaceX's monopoly power and its ability to keep prices low. On the SpaceX side, SpaceX actually has to say yes to Amazon to sell those contracts because while yes, you can, as a seller of a service, you can choose who your customers are, you can't do it if it is to preserve monopoly power. And I think you're exactly right. The lawyers at SpaceX say, hey, we can't just say no to Amazon because the FTC
48:08 Ed Elson? is going to look at it and they're going to rightly confirm that the reason you're saying no to Amazon is because you are trying to preserve this monopoly that you have on the space industry. And I just want to go over some of those stats again. So there were 154 orbital launch attempts in the US last year. SpaceX made up 87% of those, 134 launches. It's up from 96 in 2023, more launches than the rest of the world combined. Of the roughly 10,000 satellites that are actively orbiting the earth right now, SpaceX owns 60% of them and they are planning to increase that to 30,000. You look at Amazon, which is the next best competitor, we talked about this on the Daily Show, it doesn't offer any internet service right now.
48:54 Ed Elson? So it appears that what we have right now and what this story is actually highlighting through the fact that they are being forced to kind of partner up with each other, this is like the most dominant monopoly we've seen in a really long time. And it's so dominant when you look at the relationship with the government where it's not just that the government's buying from SpaceX, they actively depend on it. You've got the military, you've got NATO allies that are using Starlink to be connected for real time connectivity, which is important for their military operations. We saw what happened when Elon threatened to turn off Starlink for Ukraine. And it makes me think that this is like, when we talk about what makes a great investment.
49:41 Ed Elson? A monopoly power that is essential for humanity. This to me looks like kind of the greatest investment in the world right now. We'd have to look at the pricing. It's selling for $400 billion market cap right now. But in terms of just pure monopoly power and pure utility and a human need to connect and use internet services and use satellites. I feel like SpaceX is an incredible investment.
50:11 Scott Galloway? Yeah, so if you think about the two companies in the hottest categories that have just dominant share, the two you would zero in on would be OpenAI, which now controls about 90% of, I mean, every, every day, despite the press releases and all the hires making a hundred million dollars to come work at Meta. Every day, the market seems to be rewarding more and more share to ChatGPT and OpenAI. It does feel like they're running away with it. And what's interesting is they have about the same value in the private markets as SpaceX.
50:41 Ed Elson? Yes.
50:42 Scott Galloway? The difference is, I would argue, is that SpaceX has bigger moats. I think that Claude, like I use Claude, whenever I have a question or I do, I use both Claude and ChatGPT. And I can see Lama or someone else coming out of nowhere with a vastly, you know, improved product or even a DeepSeek or what have you, and, and starting to take share pretty quickly from ChatGPT, whereas I don't see anybody right now coming for getting close to what the Falcon Heavy Rocket can do in terms of launch to cost ratio right now.
51:17 Ed Elson? The way that Project Kuiper is trying to compete, they have to pay SpaceX to compete. I mean, it's, it's unbelievable.
51:24 Scott Galloway? What you're saying, just going a little bit more, Jason, is what you see is the most overvalued company in the world, I believe, is Tesla. And also arguably the most overvalued media company is X. And what he's trying to do is he realizes he could very easily lose $900 billion in market cap on Tesla. So what I think he's going to start to do is conglomerate them. And put them all under this kind of AI umbrella of XAI and then maybe merge them or get them closer to SpaceX because the only way to salvage that trillion dollar valuation that Tesla has, which is about 950 billion of overvalued, will be to confuse
52:05 Scott Galloway? the marketplace and say, no, it's not an auto company. It's an AI slash space company. It's in autonomous and collecting data and putting satellites which collect data from my data farm of Twitter, which informs my autonomous driving, which is all based on this infrastructure of unique that SpaceX, I think he's going to create what Kara Swisher, my pivot podcast co-host, a traducan here, and that is a multiple headed Hydra where he attempts to use the spin of or the umbrella aspirational feel of AI around an amazing growing product that has unbelievable modes called SpaceX to prop up some shitty assets
52:47 Scott Galloway? that are going to decline massively in value unless he does something specifically Twitter and SpaceX and also his autonomous, which is it's so far, it's like gone nowhere.
52:56 Ed Elson? That point on Tesla isn't just a car company. It's something bigger. I don't buy, and I don't think we need to relitigate that. I think we all know why I don't buy it and I don't think you buy it. But when you look at SpaceX, that's a company where you could argue this isn't just a space company. This is like, in my view, this is a telco company. The same way that you was pointing out how AT&T and how Verizon make money. I mean, this is the trajectory that SpaceX is on and they are actively generating revenue from these businesses. They are actively becoming systemic to society in a way that it feels like it doesn't get often doesn't get enough credit for. People try to make
53:41 Ed Elson? that point with Tesla. I don't think it holds. But if you were to make it with SpaceX, I think it's a lot more compelling. And you just look at the valuation now, $400 billion, more valuable than Johnson & Johnson, more valuable than Bank of America. It's still private, but this is among the top 25 most valuable companies in the world now. It is now the biggest source of Elon Musk's wealth, which I find just fascinating. And I think it makes sense because of how dominant they are.
54:11 Scott Galloway? It's an incredible company. Of all the products I've used. You know, occasionally have those aha moments. And again, this goes back to being critical thinkers. I do not like the man I think is now no longer. I'm not, is he still a net positive? Probably, but anyways, not a huge fan.
54:27 Ed Elson? He's, he's even.
54:28 Scott Galloway? But if you're a critical thinker and you like, and you want to call balls and strikes. I think Starlink is the most impressive product I've used in the last decade. I just can't, I just can't. When you're on a plane, we did, I dialed in for one of my guest appearances on this show from a plane from.
54:49 Ed Elson? You, you have said before that you do the FaceTime with your son from the Starlink in the plane and it's crystal clear. I was shocked by the footage when we called you from the plane. I mean, it was, it was clearer than when you were on the ground by, by orders of magnitude.
55:09 Scott Galloway? It's just striking. And then you drill down to an artillery or a drone's ability to zero in on the heat that's created by the, the, the firing of a, of a shell from a piece of artillery and the ability to immediately zero in on that heat, upload it to data to a satellite and then send it back to the guidance system of a drone, which has created this asymmetric warfare world that where, where $300 drones are taking out $3 million tanks. I mean, just the implications of that kind of broadband are people, people can't even begin to imagine just the layers of economic opportunity and influence of having that kind of control
55:54 Scott Galloway? or your hand on the windpipe of, of, of broadband and data transmission. And they have it. It's just, it's an incredible product. It's almost as amazing as the Cybertruck is fucking stupid. Calling balls and strikes, Ed.
56:11 Ed Elson? We got to figure out how to make you a SpaceX investor. I know that Kimball, Elon's brother is a fan. Maybe that's the way in.
56:17 Scott Galloway? Seems like a nice man. That trauma went the right way with, with Kimball. Yeah, no, something, something went right. I think he decided, no, I'm not going to do that.
56:27 Ed Elson? He went to therapy.
56:28 Scott Galloway? But yeah, I like him. I don't know him well, but anyway, seems like a fun guy. I'd like to party with him. Maybe the three of us will go out.
56:33 Ed Elson? I'd love that. I can't wait.
56:35 Scott Galloway? Kimball, call us.
56:39 Ed Elson? Okay, let's take a look at the week ahead. We will see earnings from Coca-Cola, SAP, Google and Tesla. We'll also get a read on the housing market with new and existing home sales data for June. Scott, any predictions this week?
56:58 Scott Galloway? I think that more than tariff policy, more than economic policy, more than focusing on trying to find, you know, a post-conflict peacekeeping force in Gaza and rebuild that region, more than thinking about what's going to happen to the 14 million people who are about to lose their healthcare. I think that the president and his top staff are spending more time on the following than any other issue. I think there's a group of some very intelligent, talented people in a room that with the use of AI are going, what can we put out into the news and media ecosystem tomorrow that will distract them from Epstein? All right, write a letter saying we're firing Chairman Powell and then wave the letter,
57:42 Scott Galloway? knowing everyone, every media company will see it as catnip. And then when the markets freak out, the next day, go on and say, no, just kidding. So we can occupy and distract for two days from Epstein. Oh, wait, I know. Say that Rosie O'Donnell is a threat to humanity and we're revoking her citizenship. Okay, that would never work. You can't do that. That would be rejected. Doesn't matter. It'll get people talking about it and it is not Epstein. 85% tariff. You are going to see every 24 hours for the next seven to 14 days, something ridiculous, hollow and empty that will have absolutely no chance of being implemented, come out
58:26 Scott Galloway? of the White House. It'll be ridiculous, incendiary, more the better, and the media will immediately go for it. It's like when a magician who is sawing his assistant in half yells out Benghazi or we're at the Nuremberg trials and a witness that's about to get cross-examined starts playing the kazoo, hoping that no one will, you know, that we'll all forget why we are there. You are about to see the most ridiculous weapons of mass distraction come out of the White House. Every 24 hours for the next seven days, and I want to track them and talk about them. But my prediction is over the next three or four days, a bunch of unexpected weirdness
59:05 Scott Galloway? every 24 hours that has absolutely no veracity, absolutely no possibility of being implemented, but is there for one reason to get us to look away from the fact that the president, who's not only his MAGA fans, not only the country, seemed to have forgave him for being found guilty of sexual abuse, is more worried about what these files say about him.
59:33 Ed Elson? I totally agree with you. I want to get another prediction from you. Will they look away? In other words, will that work? Or is this the end of the psyop from Trump?
59:49 Scott Galloway? Every time I think this is the red line and he's crossed it, mocking the disabled, joking about grabbing a woman's genitals. Every time I thought he's crossed a red line, I was wrong. And so I'm sticking with that. And that is, this cult is so strong, I think he calls Dan Bongino and says, Dan, get in fucking line. And I think he says, yes, Mr. President.
1:00:13 Ed Elson? It's so interesting because you're exactly right. We always think this is the big one and then it never is. I think this is the big one. I mean, this Epstein thing is the entire culmination of the deep state narrative that the world and America is controlled by this small group of people who operate in these strange rings with pedophilia and blackmail. And that was really what this whole movement was all about. And it is just the perfect story. It is the perfect encapsulation of all of the hypocrisy. And it's so plain for everyone to see right here. It would have been different if he said nothing about
1:00:55 Ed Elson? this Epstein stuff. If he just sort of let it disintegrate and fall into nothingness. But the trouble is, he's gone out there and he has actively said, no, look away. We don't want to release these files.
1:01:08 Scott Galloway? He literally, if a comms consultant had said, We want to make you look as guilty as possible. This is the things you do. That's what he has done. He, he looks like my Great Dane Leia. When I walk into the kitchen and she's gotten in the trash, she won't even look me in the eye. And she turns around and she starts like sulking away. Like if, if I don't make eye contact with him, I'm invisible. He's my Great Dane right now. He could not look more guilty.
1:01:38 Ed Elson? This episode was produced by Claire Miller and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producer is Allison Weiss. Mia Severio is our research lead. Our research associates are Isabella Kinsel and Dan Shalane. Drew Burrows is our technical director and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to Prof G Markets from the Vox Media Podcast Network. Tune in tomorrow for a fresh take on the markets.
1:02:39 Scott Galloway? Where are you headed, Ed?
1:02:41 Ed Elson? MSNBC.
1:02:48 Scott Galloway? Who are you on with today?
1:02:51 Ed Elson? I'm not gonna tell you.
1:02:52 Scott Galloway? Oh, that, tell her I said hello. Tell her I said hello. Oh my God. I'm headed to MSNBC. Jesus Christ. You're literally a fucking cliche. And I gotta give it to you. We, we should absolutely do like devote two or three minutes to reviewing your most recent MSNBC hit.
1:03:15 Ed Elson? Okay.
1:03:16 Scott Galloway? I'm, I'm, I'm actually not surprised. I love you. You're really good on that show.
1:03:20 Ed Elson? Thank you.
1:03:21 Scott Galloway? How about it?
1:03:22 Ed Elson? Thank you, boss.
1:03:23 Scott Galloway? Tell Katie I said hello.
1:03:24 Ed Elson? I will.
1:03:24 Scott Galloway? And that I'm a bit jealous that, uh, that you're now the, the side piece and I'm literally at home cooking for our family, staying loyal to MSNBC as she's off taking you to the Bahamas and getting fucked up. And, you know, it's, she needs to come back to the, to the people who attracted all those seven year old white women.
1:03:50 Scott Galloway? By the way, I hope they're recording us. This is comedy gold.
1:03:52 Ed Elson? It is comedy gold.
Previous The Biggest Risks and Opportunities in Latin America — ft. Monica de Bolle Next Is Netflix Overvalued? LVMH Bets on Private Jets & Crypto Custody Firm BitGo Files for an IPO Page updated October 4, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated
