Podcast appearances and mentions of Lina Khan

Is the key to freedom a life without Amazon? This week, Ross talks to Lina Khan, former Chair of the Federal Trade Commission about how unchecked corporate power has limited choice in our day-to-day lives, and how her fight against Big Tech unites left and right.02:41 - What's wrong with big business?09:27 - The political costs of corporate consolidation11:39 - How the 2008 financial crisis shaped Lina Khan's philosophy17:49 - The antitrust consensus from Reagan to Obama21:54 - How the left and right align against big business 26:12 - Khan's wins and losses at the FTC 36:53 - Is the Trump administration embracing or rejecting Khan's vision?42:32 - Is anti-monopoly policy the solution to our economic problems?48:38 - Can Big Tech be broken up?(A full transcript of this episode is available on the Times website.) Thoughts? Email us at interestingtimes@nytimes.com. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Lina Khan has inspired an unusually bipartisan coalition of allies — and antagonists. As chair of the Federal Trade Commission, she became known as the most hated regulator on Wall Street. As too principled for Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Too bold for Ticketmaster and the NCAA. But Khan isn't done taking on the corporate class — or finding strange bedfellows like Steve Bannon and Michael Jordan. Can her alleged "hipster anti-trust" movement inspire a "standing army" for the people? And could she be our next Supreme Court justice? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lina Khan has inspired an unusually bipartisan coalition of allies — and antagonists. As chair of the Federal Trade Commission, she became known as the most hated regulator on Wall Street. As too principled for Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Too bold for Ticketmaster and the NCAA. But Khan isn't done taking on the corporate class — or finding strange bedfellows like Steve Bannon and Michael Jordan. Can her alleged "hipster anti-trust" movement inspire a "standing army" for the people? And could she be our next Supreme Court justice? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey everyone, it's Nilay. Decoder is on a short summer break right now, but we'll be back starting June 23 with new episodes, and we're very excited for what we have on the schedule.  In the meantime, we have an episode from the excellent podcast Stay Tuned with Preet, with host and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. Last month, Preet sat down with former FTC Chair Lina Khan for a pretty high-level discussion about antitrust, monopoly power, and the ongoing shift from both political parties in the United States toward more aggressive, bipartisan regulation of Big Tech. I think you'll find it really interesting.    Links:  Stay Tuned with Preet | Apple Podcasts Google loses ad tech monopoly case | Verge Judge greenlights FTC's antitrust suit against Amazon | Verge Judge rules that Google ‘is a monopolist' in US antitrust case | Verge Illegally fired FTC commissioners on Meta, bribes, and fighting for privacy | Decoder The case for breaking up Google has never been stronger | Decoder DOJ antitrust chief is ‘overjoyed' after Google monopoly verdict | Decoder DOJ's Kanter says the antitrust fight against Big Tech is just beginning  | Decoder Credits: Decoder is a production of The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Our producers are Kate Cox and Nick Statt. Our editor is Ursa Wright.  The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Why should any of us care about monopolies? Lina Khan, the youngest-ever chair of the Federal Trade Commission, joins Preet to discuss the real-world impact of monopoly power, the surprising bipartisan support for antitrust enforcement, and her rapid rise to prominence after publishing a groundbreaking paper on Amazon's business practices during law school. Plus, Preet answers questions about the qualifications to become Surgeon General, Kid Rock's restaurant, and Bruce Springsteen. Join the Insider community to stay informed without the hysteria, fear-mongering, or rage-baiting. Sign up on our website, or find us on Substack. Thank you for supporting our work. Show notes and a transcript of the episode are available on our website.  You can now watch this episode! Head to the Stay Tuned Youtube channel and subscribe. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

My guest on this episode of the podcast is Brian Albrecht, the Chief Economist at the International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE). Brian holds a PhD in Economics from the University of Minnesota and is an expert on antitrust and consumer protection.In this episode, Brian and I deliberate on the importance and application of antitrust law, as well as the current state of antitrust enforcement in the United States. Among other topics, we discuss:The purpose of antitrust enforcement;The tools that exist to combat monopoly abuses;The Neo-Brandesian worldview;How FTC Chair Ferguson may approach antitrust differently from his predecessor, Lina Khan;Why tariffs are disruptive to an economy;Why the impact of tariffs tends to be underestimated (see this post and this post from Brian for more on the economic dynamics of tariffs).Thanks to the sponsors of this week's episode of the Mobile Dev Memo podcast:ContextSDK. ContextSDK uses over 200 smartphone signals to detect a user's real-world context, allowing apps to deliver perfectly timed push notifications and in-app offers.INCRMNTAL⁠⁠. True attribution measures incrementality, always on.Interested in sponsoring the Mobile Dev Memo podcast? Contact ⁠Marketecture⁠.

Why should any of us care about monopolies? Lina Khan, the youngest-ever chair of the Federal Trade Commission, joins Preet to discuss the real-world impact of monopoly power, the surprising bipartisan support for antitrust enforcement, and her rapid rise to prominence after publishing a groundbreaking paper on Amazon's business practices during law school. Plus, Preet answers questions about the qualifications to become Surgeon General, Kid Rock's restaurant, and Bruce Springsteen. Join the Insider community to stay informed without the hysteria, fear-mongering, or rage-baiting. Sign up on our website, or find us on Substack. Thank you for supporting our work. Show notes and a transcript of the episode are available on our website.  You can now watch this episode! Head to the Stay Tuned Youtube channel and subscribe. Have a question for Preet? Ask @PreetBharara on BlueSky, or Twitter with the hashtag #AskPreet. Email us at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 833-99-PREET to leave a voicemail. Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Yesterday, the self-styled San Francisco “progressive” Joan Williams was on the show arguing that Democrats need to relearn the language of the American working class. But, as some of you have noted, Williams seems oblivious to the fact that politics is about more than simply aping other people's language. What you say matters, and the language of American working class, like all industrial working classes, is rooted in a critique of capitalism. She should probably read the New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy's excellent new book, Capitalism and its Critics, which traces capitalism's evolution and criticism from the East India Company through modern times. He defines capitalism as production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets, encompassing various forms from Chinese state capitalism to hyper-globalization. The book examines capitalism's most articulate critics including the Luddites, Marx, Engels, Thomas Carlisle, Adam Smith, Rosa Luxemburg, Keynes & Hayek, and contemporary figures like Sylvia Federici and Thomas Piketty. Cassidy explores how major economists were often critics of their era's dominant capitalist model, and untangles capitalism's complicated relationship with colonialism, slavery and AI which he regards as a potentially unprecedented economic disruption. This should be essential listening for all Democrats seeking to reinvent a post Biden-Harris party and message. 5 key takeaways* Capitalism has many forms - From Chinese state capitalism to Keynesian managed capitalism to hyper-globalization, all fitting the basic definition of production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets.* Great economists are typically critics - Smith criticized mercantile capitalism, Keynes critiqued laissez-faire capitalism, and Hayek/Friedman opposed managed capitalism. Each generation's leading economists challenge their era's dominant model.* Modern corporate structure has deep roots - The East India Company was essentially a modern multinational corporation with headquarters, board of directors, stockholders, and even a private army - showing capitalism's organizational continuity across centuries.* Capitalism is intertwined with colonialism and slavery - Industrial capitalism was built on pre-existing colonial and slave systems, particularly through the cotton industry and plantation economies.* AI represents a potentially unprecedented disruption - Unlike previous technological waves, AI may substitute rather than complement human labor on a massive scale, potentially creating political backlash exceeding even the "China shock" that contributed to Trump's rise.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. A couple of days ago, we did a show with Joan Williams. She has a new book out, "Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back." A book about language, about how to talk to the American working class. She also had a piece in Jacobin Magazine, an anti-capitalist magazine, about how the left needs to speak to what she calls average American values. We talked, of course, about Bernie Sanders and AOC and their language of fighting oligarchy, and the New York Times followed that up with "The Enduring Power of Anti-Capitalism in American Politics."But of course, that brings the question: what exactly is capitalism? I did a little bit of research. We can find definitions of capitalism from AI, from Wikipedia, even from online dictionaries, but I thought we might do a little better than relying on Wikipedia and come to a man who's given capitalism and its critics a great deal of thought. John Cassidy is well known as a staff writer at The New Yorker. He's the author of a wonderful book, the best book, actually, on the dot-com insanity. And his new book, "Capitalism and its Critics," is out this week. John, congratulations on the book.So I've got to be a bit of a schoolmaster with you, John, and get some definitions first. What exactly is capitalism before we get to criticism of it?John Cassidy: Yeah, I mean, it's a very good question, Andrew. Obviously, through the decades, even the centuries, there have been many different definitions of the term capitalism and there are different types of capitalism. To not be sort of too ideological about it, the working definition I use is basically production for profit—that could be production of goods or mostly in the new and, you know, in today's economy, production of services—for profit by companies which are privately owned in markets. That's a very sort of all-encompassing definition.Within that, you can have all sorts of different types of capitalism. You can have Chinese state capitalism, you can have the old mercantilism, which industrial capitalism came after, which Trump seems to be trying to resurrect. You can have Keynesian managed capitalism that we had for 30 or 40 years after the Second World War, which I grew up in in the UK. Or you can have sort of hyper-globalization, hyper-capitalism that we've tried for the last 30 years. There are all those different varieties of capitalism consistent with a basic definition, I think.Andrew Keen: That keeps you busy, John. I know you started this project, which is a big book and it's a wonderful book. I read it. I don't always read all the books I have on the show, but I read from cover to cover full of remarkable stories of the critics of capitalism. You note in the beginning that you began this in 2016 with the beginnings of Trump. What was it about the 2016 election that triggered a book about capitalism and its critics?John Cassidy: Well, I was reporting on it at the time for The New Yorker and it struck me—I covered, I basically covered the economy in various forms for various publications since the late 80s, early 90s. In fact, one of my first big stories was the stock market crash of '87. So yes, I am that old. But it seemed to me in 2016 when you had Bernie Sanders running from the left and Trump running from the right, but both in some way offering very sort of similar critiques of capitalism. People forget that Trump in 2016 actually was running from the left of the Republican Party. He was attacking big business. He was attacking Wall Street. He doesn't do that these days very much, but at the time he was very much posing as the sort of outsider here to protect the interests of the average working man.And it seemed to me that when you had this sort of pincer movement against the then ruling model, this wasn't just a one-off. It seemed to me it was a sort of an emerging crisis of legitimacy for the system. And I thought there could be a good book written about how we got to here. And originally I thought it would be a relatively short book just based on the last sort of 20 or 30 years since the collapse of the Cold War and the sort of triumphalism of the early 90s.But as I got into it more and more, I realized that so many of the issues which had been raised, things like globalization, rising inequality, monopoly power, exploitation, even pollution and climate change, these issues go back to the very start of the capitalist system or the industrial capitalist system back in sort of late 18th century, early 19th century Britain. So I thought, in the end, I thought, you know what, let's just do the whole thing soup to nuts through the eyes of the critics.There have obviously been many, many histories of capitalism written. I thought that an original way to do it, or hopefully original, would be to do a sort of a narrative through the lives and the critiques of the critics of various stages. So that's, I hope, what sets it apart from other books on the subject, and also provides a sort of narrative frame because, you know, I am a New Yorker writer, I realize if you want people to read things, you've got to make it readable. Easiest way to make things readable is to center them around people. People love reading about other people. So that's sort of the narrative frame. I start off with a whistleblower from the East India Company back in the—Andrew Keen: Yeah, I want to come to that. But before, John, my sense is that to simplify what you're saying, this is a labor of love. You're originally from Leeds, the heart of Yorkshire, the center of the very industrial revolution, the first industrial revolution where, in your historical analysis, capitalism was born. Is it a labor of love? What's your family relationship with capitalism? How long was the family in Leeds?John Cassidy: Right, I mean that's a very good question. It is a labor of love in a way, but it's not—our family doesn't go—I'm from an Irish family, family of Irish immigrants who moved to England in the 1940s and 1950s. So my father actually did start working in a big mill, the Kirkstall Forge in Leeds, which is a big steel mill, and he left after seeing one of his co-workers have his arms chopped off in one of the machinery, so he decided it wasn't for him and he spent his life working in the construction industry, which was dominated by immigrants as it is here now.So I don't have a—it's not like I go back to sort of the start of the industrial revolution, but I did grow up in the middle of Leeds, very working class, very industrial neighborhood. And what a sort of irony is, I'll point out, I used to, when I was a kid, I used to play golf on a municipal golf course called Gotts Park in Leeds, which—you know, most golf courses in America are sort of in the affluent suburbs, country clubs. This was right in the middle of Armley in Leeds, which is where the Victorian jail is and a very rough neighborhood. There's a small bit of land which they built a golf course on. It turns out it was named after one of the very first industrialists, Benjamin Gott, who was a wool and textile industrialist, and who played a part in the Luddite movement, which I mention.So it turns out, I was there when I was 11 or 12, just learning how to play golf on this scrappy golf course. And here I am, 50 years later, writing about Benjamin Gott at the start of the Industrial Revolution. So yeah, no, sure. I think it speaks to me in a way that perhaps it wouldn't to somebody else from a different background.Andrew Keen: We did a show with William Dalrymple, actually, a couple of years ago. He's been on actually since, the Anglo or Scottish Indian historian. His book on the East India Company, "The Anarchy," is a classic. You begin in some ways your history of capitalism with the East India Company. What was it about the East India Company, John, that makes it different from other for-profit organizations in economic, Western economic history?John Cassidy: I mean, I read that. It's a great book, by the way. That was actually quoted in my chapter on these. Yeah, I remember. I mean, the reason I focused on it was for two reasons. Number one, I was looking for a start, a narrative start to the book. And it seemed to me, you know, the obvious place to start is with the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at economics history textbooks, that's where they always start with Arkwright and all the inventors, you know, who were the sort of techno-entrepreneurs of their time, the sort of British Silicon Valley, if you could think of it as, in Lancashire and Derbyshire in the late 18th century.So I knew I had to sort of start there in some way, but I thought that's a bit pat. Is there another way into it? And it turns out that in 1772 in England, there was a huge bailout of the East India Company, very much like the sort of 2008, 2009 bailout of Wall Street. The company got into trouble. So I thought, you know, maybe there's something there. And I eventually found this guy, William Bolts, who worked for the East India Company, turned into a whistleblower after he was fired for finagling in India like lots of the people who worked for the company did.So that gave me two things. Number one, it gave me—you know, I'm a writer, so it gave me something to focus on a narrative. His personal history is very interesting. But number two, it gave me a sort of foundation because industrial capitalism didn't come from nowhere. You know, it was built on top of a pre-existing form of capitalism, which we now call mercantile capitalism, which was very protectionist, which speaks to us now. But also it had these big monopolistic multinational companies.The East India Company, in some ways, was a very modern corporation. It had a headquarters in Leadenhall Street in the city of London. It had a board of directors, it had stockholders, the company sent out very detailed instructions to the people in the field in India and Indonesia and Malaysia who were traders who bought things from the locals there, brought them back to England on their company ships. They had a company army even to enforce—to protect their operations there. It was an incredible multinational corporation.So that was also, I think, fascinating because it showed that even in the pre-existing system, you know, big corporations existed, there were monopolies, they had royal monopolies given—first the East India Company got one from Queen Elizabeth. But in some ways, they were very similar to modern monopolistic corporations. And they had some of the problems we've seen with modern monopolistic corporations, the way they acted. And Bolts was the sort of first corporate whistleblower, I thought. Yeah, that was a way of sort of getting into the story, I think. Hopefully, you know, it's just a good read, I think.William Bolts's story because he was—he came from nowhere, he was Dutch, he wasn't even English and he joined the company as a sort of impoverished young man, went to India like a lot of English minor aristocrats did to sort of make your fortune. The way the company worked, you had to sort of work on company time and make as much money as you could for the company, but then in your spare time you're allowed to trade for yourself. So a lot of the—without getting into too much detail, but you know, English aristocracy was based on—you know, the eldest child inherits everything, so if you were the younger brother of the Duke of Norfolk, you actually didn't inherit anything. So all of these minor aristocrats, so major aristocrats, but who weren't first born, joined the East India Company, went out to India and made a fortune, and then came back and built huge houses. Lots of the great manor houses in southern England were built by people from the East India Company and they were known as Nabobs, which is an Indian term. So they were the sort of, you know, billionaires of their time, and it was based on—as I say, it wasn't based on industrial capitalism, it was based on mercantile capitalism.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the beginning of the book, which focuses on Bolts and the East India Company, brings to mind for me two things. Firstly, the intimacy of modern capitalism, modern industrial capitalism with colonialism and of course slavery—lots of books have been written on that. Touch on this and also the relationship between the birth of capitalism and the birth of liberalism or democracy. John Stuart Mill, of course, the father in many ways of Western democracy. His day job, ironically enough, or perhaps not ironically, was at the East India Company. So how do those two things connect, or is it just coincidental?John Cassidy: Well, I don't think it is entirely coincidental, I mean, J.S. Mill—his father, James Mill, was also a well-known philosopher in the sort of, obviously, in the earlier generation, earlier than him. And he actually wrote the official history of the East India Company. And I think they gave his son, the sort of brilliant protégé, J.S. Mill, a job as largely as a sort of sinecure, I think. But he did go in and work there in the offices three or four days a week.But I think it does show how sort of integral—the sort of—as you say, the inheritor and the servant in Britain, particularly, of colonial capitalism was. So the East India Company was, you know, it was in decline by that stage in the middle of the 19th century, but it didn't actually give up its monopoly. It wasn't forced to give up its monopoly on the Indian trade until 1857, after, you know, some notorious massacres and there was a sort of public outcry.So yeah, no, that's—it's very interesting that the British—it's sort of unique to Britain in a way, but it's interesting that industrial capitalism arose alongside this pre-existing capitalist structure and somebody like Mill is a sort of paradoxical figure because actually he was quite critical of aspects of industrial capitalism and supported sort of taxes on the rich, even though he's known as the great, you know, one of the great apostles of the free market and free market liberalism. And his day job, as you say, he was working for the East India Company.Andrew Keen: What about the relationship between the birth of industrial capitalism, colonialism and slavery? Those are big questions and I know you deal with them in some—John Cassidy: I think you can't just write an economic history of capitalism now just starting with the cotton industry and say, you know, it was all about—it was all about just technical progress and gadgets, etc. It was built on a sort of pre-existing system which was colonial and, you know, the slave trade was a central element of that. Now, as you say, there have been lots and lots of books written about it, the whole 1619 project got an incredible amount of attention a few years ago. So I didn't really want to rehash all that, but I did want to acknowledge the sort of role of slavery, especially in the rise of the cotton industry because of course, a lot of the raw cotton was grown in the plantations in the American South.So the way I actually ended up doing that was by writing a chapter about Eric Williams, a Trinidadian writer who ended up as the Prime Minister of Trinidad when it became independent in the 1960s. But when he was younger, he wrote a book which is now regarded as a classic. He went to Oxford to do a PhD, won a scholarship. He was very smart. I won a sort of Oxford scholarship myself but 50 years before that, he came across the Atlantic and did an undergraduate degree in history and then did a PhD there and his PhD thesis was on slavery and capitalism.And at the time, in the 1930s, the link really wasn't acknowledged. You could read any sort of standard economic history written by British historians, and they completely ignored that. He made the argument that, you know, slavery was integral to the rise of capitalism and he basically started an argument which has been raging ever since the 1930s and, you know, if you want to study economic history now you have to sort of—you know, have to have to address that. And the way I thought, even though the—it's called the Williams thesis is very famous. I don't think many people knew much about where it came from. So I thought I'd do a chapter on—Andrew Keen: Yeah, that chapter is excellent. You mentioned earlier the Luddites, you're from Yorkshire where Luddism in some ways was born. One of the early chapters is on the Luddites. We did a show with Brian Merchant, his book, "Blood in the Machine," has done very well, I'm sure you're familiar with it. I always understood the Luddites as being against industrialization, against the machine, as opposed to being against capitalism. But did those two things get muddled together in the history of the Luddites?John Cassidy: I think they did. I mean, you know, Luddites, when we grew up, I mean you're English too, you know to be called a Luddite was a term of abuse, right? You know, you were sort of antediluvian, anti-technology, you're stupid. It was only, I think, with the sort of computer revolution, the tech revolution of the last 30, 40 years and the sort of disruptions it's caused, that people have started to look back at the Luddites and say, perhaps they had a point.For them, they were basically pre-industrial capitalism artisans. They worked for profit-making concerns, small workshops. Some of them worked for themselves, so they were sort of sole proprietor capitalists. Or they worked in small venues, but the rise of industrial capitalism, factory capitalism or whatever, basically took away their livelihoods progressively. So they associated capitalism with new technology. In their minds it was the same. But their argument wasn't really a technological one or even an economic one, it was more a moral one. They basically made the moral argument that capitalists shouldn't have the right to just take away their livelihoods with no sort of recompense for them.At the time they didn't have any parliamentary representation. You know, they weren't revolutionaries. The first thing they did was create petitions to try and get parliament to step in, sort of introduce some regulation here. They got turned down repeatedly by the sort of—even though it was a very aristocratic parliament, places like Manchester and Leeds didn't have any representation at all. So it was only after that that they sort of turned violent and started, you know, smashing machines and machines, I think, were sort of symbols of the system, which they saw as morally unjust.And I think that's sort of what—obviously, there's, you know, a lot of technological disruption now, so we can, especially as it starts to come for the educated cognitive class, we can sort of sympathize with them more. But I think the sort of moral critique that there's this, you know, underneath the sort of great creativity and economic growth that capitalism produces, there is also a lot of destruction and a lot of victims. And I think that message, you know, is becoming a lot more—that's why I think why they've been rediscovered in the last five or ten years and I'm one of the people I guess contributing to that rediscovery.Andrew Keen: There's obviously many critiques of capitalism politically. I want to come to Marx in a second, but your chapter, I thought, on Thomas Carlyle and this nostalgic conservatism was very important and there are other conservatives as well. John, do you think that—and you mentioned Trump earlier, who is essentially a nostalgist for a—I don't know, some sort of bizarre pre-capitalist age in America. Is there something particularly powerful about the anti-capitalism of romantics like Carlyle, 19th century Englishman, there were many others of course.John Cassidy: Well, I think so. I mean, I think what is—conservatism, when we were young anyway, was associated with Thatcherism and Reaganism, which, you know, lionized the free market and free market capitalism and was a reaction against the pre-existing form of capitalism, Keynesian capitalism of the sort of 40s to the 80s. But I think what got lost in that era was the fact that there have always been—you've got Hayek up there, obviously—Andrew Keen: And then Keynes and Hayek, the two—John Cassidy: Right, it goes to the end of that. They had a great debate in the 1930s about these issues. But Hayek really wasn't a conservative person, and neither was Milton Friedman. They were sort of free market revolutionaries, really, that you'd let the market rip and it does good things. And I think that that sort of a view, you know, it just became very powerful. But we sort of lost sight of the fact that there was also a much older tradition of sort of suspicion of radical changes of any type. And that was what conservatism was about to some extent. If you think about Baldwin in Britain, for example.And there was a sort of—during the Industrial Revolution, some of the strongest supporters of factory acts to reduce hours and hourly wages for women and kids were actually conservatives, Tories, as they were called at the time, like Ashley. That tradition, Carlyle was a sort of extreme representative of that. I mean, Carlyle was a sort of proto-fascist, let's not romanticize him, he lionized strongmen, Frederick the Great, and he didn't really believe in democracy. But he also had—he was appalled by the sort of, you know, the—like, what's the phrase I'm looking for? The sort of destructive aspects of industrial capitalism, both on the workers, you know, he said it was a dehumanizing system, sounded like Marx in some ways. That it dehumanized the workers, but also it destroyed the environment.He was an early environmentalist. He venerated the environment, was actually very strongly linked to the transcendentalists in America, people like Thoreau, who went to visit him when he visited Britain and he saw the sort of destructive impact that capitalism was having locally in places like Manchester, which were filthy with filthy rivers, etc. So he just saw the whole system as sort of morally bankrupt and he was a great writer, Carlyle, whatever you think of him. Great user of language, so he has these great ringing phrases like, you know, the cash nexus or calling it the Gospel of Mammonism, the shabbiest gospel ever preached under the sun was industrial capitalism.So, again, you know, that's a sort of paradoxical thing, because I think for so long conservatism was associated with, you know, with support for the free market and still is in most of the Republican Party, but then along comes Trump and sort of conquers the party with a, you know, more skeptical, as you say, romantic, not really based on any reality, but a sort of romantic view that America can stand by itself in the world. I mean, I see Trump actually as a sort of an effort to sort of throw back to mercantile capitalism in a way. You know, which was not just pre-industrial, but was also pre-democracy, run by monarchs, which I'm sure appeals to him, and it was based on, you know, large—there were large tariffs. You couldn't import things in the UK. If you want to import anything to the UK, you have to send it on a British ship because of the navigation laws. It was a very protectionist system and it's actually, you know, as I said, had a lot of parallels with what Trump's trying to do or tries to do until he backs off.Andrew Keen: You cheat a little bit in the book in the sense that you—everyone has their own chapter. We'll talk a little bit about Hayek and Smith and Lenin and Friedman. You do have one chapter on Marx, but you also have a chapter on Engels. So you kind of cheat. You combine the two. Is it possible, though, to do—and you've just written this book, so you know this as well as anyone. How do you write a book about capitalism and its critics and only really give one chapter to Marx, who is so dominant? I mean, you've got lots of Marxists in the book, including Lenin and Luxemburg. How fundamental is Marx to a criticism of capitalism? Is most criticism, especially from the left, from progressives, is it really just all a footnote to Marx?John Cassidy: I wouldn't go that far, but I think obviously on the left he is the central figure. But there's an element of sort of trying to rebuild Engels a bit in this. I mean, I think of Engels and Marx—I mean obviously Marx wrote the great classic "Capital," etc. But in the 1840s, when they both started writing about capitalism, Engels was sort of ahead of Marx in some ways. I mean, the sort of materialist concept, the idea that economics rules everything, Engels actually was the first one to come up with that in an essay in the 1840s which Marx then published in one of his—in the German newspaper he worked for at the time, radical newspaper, and he acknowledged openly that that was really what got him thinking seriously about economics, and even in the late—in 20, 25 years later when he wrote "Capital," all three volumes of it and the Grundrisse, just these enormous outpourings of analysis on capitalism.He acknowledged Engels's role in that and obviously Engels wrote the first draft of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 too, which Marx then topped and tailed and—he was a better writer obviously, Marx, and he gave it the dramatic language that we all know it for. So I think Engels and Marx together obviously are the central sort of figures in the sort of left-wing critique. But they didn't start out like that. I mean, they were very obscure, you've got to remember.You know, they were—when they were writing, Marx was writing "Capital" in London, it never even got published in English for another 20 years. It was just published in German. He was basically an expat. He had been thrown out of Germany, he had been thrown out of France, so England was last resort and the British didn't consider him a threat so they were happy to let him and the rest of the German sort of left in there. I think it became—it became the sort of epochal figure after his death really, I think, when he was picked up by the left-wing parties, which are especially the SPD in Germany, which was the first sort of socialist mass party and was officially Marxist until the First World War and there were great internal debates.And then of course, because Lenin and the Russians came out of that tradition too, Marxism then became the official doctrine of the Soviet Union when they adopted a version of it. And again there were massive internal arguments about what Marx really meant, and in fact, you know, one interpretation of the last 150 years of left-wing sort of intellectual development is as a sort of argument about what did Marx really mean and what are the important bits of it, what are the less essential bits of it. It's a bit like the "what did Keynes really mean" that you get in liberal circles.So yeah, Marx, obviously, this is basically an intellectual history of critiques of capitalism. In that frame, he is absolutely a central figure. Why didn't I give him more space than a chapter and a chapter and a half with Engels? There have been a million books written about Marx. I mean, it's not that—it's not that he's an unknown figure. You know, there's a best-selling book written in Britain about 20 years ago about him and then I was quoting, in my biographical research, I relied on some more recent, more scholarly biographies. So he's an endlessly fascinating figure but I didn't want him to dominate the book so I gave him basically the same space as everybody else.Andrew Keen: You've got, as I said, you've got a chapter on Adam Smith who's often considered the father of economics. You've got a chapter on Keynes. You've got a chapter on Friedman. And you've got a chapter on Hayek, all the great modern economists. Is it possible, John, to be a distinguished economist one way or the other and not be a critic of capitalism?John Cassidy: Well, I don't—I mean, I think history would suggest that the greatest economists have been critics of capitalism in their own time. People would say to me, what the hell have you got Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in a book about critics of capitalism? They were great exponents, defenders of capitalism. They loved the system. That is perfectly true. But in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, middle of the 20th century, they were actually arch-critics of the ruling form of capitalism at the time, which was what I call managed capitalism. What some people call Keynesianism, what other people call European social democracy, whatever you call it, it was a model of a mixed economy in which the government played a large role both in propping up demand and in providing an extensive social safety net in the UK and providing public healthcare and public education. It was a sort of hybrid model.Most of the economy in terms of the businesses remained in private hands. So most production was capitalistic. It was a capitalist system. They didn't go to the Soviet model of nationalizing everything and Britain did nationalize some businesses, but most places didn't. The US of course didn't but it was a form of managed capitalism. And Hayek and Friedman were both great critics of that and wanted to sort of move back to 19th century laissez-faire model.Keynes was a—was actually a great, I view him anyway, as really a sort of late Victorian liberal and was trying to protect as much of the sort of J.S. Mill view of the world as he could, but he thought capitalism had one fatal flaw: that it tended to fall into recessions and then they can snowball and the whole system can collapse which is what had basically happened in the early 1930s until Keynesian policies were adopted. Keynes sort of differed from a lot of his followers—I have a chapter on Joan Robinson in there, who were pretty left-wing and wanted to sort of use Keynesianism as a way to shift the economy quite far to the left. Keynes didn't really believe in that. He has a famous quote that, you know, once you get to full employment, you can then rely on the free market to sort of take care of things. He was still a liberal at heart.Going back to Adam Smith, why is he in a book on criticism of capitalism? And again, it goes back to what I said at the beginning. He actually wrote "The Wealth of Nations"—he explains in the introduction—as a critique of mercantile capitalism. His argument was that he was a pro-free trader, pro-small business, free enterprise. His argument was if you get the government out of the way, we don't need these government-sponsored monopolies like the East India Company. If you just rely on the market, the sort of market forces and competition will produce a good outcome. So then he was seen as a great—you know, he is then seen as the apostle of free market capitalism. I mean when I started as a young reporter, when I used to report in Washington, all the conservatives used to wear Adam Smith badges. You don't see Donald Trump wearing an Adam Smith badge, but that was the case.He was also—the other aspect of Smith, which I highlight, which is not often remarked on—he's also a critic of big business. He has a famous section where he discusses the sort of tendency of any group of more than three businessmen when they get together to try and raise prices and conspire against consumers. And he was very suspicious of, as I say, large companies, monopolies. I think if Adam Smith existed today, I mean, I think he would be a big supporter of Lina Khan and the sort of antitrust movement, he would say capitalism is great as long as you have competition, but if you don't have competition it becomes, you know, exploitative.Andrew Keen: Yeah, if Smith came back to live today, you have a chapter on Thomas Piketty, maybe he may not be French, but he may be taking that position about how the rich benefit from the structure of investment. Piketty's core—I've never had Piketty on the show, but I've had some of his followers like Emmanuel Saez from Berkeley. Yeah. How powerful is Piketty's critique of capitalism within the context of the classical economic analysis from Hayek and Friedman? Yeah, it's a very good question.John Cassidy: It's a very good question. I mean, he's a very paradoxical figure, Piketty, in that he obviously shot to world fame and stardom with his book on capital in the 21st century, which in some ways he obviously used the capital as a way of linking himself to Marx, even though he said he never read Marx. But he was basically making the same argument that if you leave capitalism unrestrained and don't do anything about monopolies etc. or wealth, you're going to get massive inequality and he—I think his great contribution, Piketty and the school of people, one of them you mentioned, around him was we sort of had a vague idea that inequality was going up and that, you know, wages were stagnating, etc.What he and his colleagues did is they produced these sort of scientific empirical studies showing in very simple to understand terms how the sort of share of income and wealth of the top 10 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent basically skyrocketed from the 1970s to about 2010. And it was, you know, he was an MIT PhD. Saez, who you mentioned, is a Berkeley professor. They were schooled in neoclassical economics at Harvard and MIT and places like that. So the right couldn't dismiss them as sort of, you know, lefties or Trots or whatever who're just sort of making this stuff up. They had to acknowledge that this was actually an empirical reality.I think it did change the whole basis of the debate and it was sort of part of this reaction against capitalism in the 2010s. You know it was obviously linked to the sort of Sanders and the Occupy Wall Street movement at the time. It came out of the—you know, the financial crisis as well when Wall Street disgraced itself. I mean, I wrote a previous book on all that, but people have sort of, I think, forgotten the great reaction against that a decade ago, which I think even Trump sort of exploited, as I say, by using anti-banker rhetoric at the time.So, Piketty was a great figure, I think, from, you know, I was thinking, who are the most influential critics of capitalism in the 21st century? And I think you'd have to put him up there on the list. I'm not saying he's the only one or the most eminent one. But I think he is a central figure. Now, of course, you'd think, well, this is a really powerful critic of capitalism, and nobody's going to pick up, and Bernie's going to take off and everything. But here we are a decade later now. It seems to be what the backlash has produced is a swing to the right, not a swing to the left. So that's, again, a sort of paradox.Andrew Keen: One person I didn't expect to come up in the book, John, and I was fascinated with this chapter, is Silvia Federici. I've tried to get her on the show. We've had some books about her writing and her kind of—I don't know, you treat her critique as a feminist one. The role of women. Why did you choose to write a chapter about Federici and that feminist critique of capitalism?John Cassidy: Right, right. Well, I don't think it was just feminist. I'll explain what I think it was. Two reasons. Number one, I wanted to get more women into the book. I mean, it's in some sense, it is a history of economics and economic critiques. And they are overwhelmingly written by men and women were sort of written out of the narrative of capitalism for a very long time. So I tried to include as many sort of women as actual thinkers as I could and I have a couple of early socialist feminist thinkers, Anna Wheeler and Flora Tristan and then I cover some of the—I cover Rosa Luxemburg as the great sort of tribune of the left revolutionary socialist, communist whatever you want to call it. Anti-capitalist I think is probably also important to note about. Yeah, and then I also have Joan Robinson, but I wanted somebody to do something in the modern era, and I thought Federici, in the world of the Wages for Housework movement, is very interesting from two perspectives.Number one, Federici herself is a Marxist, and I think she probably would still consider herself a revolutionary. She's based in New York, as you know now. She lived in New York for 50 years, but she came from—she's originally Italian and came out of the Italian left in the 1960s, which was very radical. Do you know her? Did you talk to her? I didn't talk to her on this. No, she—I basically relied on, there has been a lot of, as you say, there's been a lot of stuff written about her over the years. She's written, you know, she's given various long interviews and she's written a book herself, a version, a history of housework, so I figured it was all there and it was just a matter of pulling it together.But I think the critique, why the critique is interesting, most of the book is a sort of critique of how capitalism works, you know, in the production or you know, in factories or in offices or you know, wherever capitalist operations are working, but her critique is sort of domestic reproduction, as she calls it, the role of unpaid labor in supporting capitalism. I mean it goes back a long way actually. There was this moment, I sort of trace it back to the 1940s and 1950s when there were feminists in America who were demonstrating outside factories and making the point that you know, the factory workers and the operations of the factory, it couldn't—there's one of the famous sort of tire factory in California demonstrations where the women made the argument, look this factory can't continue to operate unless we feed and clothe the workers and provide the next generation of workers. You know, that's domestic reproduction. So their argument was that housework should be paid and Federici took that idea and a couple of her colleagues, she founded the—it's a global movement, but she founded the most famous branch in New York City in the 1970s. In Park Slope near where I live actually.And they were—you call it feminists, they were feminists in a way, but they were rejected by the sort of mainstream feminist movement, the sort of Gloria Steinems of the world, who Federici was very critical of because she said they ignored, they really just wanted to get women ahead in the sort of capitalist economy and they ignored the sort of underlying from her perspective, the underlying sort of illegitimacy and exploitation of that system. So they were never accepted as part of the feminist movement. They're to the left of the Feminist Movement.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Keynes, of course, so central in all this, particularly his analysis of the role of automation in capitalism. We did a show recently with Robert Skidelsky and I'm sure you're familiar—John Cassidy: Yeah, yeah, great, great biography of Keynes.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the great biographer of Keynes, whose latest book is "Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of AI." You yourself wrote a brilliant book on the last tech mania and dot-com capitalism. I used it in a lot of my writing and books. What's your analysis of AI in this latest mania and the role generally of manias in the history of capitalism and indeed in critiquing capitalism? Is AI just the next chapter of the dot-com boom?John Cassidy: I think it's a very deep question. I think I'd give two answers to it. In one sense it is just the latest mania the way—I mean, the way capitalism works is we have these, I go back to Kondratiev, one of my Russian economists who ended up being killed by Stalin. He was the sort of inventor of the long wave theory of capitalism. We have these short waves where you have sort of booms and busts driven by finance and debt etc. But we also have long waves driven by technology.And obviously, in the last 40, 50 years, the two big ones are the original deployment of the internet and microchip technology in the sort of 80s and 90s culminating in the dot-com boom of the late 90s, which as you say, I wrote about. Thanks very much for your kind comments on the book. If you just sort of compare it from a financial basis I think they are very similar just in terms of the sort of role of hype from Wall Street in hyping up these companies. The sort of FOMO aspect of it among investors that they you know, you can't miss out. So just buy the companies blindly. And the sort of lionization in the press and the media of, you know, of AI as the sort of great wave of the future.So if you take a sort of skeptical market based approach, I would say, yeah, this is just another sort of another mania which will eventually burst and it looked like it had burst for a few weeks when Trump put the tariffs up, now the market seemed to be recovering. But I think there is, there may be something new about it. I am not, I don't pretend to be a technical expert. I try to rely on the evidence of or the testimony of people who know the systems well and also economists who have studied it. It seems to me the closer you get to it the more alarming it is in terms of the potential shock value that there is there.I mean Trump and the sort of reaction to a larger extent can be traced back to the China shock where we had this global shock to American manufacturing and sort of hollowed out a lot of the industrial areas much of it, like industrial Britain was hollowed out in the 80s. If you, you know, even people like Altman and Elon Musk, they seem to think that this is going to be on a much larger scale than that and will basically, you know, get rid of the professions as they exist. Which would be a huge, huge shock. And I think a lot of the economists who studied this, who four or five years ago were relatively optimistic, people like Daron Acemoglu, David Autor—Andrew Keen: Simon Johnson, of course, who just won the Nobel Prize, and he's from England.John Cassidy: Simon, I did an event with Simon earlier this week. You know they've studied this a lot more closely than I have but I do interview them and I think five, six years ago they were sort of optimistic that you know this could just be a new steam engine or could be a microchip which would lead to sort of a lot more growth, rising productivity, rising productivity is usually associated with rising wages so sure there'd be short-term costs but ultimately it would be a good thing. Now, I think if you speak to them, they see since the, you know, obviously, the OpenAI—the original launch and now there's just this huge arms race with no government involvement at all I think they're coming to the conclusion that rather than being developed to sort of complement human labor, all these systems are just being rushed out to substitute for human labor. And it's just going, if current trends persist, it's going to be a China shock on an even bigger scale.You know what is going to, if that, if they're right, that is going to produce some huge political backlash at some point, that's inevitable. So I know—the thing when the dot-com bubble burst, it didn't really have that much long-term impact on the economy. People lost the sort of fake money they thought they'd made. And then the companies, obviously some of the companies like Amazon and you know Google were real genuine profit-making companies and if you bought them early you made a fortune. But AI does seem a sort of bigger, scarier phenomenon to me. I don't know. I mean, you're close to it. What do you think?Andrew Keen: Well, I'm waiting for a book, John, from you. I think you can combine dot-com and capitalism and its critics. We need you probably to cover it—you know more about it than me. Final question, I mean, it's a wonderful book and we haven't even scratched the surface everyone needs to get it. I enjoyed the chapter, for example, on Karl Polanyi and so much more. I mean, it's a big book. But my final question, John, is do you have any regrets about anyone you left out? The one person I would have liked to have been included was Rawls because of his sort of treatment of capitalism and luck as a kind of casino. I'm not sure whether you gave any thought to Rawls, but is there someone in retrospect you should have had a chapter on that you left out?John Cassidy: There are lots of people I left out. I mean, that's the problem. I mean there have been hundreds and hundreds of critics of capitalism. Rawls, of course, incredibly influential and his idea of the sort of, you know, the veil of ignorance that you should judge things not knowing where you are in the income distribution and then—Andrew Keen: And it's luck. I mean the idea of some people get lucky and some people don't.John Cassidy: It is the luck of the draw, obviously, what card you pull. I think that is a very powerful critique, but I just—because I am more of an expert on economics, I tended to leave out philosophers and sociologists. I mean, you know, you could say, where's Max Weber? Where are the anarchists? You know, where's Emma Goldman? Where's John Kenneth Galbraith, the sort of great mid-century critic of American industrial capitalism? There's so many people that you could include. I mean, I could have written 10 volumes. In fact, I refer in the book to, you know, there's always been a problem. G.D.H. Cole, a famous English historian, wrote a history of socialism back in the 1960s and 70s. You know, just getting to 1850 took him six volumes. So, you've got to pick and choose, and I don't claim this is the history of capitalism and its critics. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. I just claim it's a history written by me, and hopefully the people are interested in it, and they're sufficiently diverse that you can address all the big questions.Andrew Keen: Well it's certainly incredibly timely. Capitalism and its critics—more and more of them. Sometimes they don't even describe themselves as critics of capitalism when they're talking about oligarchs or billionaires, they're really criticizing capitalism. A must read from one of America's leading journalists. And would you call yourself a critic of capitalism, John?John Cassidy: Yeah, I guess I am, to some extent, sure. I mean, I'm not a—you know, I'm not on the far left, but I'd say I'm a center-left critic of capitalism. Yes, definitely, that would be fair.Andrew Keen: And does the left need to learn? Does everyone on the left need to read the book and learn the language of anti-capitalism in a more coherent and honest way?John Cassidy: I hope so. I mean, obviously, I'd be talking my own book there, as they say, but I hope that people on the left, but not just people on the left. I really did try to sort of be fair to the sort of right-wing critiques as well. I included the Carlyle chapter particularly, obviously, but in the later chapters, I also sort of refer to this emerging critique on the right, the sort of economic nationalist critique. So hopefully, I think people on the right could read it to understand the critiques from the left, and people on the left could read it to understand some of the critiques on the right as well.Andrew Keen: Well, it's a lovely book. It's enormously erudite and simultaneously readable. Anyone who likes John Cassidy's work from The New Yorker will love it. Congratulations, John, on the new book, and I'd love to get you back on the show as anti-capitalism in America picks up steam and perhaps manifests itself in the 2028 election. Thank you so much.John Cassidy: Thanks very much for inviting me on, it was fun.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

American antitrust laws were designed to stop companies from wielding the power of kings. But in the 1970s, a legal scholar named Robert Bork convinced Washington to ignore those laws. Host Cory Doctorow traces how Bork's influence gave digital giants like Amazon a decades-long free pass to dominate markets, crush competitors, exploit their own business clients, and treat users like hostages — and how, after 40 years of inaction, former FTC chair Lina Khan took on the fight to rein in monopoly power. Guests in this episode include Michael Wiesel, Lina Khan, and Clive Thompson. Archival recordings feature Robert Bork.

Lina Khan recently concluded her term as one of the Biden administration's most controversial leaders. Her tenure as chair of the Federal Trade Commission raised the profile of the relatively obscure antitrust agency charged with protecting competition. Her anti-monopoly outlook and more aggressive enforcement strategies, particularly toward Big Tech market power and protecting workers, earned the ire of the business community and the dedicated vitriol of the Wall Street Journal editorial board.Khan began her term as the youngest-ever appointee of the FTC. She initially rose to prominence for her 2017 Yale Law Journal article, “Amazon's Antitrust Paradox,” which went viral among the antitrust community for its argument that scholars and regulators must look beyond prices to understand what constitutes a harm from a lack of competition, especially in today's digital economy where many services are nominally provided for free to consumers. Fresh out of law school, Khan appeared on a Capitalisn't episode in our first season and wrote for our sister publication at the Stigler Center, ProMarket, as far back as 2018. She also delivered two keynote addresses at the Stigler Center's annual Antitrust and Competition Conferences while FTC chair.On this episode, Khan returns to Capitalisn't to reflect on her tenure, her vision of capitalism, and how her approach to enforcing existing laws with new thinking may have impacted the everyday lives of Americans. How does she respond to her critics, who include major Democratic business leaders? How does she view the new Trump administration, which is continuing many of her transformative policies, including revised merger guidelines and major lawsuits? As a senator, Vice President JD Vance said she was “one of the few people in the Biden administration actually doing a pretty good job.” Reflecting on her work, Khan also touches upon how conflicts of interest among corporate lawyers and consultants, former bureaucrats, and academics distort policymaking, court rulings, and market outcomes. Finally, she highlights the antitrust issues to pay attention to moving forward, such as algorithmic collusion.Show Notes: Also, check out ProMarket's series on the future of the Neo-Brandesian movement, of which Lina Khan is an emblematic figure.

Three Visions of Where Democrats Went Wrong | The Ezra Klein Show - Zephyr Teachout and Saikat ChakrabartiREALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: https://therealignment.substack.com/PURCHASE BOOKS AT OUR BOOKSHOP: https://bookshop.org/shop/therealignmentEmail Us: realignmentpod@gmail.comElizabeth Wilkins, President and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute and alumn of the White House and Lina Khan's Federal Trade Commission, joins The Realignment. Marshall and Elizabeth discuss why the left has reacted critically to the abundance agenda, her agreement with Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's emphasis on enhancing state capacity, and how to restore faith in government. They explore the tension between technocratic fixes and populist demands, the need for effective political storytelling, and why "small," tangible wins like banning junk fees and non-competes matter as much as big legislative wins.  

Mark Meador is the newest commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, which plays a dual role: enforcing both antitrust and consumer protection laws. It also serves as America's de facto technology regulator, including overseeing digital privacy and cybersecurity issues.Commissioner Meador embodies the political realignment reshaping conservative views on big business, capitalism, and free trade. The Trump Administration's antitrust cases against Big Tech represent arguably the clearest expression of this shift. While the Biden administration aggressively targeted mergers and acquisitions—Wall Street's bread and butter—many financial elites hoped Donald Trump's return would restore a laissez-faire approach to antitrust. They've been in for disappointment.A recent speech by Meador laid out a conservative vision for antitrust, challenging long-held Republican Party orthodoxies and sparking backlash from libertarians. He joins Evan to discuss the tensions at the heart of the this realignment: how free-market principles can coexist with robust antitrust enforcement; how skeptics of big government find common cause with critics of big business; and how conservatives are crafting their own distinctive approach to antitrust while embracing the bipartisan consensus that has emerged over the past eight years.

During Episode 27 of Biotalk, Geoff Meyerson, CEO of Locust Walk, steps back to examine the macro forces shaping the biopharma landscape. After holding a bearish outlook since 2021, Geoff explains why he's finally shifting his stance and what could signal a true turnaround for biotech. He unpacks the “big three” market headwinds—regulatory hurdles from the IRA, FTC deal scrutiny, and high interest rates—and outlines how recent shifts, including rate cuts, new FTC leadership, and potential IRA reform, could spark renewed momentum, especially in M&A and rare diseases. Geoff also highlights previously underappreciated risks like HHS cuts and aggressive tariffs, which could stall progress if unresolved. With a balanced, apolitical lens, this episode offers candid insights into why policy matters for biotech investors, operators, and dealmakers—and what to watch for as 2025 unfolds. Tune in to understand the key inflection points and why Geoff sees the second half of 2025 as a potential breakout period for the industry. Full Transcript: Welcome to Biotalk. My name is Geoff Meyerson, CEO and Co-founder of Locust Walk, and you are listening to Biotalk, our podcast for biotech deal makers. In this episode, I want to zoom out and talk about the bigger picture — what's really driving the biotech market right now. In almost every meeting the past few months I have been asked my views on the market.  I decided that I am going to share my thoughts publicly. I fancy myself to be a free market limited government champion across all aspects of life. I do not comment politically nor believe it is my job to criticize or promote any politician or party. That said, the macro policies enacted by both parties directly impact the biopharma industry, and I believe it's important to analyze and comment on areas related to the life science industry. For all other issues, I subscribe to the University of Chicago's institutional neutrality, and it is my (and Locust Walk's) policy to not comment publicly. First a recap of why I was bearish starting fall 2021 when Locust Walk ran a webinar titled “Has Biotech Peaked”. Throughout 2022, 2023, and until September 2024, despite many market analysts predicting a turnaround, I maintained my bearishness because the 3 underlying headwinds that started blowing hadn't stopped or reversed, namely: Regulatory headwinds because of the IRA Transaction headwinds from an openly hostile FTC Monetary headwinds via high interest rates caused by high inflation Until these 3 drivers reversed, I didn't believe the market would improve beyond incremental changes. When in September 2024 the US Federal Reserve dropped rates by 50 bps, the rate tightening cycle had not only stopped but reversed. My changing perspective was independent of the pending election since the largest factor interest rates was starting to shift. In January 2025, Lina Khan exited the FTC and a new era of antitrust enforcement began. While far from perfect, it has been markedly more pro-business with a much less aggressive effort to block transactions. Locust Walk's Quarterly Market conditions detailed a 47% uptick in M&A by value and 35% by volume showing signs of life in this market even though I didn't anticipate any material improvement until 2H25 because it takes time for deals to come to fruition after the changeover in policy. I predicted M&A had the potential to transform the industry this year after years of suppression. I stand by this prediction and for everyone's sake I hope I'm right. The IRA pill fix is being discussed and because President Trump has come out in support, some form of it is likely to make its way into the reconciliation package of tax and regulatory cuts. I hope small molecules move to 13 years of exclusivity but bigger price discounts thereafter to remain budget neutral rather than meeting in the middle at 11 years, which I think would be quite problematic.

Krystal, Ryan and Emily discuss Mike Walz ousted, Ukraine minerals deal, judge blocks Trump deportations, Rand Paul slams tariffs, Bannon with Lina Khan, and MORE! If you need any help, please contact http://breakingpoints.locals.com/contact To connect your RSS feed, use this link: https://breakingpoints.locals.com/rssSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chuck Todd speaks with legendary documentary filmmaker Alex Gibney about his newest project The Dark Money Game on HBO and the influence of legalized bribery in American politics.First, Chuck gives his own thoughts on the corrupting influence of money in politics, why Donald Trump's memecoin is a bribery scheme in plain sight and why money has fueled distrust in politics from both sides of the aisleThen, Chuck and Alex dive into the Ohio scandal at the center of The Dark Money Game, exploring why Americans have grown numb to the Citizens United ruling—and how it effectively legalized bribery in politics. They discuss how money has become a deeply corrosive force in American democracy.Alex shares his process for selecting the story, what he uncovered during his investigation, and why the project ultimately became a two-part series.The conversation also touches on the troubling alliance between organized religion and dark money, the Trump administration's open embrace of corruption, and, finally, Alex reveals the focus of his next big project: Elon Musk.Finally, Chuck answers a listener question in the Ask Chuck segment!0:00 Introduction1:00 Citizen's United created the dark money era1:45 Reform efforts have failed3:00 Campaigns used to cost millions, not billions5:00 Money has cut voters out of the equation9:00 Trump's memecoin is a bribery scam in plain sight10:30 We need strong disclosure laws13:00 Public funding of elections is an all or nothing propositionv14:30 Distrust in politics centers on money in the system17:40 Alex Gibney joins the show! 18:40 Dark Money is the best attempt at telling the story of money corrupting politics 19:40 How hard is it to make this story accessible to the public? 20:40 Campaign finance should be rebranded as bribery 21:40 Ohio state legislature captured by special interests 24:10 Why did First Energy execs not end up in prison? 25:25 Huge money ensured GOP candidates in Ohio won, then were beholden 26:40 The bribe was a good investment 28:10 How did Alex access the wiretaps? 28:55 Investigators stumbled into the case 30:55 We've accepted money in politics and are numb to it 31:40 Citizens United opened the floodgates to corruption via PACs 33:40 Bribery is now legal 35:25 We're in a kleptocracy now 35:55 Reed Hoffman donated millions to Harris and wanted Lina Khan fired at FTC 37:40 Big money interests can just buy their own news coverage 40:10 Ohio whistleblower turned in his friend in service to his state 41:10 Florida gambling initiatives bought and sold petition signatures 42:40 Money in politics is like the mob bribing cops 45:10 Candidates don't run on an anti corruption/campaign finance platform 46:40 Billionaires shouldn't get define the world for the rest of us 47:55 Bernie/AOC turning out huge crowds tapping into anger against a rigged system 49:40 Dark money started as one film and became two because there was too much material 50:55 Evangelical grifters became fused with dark money in exchange for political influence 53:55 Corrupt Religious leaders "bless" political corruption to their followers 55:40 Society is driven by, and consumed by money 56:40 Law firms and universities have capitulated to Trump over their financial interests 59:10 Alex's advice for young documentarians 1:00:40 Lobbying is now corporation vs corporation 1:03:25 Elon Musk is Alex's next topic1:04:25 Chuck's thoughts on conversation with Alex Gibney 1:05:25 Ask Chuck - How can voters in states with later primaries feel involved in choosing presidential candidates? 1:06:55 A rotating system for primaries based on region is a potential solution 1:09:55 There are ways to make the system fair, but the people in charge don't want a fair system. 1:12:55 Voters in early states take the process very seriously

Ali Velshi is joined by Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs' Asha Rangappa, MSNBC's ‘The Weekend' host Michael Steele, Fmr. Chair of the FTC Lina Khan, President of Wesleyan University Michael Roth, George Washington University Law School's Mary Anne Franks, MSNBC Legal Analyst Barbara McQuade, Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief of ‘The Contrarian' Jennifer Rubin, Filmmaker Alex Gibney, “The Gatsby Gambit” author Claire Anderson Wheeler, and Playwright of ‘Gatsby: An American Myth' Martyna Majok. 

President Trump exempted consumer technology and components from his reciprocal tariffs on Friday, though by the end of the weekend, his advisors warned that those exemptions may not be permanent. Apple has reportedly increased its iPhone production in India to avoid the impact of the White House's tariffs on goods imported from China. In an extended conversation, former Federal Reserve Chair and former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen weighs in on the Trump administration's tariff agenda, as well as the stability of U.S. treasurys. Former FTC Chair Lina Khan shares her own perspective on President Trump's tariff agenda, and the two guests both align on one descriptor: chaotic. Khan, once the top antitrust watchdog, discusses the beginning of the FTC's case against Meta, calling into question Facebook's acquisitions of Whatsapp and Instagram.  Janet Yellen - 17:25Lina Khan - 35:47 In this episode:Lina Khan, @linamkhanKelly Evans, @KellyCNBCJoe Kernen, @JoeSquawkAndrew Ross Sorkin, @andrewrsorkinKatie Kramer, @Kramer_Katie

What happens when the largest players in healthcare prioritize profit over patients? In this episode, we take a deep dive into the persistent monopolistic practices plaguing the industry.Join the PUTT cocktail crew and special guest Emma Freer, Health Policy Analyst at the American Economic Liberties Project, as they explore the groundbreaking influence of Lina Khan at the FTC and her enduring impact on efforts to combat corporate monopolies across industries. From PBM reform legislation, to the dangerous conflicts of interest stemming from vertical integration across the healthcare spectrum, they break down the systemic issues affecting pharmacy and discuss actionable solutions for building a better, fairer system.Music by JuliusH | Production & Editing by Shannon Wightman-Girard

During the Biden Administration, few figures in Washington sparked so much debate and caused so much spilled ink as Lina Khan. The Wall Street Journal published over 80 editorials criticizing her approach, while politically opposed tech titans like LinkedIn's Reid Hoffman and Tesla's Elon Musk called for her firing. Meanwhile, an unlikely coalition of progressive Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and populist Republicans like JD Vance rallied behind her vision of more aggressive antitrust enforcement.For many, her ambitious cases against Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta weren't merely legal challenges. They represented a fundamental break from the antitrust philosophy that had dominated for decades across administrations. These cases now transfer to Trump's FTC, creating a test of regulatory continuity at a time when Big Tech CEOs are looking to curry favor with the White House.In this conversation, Khan reflects on her legacy, discusses what critics may have misunderstood about her approach, and explores how the movement she catalyzed might evolve.

The Gaslit Nation Media Committee, a watchdog against access journalism and regime propaganda, has developed this essential guide. We urge all members of the media to reject complicity in the erosion of democracy.   The American crisis is a global struggle between democracy and fascism—one that threatens the entire world. Each of us has a role in defending freedom. If you work in media, use this guide to safeguard your integrity, your liberty, and the values we cherish—before it's too late. Doing your job well can save lives and democracy.   1. Don't Bury the Lede: Call It an Illegal Tech-Backed Coup To build trust, stick to the facts. When Trump's administration acts illegally, say it—especially in the headline. Call it what it is: a tech-backed coup that exposes Americans' most sensitive data and replaces federal workers with unsecured A.I. to establish a new surveillance state. 2. Make Private Prison Execs Famous Investigate the financial interests behind Trump's immigration system—expose executives, board members, and their connections. Pursue them with cameras; they can't hide behind profits while lives are ruined and civil liberties eroded. 3. Fascism Needs Ignorance From dismantling the Department of Education to the “War on Woke” in universities, Trump continues delegitimizing education. This isn't about competition with other countries—it's about giving everyone the chance to grow as independent thinkers who reject fascism. 4. Follow the Money Investigate Trump's major donors and their role in Musk's illegal purge of government services. Hold them accountable—ask how they view their investments amid the chaos. Track their contracts and regulatory benefits. 5. Expose National Security Threats Trump removed key military officials who prevented unlawful actions. Without them, who will stop him? Trump holds the nuclear football, cozying up to adversaries, sending bombs to Israel, and threatening wars against Canada and Greenland. Focus on how our adversaries are taking advantage. 6. Kleptowatch Focus on how companies exploit customers through greedflation and Amazon's payola for search visibility. While the Biden administration has much to answer for, the media must spotlight the absence of enforcement of investigations brought by Lina Khan and Tim Wu, leaving corporate kleptocrats unchecked. 7. Media Must Thoroughly Cover Media Journalists must cover media attacks, including blocked access to info and censorship (e.g., Ann Telnaes at WaPo). Report on media ecosystem shifts, address bias, and clarify distinctions between reporting, opinion, and lies. Provide context on media ownership. 8. Draw Historical Parallels Trump, Musk, and allies are enacting policies similar to dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. The media must challenge their unfounded assertions. They are attacking the press and critics, reminiscent of regimes like Pol Pot's and Rwanda's genocide. 9. Trump is Trying to Turn America into an Autocracy: Act Like It Columbia Journalism Review shared 10 essential tips for journalists reporting from autocracies. Share these with your teams, including your company's lawyers—killing big stories and obeying in advance is self-destructive. 10. Shine a Light on Private Prisons The private prison industry needs scrutiny, especially with Trump's lack of oversight. Innocent people are caught in reckless immigration raids as the system grows unchecked. Regular coverage of Guantanamo Bay is crucial due to its history of unlawful detention and Trump's plan for a prison camp there for 30,000 people. 11. Gilead is Here The media has abandoned calling out Trump's toxic masculinity regarding reproductive rights and civil rights. Raise awareness of the deadly consequences for women, including trans women, and all nonwhite people. 12. Access Journalism is Betrayal Fascism's history includes journalists from major outlets becoming "masters of euphemism," (to quote Gareth Jones), downplaying atrocities and broken laws to protect access. History will remember you for doing your job or being bought. Doing your job well can save lives and democracy. 13. Family Members Deserve Special Attention Trump's administration is granting lucrative positions to family members of allies and donors, giving them undue influence over policy. These self-dealing networks must be mapped and exposed. 14. Unmask Voter Suppression Election analysis must address gerrymandering, unfair Senate representation favoring "red states," the Electoral College designed to protect elites, and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Don't treat our voter suppression crisis like "horse race" politics. 15. Focus on the 1% Expose extreme wealth inequality—how the 1% dodge taxes and exploit loopholes to preserve their wealth. Put a spotlight on how inequality fuels authoritarianism and is a direct threat to democracy. 16. Cover Protests Highlight actions challenging the White House's destructive crimes. People need to see that citizens care about the laws being broken by Trump's administration and that they're not alone. 17. They're Testing Boundaries: Say It When something is "unprecedented," that means they're testing boundaries, to see what they can get away with. Say it. 18. The Weird Fights Matter Trump renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America may seem "weird," but it's part of the fascist pageantry, like Mussolini's famous eyeliner and Putin's shirtless photos. Look to experts in autocracy to see which stories are being used as a distraction and which stories are important to cover.  An expanded version of the Gaslit Nation Media Guide can be found here: https://www.gaslitnationpod.com/media-guide   For More: Ten Tips for Reporting in an Autocracy American journalists have much to learn from colleagues in countries where democracy has been under siege. https://www.cjr.org/political_press/ten-tips-for-reporting-in-an-autocracy.php   Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!   Music Credit: "Tafi Maradi no voice" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com). Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/  

The transatlantic trustbusting consensus forged by Lina Khan and Margrethe Vestager is already fraying. In this week's Viewsroom, Breakingviews columnists discuss if it will lead to mergers involving national champions such as GSK and BP, and in turn remedy some economic ills. Visit the Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement for information on our privacy and data protection practices. You may also visit megaphone.fm/adchoices to opt-out of targeted advertising. 

Where do we go from here?Antitrust lawyer Basel Musharbash joins Ashley and Nate to explore anti-monopoly advocacy's historical and contemporary landscape. They discuss the evolution of antitrust laws, the impact of the Reagan administration, and the resurgence of antitrust efforts under Lina Khan. They discuss the intersection of populism and antitrust, the role of government in regulating corporate power, and the future of antitrust enforcement in the Biden administration. Musharbash emphasizes the importance of restoring competition and curbing the influence of billionaires in politics.

Lina Khan, the youngest F.T.C. chair in history, reset U.S. antitrust policy by thwarting mega-mergers and other monopolistic behavior. This earned her enemies in some places, and big fans in others — including the Trump administration. Stephen Dubner speaks with Khan about her tactics, her track record, and her future. SOURCES:Lina Khan, former commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and professor of law at Columbia Law School. RESOURCES:"Merger Guidelines" (U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, 2023)."The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications," by Jan De Loecker, Jan Eeckhout, and Gabriel Unger (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019)."US Antitrust Law and Policy in Historical Perspective," by Laura Phillips Sawyer (Harvard Business School, 2019).The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age, by Tim Wu (2018)."Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," by Lina Khan (Yale Law Journal, 2017)."A Tempest In a Coffee Shop," by Tanya Mohn (New York Times, 2004). EXTRAS:"The Economics of Eyeglasses," by Freakonomics Radio (2024)."Should You Trust Private Equity to Take Care of Your Dog?" by Freakonomics Radio (2023)."Are Private Equity Firms Plundering the U.S. Economy?" by Freakonomics Radio (2023)."Is the U.S. Really Less Corrupt Than China — and How About Russia? (Update)" by Freakonomics Radio (2022).

In this episode of the Venture Capital Podcast, hosts Jon Bradshaw and Peter Harris make their predictions for the venture capital landscape in 2025. The conversation kicks off with a discussion about the current wave of AI-focused startups, with both hosts agreeing that many of these companies, particularly those building "AI wrappers" without unique data sets, will face challenges as larger players and incumbents integrate AI into their existing products and services. Jon predicts a "burned over land" scenario for many of these startups.The hosts then shift to a discussion about the potential impact of political changes on the M&A market. Jon predicts that Lina Khan will leave the FTC, leading to a more open M&A environment and increased liquidity. Peter expresses cautious optimism, suggesting that while a change in administration could ease antitrust scrutiny, other factors may still play a role. They explore the potential for large tech companies like Meta and those aligned with AWS and Google Cloud to make significant acquisitions.The conversation also touches on the IPO market, with both hosts anticipating increased activity in the coming years. Jon believes it will take longer for the IPO market to warm up, influenced by the upcoming election and the time required for companies to prepare for an IPO. Peter anticipates a faster turnaround, expecting increased liquidity and confidence to drive more deals.They also discuss the trend of VCs striving to add value beyond simply writing a check, with Jon skeptical of VCs offering outdated advice. Peter acknowledges this pitfall but defends the value of guidance from VCs in areas such as valuation and fundraising strategy. The episode concludes with an assessment of the challenges startups will face in raising capital and the potential for differentiation through specialization and strategic alliances.Overall, this episode provides a thought-provoking glimpse into the future of venture capital, offering insights for both founders and investors navigating a rapidly evolving market.Follow the PodcastInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/venturecapitalfm/Twitter: https://twitter.com/vcpodcastfmLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/venturecapitalfm/Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7BQimY8NJ6cr617lqtRr7N?si=ftylo2qHQiCgmT9dfloD_g&nd=1&dlsi=7b868f1b72094351Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/venture-capital/id1575351789Website: https://www.venturecapital.fm/Follow Jon BradshawLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mrbradshaw/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mrjonbradshaw/Twitter: https://twitter.com/mrjonbradshawFollow Peter HarrisLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/peterharris1Twitter: https://twitter.com/thevcstudentInstagram: https://instagram.com/shodanpeteYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/@peterharris2812

Lots of healthy disagreement in this week's THAT WAS THE WEEK tech show with Keith Teare. We debate the impact of AI on coding jobs, with Keith suggesting that while traditional coding skills may become less important, system architecture and AI guidance skills will be crucial to maintaining the value of human labor. We also discuss the rise of early-stage unicorns, military-tech AI start-ups, and disagree strongly on the status of billionaires, with Keith arguing that it's “not hard” to be a billionaire in Silicon Valley today. Here are the five KEEN ON takeaways from today's conversation:* Divergent Market and Valley Sentiment: While the stock market is having its worst performance since Trump's inauguration, Silicon Valley remains optimistic, particularly about AI. Keith argues there's no short-term correlation between Silicon Valley sentiment and market performance.* Evolution of Tech Skills: The rise of AI is changing the nature of technical skills needed in startups. Keith suggests that traditional coding skills are becoming less crucial, while the ability to architect systems and guide AI is becoming more important. He notes that universities are already adapting their computer science programs to include AI.* Rise of Efficient Startups: AI is enabling lean startups to do more with fewer people. Keith uses his own company Signal Rank as an example, noting they've built a complex system with just five people, two of whom are coders, highlighting a shift in how startups can be built efficiently.* Military-Tech Convergence: There's a growing trend of Silicon Valley companies entering the defense sector, exemplified by Saronic raising $600 million for autonomous warships. This represents a broader shift in how military technology is being developed and funded through private companies.* Debate about Wealth Creation: The conversation concludes with a debate about wealth accumulation, sparked by Robert Reich's controversial X post about billionaires. Keith argues that technology's global reach and distribution capabilities have made it easier than ever to build valuable companies, with Andrew strongly disputing the idea that becoming a billionaire is "not that hard."That Was The Week - February 22, 2025With Andrew Keen and Keith TeareAndrew Keen: Hello everybody. It is Saturday, February the 22nd, 2025. The last Saturday in February, the last Saturday we're going to do That Was The Week tech roundup. It's been an odd week. On the one hand, the stocks notched the worst week since Trump's inauguration six weeks ago. It's been a long six weeks. According to the Financial Times, the geopolitical rupture, which of course has been caused by Trump, has sparked a quiet market rebellion. Niall Ferguson had an interesting piece in today's Wall Street Journal about the demise of the United States because of its massive debt, and Elon Musk has been continuing to make a public fool of himself this week, waving a chainsaw and pretending to be an Argentine politician, which I'm not sure reflects that well on him. However, in spite of all that bad news, Keith Teare's That Was The Week newsletter is actually very optimistic. Unicorns are back, according to Keith, and we have an image, of course, created by AI of these imaginary beasts horses with horns. Keith is joining us, as always, from Palo Alto, the home of optimism. Keith, do you think it's coincidental that suddenly everyone is optimistic again in Silicon Valley whilst the market is sliding to those two things in an odd way, kind of go together?Keith Teare: There's no correlation between Silicon Valley and the markets at all in any day to day sense. There's long term correlation, but not short term. Silicon Valley is having a moment because of AI, and Grok Three was launched this week. Crunchbase launched its new AI driven data platform, and the CEO declared that historical data is dead, meaning only future predictive data is any good anymore.Andrew Keen: And historical data being dead. The future is predictive intelligence. What does that mean?Keith Teare: He means that it's now possible, because of AI, to see patterns and trends and predict them. Just knowing the past is not the point anymore. Obviously it's stretching a point. You still need the history from the past to see the trends. But he's saying the needle has turned from looking backwards to predicting the future because of data. That's true in biology as well. There's a massive arc this week announced a new model that understands DNA and can predict the likelihood of solving diseases.Andrew Keen: Your editorial this week, Keith, is quite personal. You know that as the person in charge of Signal Rank, your startup, AI has been remarkably helpful in it. You refer in the editorial to an interesting piece in the New York Times about how AI is changing Silicon Valley build startups like your own Signal. What does your experience at Signal Rank tell us about the future of startups?Keith Teare: Signal Rank is five people. Two of us have coding skills. We've raised $5 million ever to spend on building Signal. All the other money we raised is to invest in companies. That article is focusing on the fact that it's almost like the Lean Startup story from the early 2000s, except it's true this time, because the most expensive thing in a startup is people. And the one thing you need less of is people. That's a massive shift. Of course, if you're building large language models, the opposite is true, because the most expensive thing is GPUs, which you pay Nvidia for. And that's super expensive. But everything else that's sitting on top of that is getting faster, cheaper and better.Andrew Keen: You also refer to a New York Times piece about how AI is prompting an evolution, not an extinction for coders. Your son's a coder, in a sense, you're a coder. Ultimately, one and I was at this thing with Tim Draper a couple of weeks ago where he was talking about companies, billion dollar companies built and managed by single people won't ultimately make most coders extinct. Maybe not all. But when founders like yourselves simply become coders and you won't have the need for other help.Keith Teare: I make the point in an editorial that I didn't write a single line of code, but I've built a very complex system with lots of AI agents working together and delivering results for users. Learning to code is going to be a low requirement. A very high requirement is learning to architect and guide the AI because the AI can code, but it can't imagine systems to build or know when it got it right or when it got it wrong. The skill base is going to shift to what normally would be the domain of a product manager who has coding skills and can understand what's happening and can understand what it can ask for and what it can't ask for. But coding itself, learning Python, learning JavaScript or Java? Probably less essential.Andrew Keen: So what happens to kids like your son who just graduated and now works in Silicon Valley as a coder?Keith Teare: He'll still be needed for some time. In his company, they're not allowed to use AI yet. It's a little bit like dying skills always protect themselves until they can't. Engineers that are defensive or companies that are defensive about using AI are going to fall behind a little bit. But eventually everyone gets there because it's just a better way of doing things.Andrew Keen: You're an innovator and instinctive in terms of innovation. But are people going to start going to college and doing majors and working with AI rather than learning how to code? Will computer science be really about how to ask the right questions and ask it to do the correct things?Keith Teare: Yes, but to do that you need to understand systems architecture. My youngest son just got an offer from my old university in the UK, Kent, and it's for a course called Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, so they're already evolving the courses to teach the new skills. I think it's going to be imperative if you can talk to a machine and you can imagine what you want it to build. Imagine you could describe to a machine the website you'd really like for Keen on America, and it would build it, and then you'd look at what it built and say, no, I didn't mean that, I meant this. It gives you massive power to produce things.Andrew Keen: And I think it's also true with writers. I'm not a coder. But the thing with AI is it's not designed to replicate human writing. It's designed to answer questions and organize ideas in ways that are instant as opposed to taking hours or days for humans. So it's similar in that sense. Meanwhile, let's go back to your unicorns. It's all coming out of Crunchbase that your wife works for. She writes for it. And what is Crunchbase telling us this week about quote unquote minting early stage startups? Are unicorns back in fashion? We haven't talked about unicorns for about a year. We talk about them every week.Keith Teare: The rates of unicorn production declined massively from 2021 onwards and reached the bottom last year.Andrew Keen: While the market was strong and now it's falling and unicorns are back.Keith Teare: This article is specifically about early stage unicorns. These are unicorns that become unicorns at a series A or a series B round. They're raising very large sums of money. The top six series A raises this week all raised more than $50 million.Andrew Keen: And the average valuation I guess early round has jumped to 3.3 billion. But doesn't the unicorn term become slightly absurd if you're raising hundreds of millions of dollars? It's given that you're going to be a unicorn. But does that really mean anything?Keith Teare: If you try to put it into a rational framework, the amount of money put into a company and the valuation is determined by supply and demand and likely outcomes. Investors who are writing these checks are making a calculation of what this company will be worth in the next five to ten years. They're writing checks appropriate to a gain of at least ten times that money. They're projecting into the future a likely outcome from writing the checks and the competition to invest in these companies is so intense that the checks get bigger earlier. Obviously that creates risk. The risk is that you're making the call too early and you're going to be wrong in your predictions. The upside is that you know you're right and you'll be smiling all the way to the bank. That's just the nature of any technology transfer.Andrew Keen: Is this different from any other hysteria boom? Just the numbers are larger. Is this different from the dot-com boom where huge amounts of money were poured in? Most companies failed. Some succeeded, like Amazon or like web 2.0, or like social media or like crypto.Keith Teare: It's very similar. It's more like the gold rush because there really was gold. There really is gold. Even in the dot-com boom, the asset class of venture capital did very well. Individual investments failed, but the asset class as a whole did very well. When you allocate to a tech boom like AI really is and the AI boom is real, there's real value being produced and real change in human experience that's going to generate lots of money. Placing those bets at the asset class level makes sense. Individual investments is a totally different story.Andrew Keen: You also refer to Hunter Walk, who is a very smart guy. He said, you have to assume every company will have access to the same LLMs and voices. The challenge then is to build a company that thrives despite this reality. Given the commodification of AI and all these platforms from xAI to OpenAI to Anthropic AI to Google Gemini, that are basically now all the same. We're seeing this commodification of LLMs. Doesn't that point to a weakness in this AI hysteria?Keith Teare: You have to distinguish between LLMs, reasoning agents and agents that can do things. This week, Grok Three was launched. It's very good, by the way. But it's only a little bit better than all the others. So it didn't get the attention that say deepfaked.Andrew Keen: And next week someone will come out with something else that will be a little better. And as this race continues, the differences between the products will become less and less.Keith Teare: But for you and me, that's fantastic. You use Anthropic, I use Perplexity, I use Claude, we're basically getting free intelligence to do work.Andrew Keen: I wonder whether in that sense it's rather like the early days of the internet where we got a lot of stuff for free, and then everyone woke up and started charging. I mean, we are paying. I pay my $20 a month to Anthropic. You pay your monthly fees, but it's still pretty small amounts of money.Keith Teare: OpenAI now has 400 million daily active users and is making billions of dollars.Andrew Keen: I hope so because it's raised tens of billions of dollars.Keith Teare: But that is the game. Think of the Andrew Keen world. You wouldn't want to constrain yourself to investing almost nothing and making almost nothing. You want to invest as much as possible as long as you know you can make more than that back.Andrew Keen: On the unicorn front, you've been at this rodeo before many times. You're about as experienced as it gets. Are you taking these arguments about unicorns seriously, or should we be taking them like unicorns themselves with a pinch of salt?Keith Teare: When you build startups, the valuation of the startup is not even in your mind as a variable. You're just building whatever your vision is and it costs money to build it. So you're raising money. You sell shares in your company at the highest price you possibly can. It's good news if you're a unicorn from the point of view of the company you're building. Founders don't really think about valuations as much as they think about how much money they need and what they're going to do with it. Normal people read the headlines and think that Silicon Valley is awash with irrationality. It isn't really true.Andrew Keen: Well, you're providing us with those headlines. One of the other pieces you linked to this week is from the FT about Silicon Valley fighting EU tech rules with backing from Trump. Most of the news this week has been about Trump outside technology. It's Trump changing the rules in terms of big tech and particularly Europe and tariffs completely.Keith Teare: Coinbase announced yesterday that the SEC has withdrawn its lawsuit against Coinbase. That's the latest little indication of the trend. There are rumors that Ripple, which was also subject to an SEC case, will have that case withdrawn. The Trump administration does not want to stand in the way of big tech or little tech for that matter, and it sees Europe, rightly so, as a bit of a backwater. The zeitgeist is changing. Even in Europe, the innovators are fairly pro the Trump message even if they're not pro Trump. The need to innovate and relax constraints.Andrew Keen: The German economy now seems to be in crisis or German culture is in crisis. But they probably left it too late. The horse or the unicorns, so to speak, has left the barn here, hasn't it?Keith Teare: Apple yesterday announced that it's turning off encryption in Europe, in the UK now, not the whole of Europe, because the UK asked for a backdoor. So now UK users of the iPhone have no security on their phones because Apple, rather than comply with a backdoor, would turn the whole security layer off. That's going to be a bit of a trend. The governments trying to control tech, especially if they're snooping on their citizens. Tech is not going to bend over and agree with them anymore. And Trump is going in the opposite direction. He's not trying to get them to do back doors.Andrew Keen: The interview of the week, my interview was with Tim Wu, who was perhaps the most influential critic of monopoly Big Tech in the Biden administration. He has an interesting new piece out on decentralizing capitalism. With the help of Claude, we came away with five points from my conversation with Wu. It's all about decentralizing capitalism, getting away from monopoly capitalism, which I think he sees in companies like Google and Facebook and even OpenAI. I know you're not a big fan of regulation, but do you think Wu has a point? He's in favor of decentralizing capitalism. He's not against the market. He's in favor of innovation.Keith Teare: What does he mean? Because you could frame that as being nation states that are too centralized or you could frame it that big tech is too centralized. How does he frame it?Andrew Keen: He frames it as capitalism lends itself to a winner take all economy. He goes over the argument that America has always been a more innovative and wealthier society when you attack the monopolies, whether it's the oil monopolies, the railroads, pharma. And the same needs to be done now to unleash creativity, to unleash guys like yourself. One of your close friends, Lina Khan, was on MSNBC this week, talking about what she calls an anti-monopoly hunger in America. I'm not sure whether that's an exaggeration, but certainly there is an anti-monopoly feeling, both on both sides of the aisle. It's one of the few things that unite Democrats and Republicans, isn't it?Keith Teare: No, I disagree. The zeitgeist is exactly the opposite. The desire to control, especially big tech is nonexistent. The Democrats live in their own bubble world on MSNBC, and they really don't know how normal people think. Most people think Google's awesome. They think Amazon is awesome. They like using AI. More and more people are using it.Andrew Keen: You can like using AI and not be in favor of monopolies. That's two different subjects.Keith Teare: Normal people don't even use the word monopoly. It's not a word in the normal lexicon. It's a purely political word, used only in the circles of the Democratic Party that have this kind of Stalinist influence. The word state monopoly capitalism came out of Stalin.Andrew Keen: But I think you need to read Wu's piece on decentralizing capitalism, because he's as much a critic of Stalinism and centralization as you. He uses models from postwar East Asia, particularly Taiwan, and of course, the Danish model to talk about reforming the US. So what would you advise guys like Wu to be arguing? Should they just throw in their chips with Donald Trump and say you're right?Keith Teare: Where I would agree with them, and this is the common thread where we can agree, is capitalism has the tendency to create what I think of as greater socialization. You get bigger and bigger units, more interconnected. The interconnected piece is super important. It's not just that they're big, they're interconnected and that tends to be global. There's a globalizing tendency within capitalism. As you globalize and you socialize production, small individual industries tend to go by the wayside. Artisan industries. All of that is true. But you don't fix that by trying to break it up. The real social good is that the human race increasingly becomes interconnected and interdependent. That's a good thing. What's wrong is the private ownership of the wealth that it produces.Andrew Keen: Last week we talked about Alva van Gogh's critique of Vance's Paris speech, although he agreed with it in part. This week, you connect with Albert's humanist vision for AI. The speech at the Paris AI summit he would have given. What is Albert's vision?Keith Teare: It's a little bit 1960s cumbayah-ish. I am one of those, so I agree with him. But it's basically saying that AI is a tool for humanity, not a tool against humanity. And he makes the case for that. He doesn't say there are no safety risks, but he minimizes safety risks and places human good first, which I think does correlate to Tim Vance. It's an opportunity to be taken, not a safety risk. So I think he's kind of on the same page as Vance, to be honest.Andrew Keen: Whenever anyone uses the word humanist, it always makes me slightly skeptical. I'm not entirely sure what it means. I mean, who's anti-humanist except for a few Marxist philosophers in Paris? Meanwhile, lots of other tech news. Microsoft announced what it sees as a breakthrough in quantum. Is that right, Keith?Keith Teare: You and I probably are not clever enough to know, but I think we are safe. The answer is yes. That headline says they've created a new state of matter, and that pertains to something called a topological qubit, which is a qubit that can be programmable. And they're so tiny and there's so many of them that a quantum computer can do calculations at much greater scale, much faster than anything before. And they claim to have reduced this new state of matter down into a chip that can be plugged into a computer, an electrical computer, not a quantum computer, and can run. And the claim is that that will accelerate quantum computing by decades, to the point where there are promising programs that mean something within five years. And so that's a new timeline from Microsoft.Andrew Keen: I think quantum is like we're going to talk about it and talk about it and talk about it, and everyone will be skeptical. Some people will say it's for real, and then suddenly something will come along, the equivalent of OpenAI or ChatGPT and quantum, and it will be real. But that certainly isn't this week. Meanwhile, your startup of the week is exactly what you've been talking about. A unicorn Saronic, which raised this week $600 million to mass produce autonomous warships. It's another example of how Silicon Valley and the Pentagon and the defense industry seem to be becoming one. Tell us about Saronic.Keith Teare: Saronic is part of that trend for Silicon Valley and military spending to converge. The same investors in Saronic are also in Anduril and some of the other companies we talked about from time to time, space as well. So it's symptomatic of two things. The first is militarized investment coming out of Silicon Valley, and the second is the valuations. I should disclose, by the way, that Signal Rank owns shares in Saronic. So this was good news for us this week.Andrew Keen: Or at least your investors own shares. It's interesting that this week Palantir also has done very well for the first few weeks of 2025. But it also crashed. This is a very frothy market, tech military startups isn't it?Keith Teare: I wouldn't say crashed. It's up like 200%. If you're an investor in Palantir and you've been holding, you wouldn't be too upset by this pullback. The world we're living in, and I'm not a fan of this by any means, but military investment by private companies selling to governments is going to be a rising trend because governments can't really innovate the military. They're so stuck with old fashioned views of what conflict might look like. It's interesting that even Musk and DOGE this week and Trump announced they're going to try to reduce the U.S. military budget by 10% annually.Andrew Keen: And they've seen some cuts. And I think when historians look back, the rise of companies like Saronic, the DOGE initiative, and the behavior which I'm like most people, I think rather critical of, of pulling back from Ukraine, they're all going to be part of the same narrative. Something is profoundly changing here on the military industrial, but the military political from the US's involvement in the world and the technological piece of this.Finally, post of the week and it comes back to the conversation you and I were just having about Tim Wu. Robert Reich, a well-known MSNBC type who was in the Clinton administration, posted that there are basically five ways to accumulate $1 billion: profiting from a monopoly, insider trading, political payoffs, fraud and inheritance. And Brad Gerstner, amongst others, was horrified with this. He said it was such a terrible, bitter and sad take on America. I'm assuming you're in the Gerstner camp, Keith.Keith Teare: I am, but that isn't why I posted it. I posted it because I wanted to focus on the absolute chasm between the democratic intellectual elite and the rest of us. Robert Reich almost is saying that you have to be a criminal to get rich. And that isn't how most people think.Andrew Keen: The American dream, right? But I, being a great fan of Reich, think he is the dinosaur of dinosaurs, but he isn't saying that. He's talking about being a billionaire. That's not being rich. So you have to distinguish.Keith Teare: This might be shocking to the listeners and maybe even to you, but it isn't that hard to become a billionaire if you do the right things these days, because 4 billion people on Earth are consuming technology outputs at increasing rates and paying for that. Being a billionaire is like what used to be being a millionaire. And it's only going up.Andrew Keen: I've got my title of this week's show Keith. "Keith Teare says it's not that hard to be a billionaire." How close are you to being a billionaire?Keith Teare: I've been very close twice in my career.Andrew Keen: No you haven't. When?Keith Teare: Absolutely have. Both RealNames and Easynet were valued at well over $1 billion.Andrew Keen: Yeah, but you didn't own the whole thing.Keith Teare: I owned a lot. And by the way, it was early in the life of the companies, and that was in 1994 and 1999. In 2025, those would be small outcomes. Today's outcomes, getting a company to be worth $1 billion happens early. That early stage unicorns point happens early.Andrew Keen: But let's be clear as well. What Reich is talking about is not billionaires. And as I said, I'm not particularly sympathetic to what he's saying either. But he's talking about real billionaires, people with $1 billion in the bank or with investors.Keith Teare: Let's just ask this question. Look back at what Reich says, and let's answer a few questions. Where would the brothers who run Stripe fit on that list? They're worth much more than $1 billion. They're not anywhere on that list. Where is Musk on that list? Where is Bezos on that list? Where are the founders of Google on that list?Andrew Keen: No, I agree with you. I think that he's wrong to say there are basically five ways to accumulate $1 billion: profiting from monopoly, insider trading, political payoffs, fraud and inheritance. You're absolutely right. But my disagreement with you is it's still incredibly hard to be a billionaire. How many billionaires are there in the US?Keith Teare: Of course it's hard.Andrew Keen: But you just said it was not that hard to be a billionaire.Keith Teare: Let me tell you what I mean by that. It's the easiest it's ever been, and it's going to get easier.Andrew Keen: Or it's easiest it's ever been because of inflation.Keith Teare: No, because of the scale of distribution networks and the revenues that come back from them. It used to be super hard. When I did Easynet, we had to put floppy disks on the front of magazines to distribute our software. When I did my most recent startups, you put an app in two app stores, and it's in the whole world the next day. And so the flow of money that comes from the ease of distribution of software to people who can pay for it if they like it, has completely changed the dynamics.Andrew Keen: I take your point. But coming back to this issue, how do you consider wealth? Who is rich? How much do you have to earn?Keith Teare: I think rich is totally subjective from your point of view. I thought I was rich when I didn't have credit card debt back in the day.Andrew Keen: Meaningless term, then. It's just entirely subjective.Keith Teare: Yes, but you can build the pyramid of wealth in terms of a smaller number of people at the top with very large amounts of wealth and go down to the bottom where lots of people have nothing. And that pyramid will change its shape and the scale at different levels through history, usually in a positive direction. That's one of the results of the socialization of production and the coming together of the human race into a single GDP growth. There's never been a period in human history recently where that pie or pyramid hasn't improved in both scale and distribution.Andrew Keen: As a bit frothy Keith, your new middle name is Keith "It's not that hard to be a billionaire" Teare. But coming back to Reich, I do agree with you. I think his approach is absurdly negative and reactionary, and the idea that you can't become a billionaire unless you're basically cheating, unless you're an inside trader or fraudulent or inherit money from someone else. He couldn't be more wrong on that, given, as you say, the Stripe guys, the Google guys, the Amazon people, even Musk. I'm no great fan of his but he didn't cheat to become a billionaire.Keith Teare: And you've got to believe, and this is why I put it in, that what he's saying is received wisdom in the minds of people like Lina Khan and Elizabeth Warren.Andrew Keen: That you're going to pick on your friend Lina Khan and Tim Wu as well. Wu teaches at Columbia. I wonder what Wu would say about that. I wonder whether Wu would argue that in a decentralized capitalism, it would be possible to be a billionaire. I'd have to get him back on the show to talk about that. Would we want a society, Keith? A decentralized capitalism where nobody was a millionaire, where the wealthiest people were worth 50 or $100 million?Keith Teare: No, I think the nightmare scenario for the future is that as production socializes and globalizes, a very small number of people control the wealth. But I think that's the right place to discuss how does the wealth get distributed to everyone? So you uplift human life, not just a few individuals, but I don't think you achieve that by trying to break up monopolies.Andrew Keen: The point is, it's not even breaking up monopolies. Reich's point is that one way to get $1 billion is to profit from monopoly. But the Google people, it's back to Peter Thiel's argument. Any entrepreneur wants to be a monopoly, that's the nature of doing startups. You want to win and winning becomes a monopoly, right? For better or worse. Google didn't start as a monopoly. Maybe it is one now because it's successful.Keith Teare: That's correct. If everyone was a failure, there'd be no monopolies. It's only success that creates market power and monopolies. It's a little bit like the word fascist. It's become a swear word to describe anything big. And fascist has become a swear word to describe anyone you disagree with. The truth is, these words mean things. Monopolies do get built. Google isn't one, in my opinion. And when they do, there's usually benefits that people are enjoying, which is why they're successful. And the key is how do you transition the world from massively concentrated private wealth to widely distributed aggregate wealth?Andrew Keen: And that's not about breaking up companies.Keith Teare: No, it's about distributing wealth, not breaking up companies.Andrew Keen: Also with Reich, there are lots of politically responsible or politically liberal billionaires. Reed Hoffman comes to mind. We talked about him last week. Finally, and this comes back to your point, Gerstner had another interesting post this week. He said the DOGE dividend could be a massive, game-changing legacy for Trump. Just one day of DOGE savings, apparently - this is what they claim, who knows whether they're really saving it - $3.7 billion could fund a private investment account with $1,000 for each child born in America. With just a little added per year, this could grow to $200,000 by age 30. Do you think Trump needs to do something radical on this front because he's not getting a great deal of good press on DOGE? A lot of people are losing their jobs every day. There are heart-rending stories of laid-off people. And it's not the billionaires losing their jobs. They're being fired by the billionaires. It's people working at poorly paid jobs in the first place. So does he need to do something with all the money he's supposed to have saved? Maybe in terms of a sovereign wealth fund or something more innovative?Keith Teare: What Gerstner is talking about there is about the distribution of wealth. It's one example of it. I think it's unlikely that Trump has the DNA to really follow through on anything like that. I don't think Donald Trump has any kind of social awareness at all about uplifting everybody. I do think there are people that do think like that. Sam Altman is one of them, and Reed Hoffman may be another, where the question of if there is abundance, how does everyone benefit from it? That's a real question. Gerstner's idea is not terrible, but I think it's a macro idea. There's a much bigger conversation needed than how to deploy the DOGE savings.Andrew Keen: I agree with you. And I think that I also agree with you on the Reich front that his kind of thinking, which is purely negative, is pointless. And what's missing on the progressive side amongst Democrats are creative, innovative thinking about the redistribution of wealth, rather than just taxing the rich or making it illegal to be a billionaire.Keith Teare: Yes.Andrew Keen: Well, we're in agreement, Keith.Keith Teare: Shocking.Andrew Keen: Shocking agreement. Although we disagree, I think it is still hard to be a billionaire. One thing I can guarantee is I've never been close and I never will be a billionaire. You say you've been close. What are the chances in the next few years, Keith, that you're going to be a billionaire from Signal Rank?Keith Teare: Don't even think about it. I think about what Signal Rank can do for everyone else. And if it does well, I'll do well.Andrew Keen: Go on bro. If it does well, I hope you'll pay me for this show. Keith Teare, publisher of That Was The Week. The man who argues that it's not that hard to be a millionaire. It's still a little hard, Keith, but we will be back next week to talk more billionaires, unicorns, AI, and everything else in the world of tech. Have a great week and we'll be back at this time next week. Thanks, Keith.Keith Teare: Bye. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Why is reforming capitalism so essential? In the latest issue of Liberties Quarterly, Tim Wu argues that unregulated capitalism not only leads to economic monopolies, but also drives populist anger and authoritarian politics. In “The Real Road to Serfdom”, Wu advocates for "decentralized capitalism" with distributed economic power, citing examples from Scandinavia and East Asia. Drawing from his experience in the Biden administration's antitrust efforts, he emphasizes the importance of preventing industry concentration. Wu expresses concern about big tech's growing political influence and argues that challenging monopolies is critical for fostering innovation and maintaining economic progress in the United States.Here are the 5 KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways from our interview with Tim Wu:* Historical Parallels: Wu sees concerning parallels between our current era and the 1930s, characterized by concentrated economic power, fragile economic conditions, and the rise of populist leaders. He suggests we're in a period where leaders are moving beyond winning elections to attempting to alter constitutional frameworks.* The Monopoly-Autocracy Connection: Wu argues there's a dangerous cycle where monopolies create economic inequality, which generates populist anger, which then enables authoritarian leaders to rise to power. He cites Hugo Chavez as a pioneer of this modern autocratic model that leaders like Trump have followed.* Decentralized Capitalism: Wu advocates for an economic system with multiple centers of distributed economic power, rather than just a few giant companies accumulating wealth. He points to Denmark, Taiwan, and post-WWII East Asia as successful examples of more balanced economic structures.* Antitrust Legacy: Wu believes the Biden administration's antitrust enforcement efforts have created lasting changes in legal standards and public consciousness that won't be easily reversed. He emphasizes that challenging monopolies is crucial for maintaining innovation and preventing industry stagnation.* Big Tech and Power: Wu expresses concern about big tech companies' growing political influence, comparing it to historical examples like AT&T and IBM. He's particularly worried about AI potentially reinforcing existing power structures rather than democratizing opportunities.Complete Transcript: Tim Wu on The Real Road to SerfdomAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. We live in very strange times. That's no exaggeration. Yesterday, we had Nick Bryant on the show, the author of The Forever War. He was the BBC's man in Washington, DC for a long time. In our conversation, Nick suggested that we're living in really historic times, equivalent to the fall of the Berlin Wall, 9/11, perhaps even the beginnings of the Second World War.My guest today, like Nick, is a deep thinker. Tim Wu will be very well known to you for many things, including his book, The Attention Merchants. He was involved in the Biden White House, teaches law at Columbia University, and much more. He has a new book coming out later in the year on November 4th, The Age of Extraction. He has a very interesting essay in this issue of Liberties, the quarterly magazine of ideas, called "The Real Road to Serfdom."Tim had a couple of interesting tweets in the last couple of days, one comparing the behavior of President Trump to Germany's 1933 enabling act. And when it comes to Ukraine, Tim wrote, "How does the GOP feel about their president's evident plan to forfeit the Cold War?" Tim Wu is joining us from his home in the village of Manhattan. Tim, welcome. Before we get to your excellent essay in Liberties, how would you historicize what we're living through at the moment?Tim Wu: I think the 1930s are not the wrong way to look at it. Prior to that period, you had this extraordinary concentration of economic power in a very fragile environment. A lot of countries had experienced an enormous crash and you had the rise of populist leaders, with Mussolini being the pioneer of the model. This has been going on for at least 5 or 6 years now. We're in that middle period where it's moving away from people just winning elections to trying to really alter the constitution of their country. So I think the mid-30s is probably about right.Andrew Keen: You were involved in the Biden administration. You were one of the major thinkers when it came to antitrust. Have you been surprised with what's happened since Biden left office? The speed, the radicalness of this Trump administration?Tim Wu: Yes, because I expected something more like the first Trump administration, which was more of a show with a lot of flash but poor execution. This time around, the execution is also poor but more effective. I didn't fully expect that Elon Musk would actually be a government official at this point and that he'd have this sort of vandalism project going on. The fact they won all of the houses of Congress was part of the problem and has made the effort go faster.Andrew Keen: You talk about Musk. We've done many shows on Musk's role in all this and the seeming arrival of Silicon Valley or a certain version of Silicon Valley in Washington, DC. You're familiar with both worlds, the world of big tech and Silicon Valley and Washington. Is that your historical reading that these two worlds are coming together in this second Trump administration?Tim Wu: It's very natural for economic power to start to seek political power. It follows from the basic view of monopoly as a creature that wants to defend itself, and the second observation that the most effective means of self-defense is control of government. If you follow that very simple logic, it stands to reason that the most powerful economic entities would try to gain control of government.I want to talk about the next five years. The tech industry is following the lead of Palantir and Peter Thiel, who were pioneers in thinking that instead of trying to avoid government, they should try to control it. I think that is the obvious move over the next four years.Andrew Keen: I've been reading your excellent essay in Liberties, "The Real Road to Serfdom." When did you write it? It seems particularly pertinent this week, although of course you didn't write it knowing exactly what was going to be happening with Musk and Washington DC and Trump and Ukraine.Tim Wu: I wrote it about two years ago when I got out of the White House. The themes are trying to get at eternal issues about the dangers of economic power and concentrated economic power and its unaccountability. If it made predictions that are starting to come true, I don't know if that's good or bad.Andrew Keen: "The Real Road to Serfdom" is, of course, a reference to the Hayek book "The Road to Serfdom." Did you consciously use that title with reference to Hayek, or was that a Liberties decision?Tim Wu: That was my decision. At that point, and I may still write this, I was thinking of writing a book just called "The Real Road to Serfdom." I am both fascinated and a fan of Hayek in certain ways. I think he nailed certain things exactly right but makes big errors at the same time.To his credit, Hayek was very critical of monopoly and very critical of the role of the state in reinforcing monopoly. But he had an almost naivete about what powerful, unaccountable private economic entities would do with their power. That's essentially my criticism.Andrew Keen: In 2018, you wrote a book, "The Curse of Bigness." And in a way, this is an essay against bigness, but it's written—please correct me if I'm wrong—I read it as a critique of the left, suggesting that there were times in the essay, if you're reading it blind, you could have been reading Hayek in its critique of Marx and centralization and Lenin and Stalin and the Ukrainian famines. Is the message in the book, Tim—is your audience a progressive audience? Are you saying that it's a mistake to rely on bigness, so to speak, the state as a redistributive platform?Tim Wu: Not entirely. I'm very critical of communist planned economies, and that's part of it. But it's mainly a critique of libertarian faith in private economic power or sort of the blindness to the dangers of it.My basic thesis in "The Real Road to Serfdom" is that free market economies will tend to monopolize. Once monopoly power is achieved, it tends to set off a strong desire to extract as much wealth from the rest of the economy as it can, creating something closer to a feudal-type economy with an underclass. That tends to create a huge amount of resentment and populist anger, and democracies have to respond to that anger.The libertarian answer of saying that's fine, this problem will go away, is a terrible answer. History suggests that what happens instead is if democracy doesn't do anything, the state takes over, usually on the back of a populist strongman. It could be a communist, could be fascist, could be just a random authoritarian like in South America.I guess I'd say it's a critique of both the right and the left—the right for being blind to the dangers of concentrated economic power, and the left, especially the communist left, for idolizing the takeover of vital functions by a giant state, which has a track record as bad, if not worse, than purely private power.Andrew Keen: You bring up Hugo Chavez in the essay, the now departed Venezuelan strongman. You're obviously no great fan of his, but you do seem to suggest that Chavez, like so many other authoritarians, built his popularity on the truth of people's suffering. Is that fair?Tim Wu: That is very fair. In the 90s, when Chavez first came to power through popular election, everyone was mystified and thought he was some throwback to the dictators of the 60s and 70s. But he turned out to be a pioneer of our future, of the new form of autocrat, who appealed to the unfairness of the economy post-globalization.Leaders like Hungary's Viktor Orbán, and certainly Donald Trump, are direct descendants of Hugo Chavez in their approach. They follow the same playbook, appealing to the same kind of pain and suffering, promising to act for the people as opposed to the elites, the foreigners, and the immigrants. Chavez is also a cautionary lesson. He started in a way which the population liked—he lowered gas prices, gave away money, nationalized industry. He was very popular. But then like most autocrats, he eventually turned the money to himself and destroyed his own country.Andrew Keen: Why are autocrats like Chavez and perhaps Trump so much better at capturing that anger than Democrats like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?Tim Wu: People who are outside the system like Chavez are able to tap into resentment and anger in a way which is less diluted by their direct information environment and their colleagues. Anyone who hangs around Washington, DC for a long time becomes more muted and careful. They lose credibility.That said, the fact that populist strongmen take over countries in distress suggests we need to avoid that level of economic distress in the first place and protect the middle class. Happy, contented middle-class countries don't tend to see the rise of authoritarian dictators. There isn't some Danish version of Hugo Chavez in the running right now.Andrew Keen: You bring up Denmark. Denmark always comes up in these kinds of conversations. What's admirable about your essay is you mostly don't fall into the Denmark trap of simply saying, "Why don't we all become like Denmark?" But at the same time, you acknowledge that the Danish model is attractive, suggesting we've misunderstood it or treated it superficially. What can and can't we learn from the Danish model?Tim Wu: American liberals often misunderstand the lesson of Scandinavia and other countries that have strong, prosperous middle classes like Taiwan, Japan, and Korea. In Scandinavia's case, the go-to explanation is that it's just the liberals' favorite set of policies—high taxation, strong social support systems. But I think the structure of those economies is much more important.They have what Jacob Hacker calls very strong "pre-distribution." They've avoided just having a small set of monopolists who make all the money and then hopefully hand it out to other people. It goes back to their land reform in the early 19th century, where they set up a very different kind of economy with a broad distribution of productive assets.If I'm trying to promote a philosophy in this book, it's for people who are fed up with the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism and think it leads to autocracy, but who are also no fans of communism or socialism. Just saying "let people pile up money and we'll tax it later" is not going to work. What you need is an economy structured with multiple centers of distributed economic power.Andrew Keen: The term that seems to summarize that in the essay is "architecture of parity." It's a bit clunky, but is that the best way to sum up your thinking?Tim Wu: I'm working on the terminology. Architecture of equality, parity, decentralized capitalism, distribution—these are all terms trying to capture it. It's more of a 19th century form of Christian or Catholic economics. People are grasping for the right word for an economic system that doesn't rely on just a few giant companies taking money from everybody and hopefully redistributing it. That model is broken and has a dangerous tendency to lead to toxicity. We need a better capitalism. An alternative title for this piece could have been "Saving Capitalism from Itself."Andrew Keen: Your name is most associated with tech and your critique of big tech. Does this get beyond big tech? Are there other sectors of the economy you're interested in fixing and reforming?Tim Wu: Absolutely. Silicon Valley is the most obvious and easiest entry point to talk about concentrated economic power. You can see the dependence on a small number of platforms that have earnings and profits far beyond what anyone imagined possible. But we're talking about an economy-wide, almost global set of problems.Some industries are worse. The meat processing industry in the United States is horrendously concentrated—it takes all the money from farmers, charges us too much for meat, and keeps it for itself. There are many industries where people are looking for something to understand or believe in that's different than socialism but different than this libertarian capitalism that ends up bankrupting people. Tech is the easiest way to talk about it, but not the be-all and end-all of my interest.Andrew Keen: Are there other examples where we're beginning to see decentralized capitalism? The essay was very strong on the critique, but I found fewer examples of decentralized capitalism in practice outside maybe Denmark in the 2020s.Tim Wu: East Asia post-World War II is a strong example of success. While no economy is purely small businesses, although Taiwan comes close, if you look at the East Asian story after World War II, one of the big features was an effort to reform land, give land to peasants, and create a landowning class to replace the feudal system. They had huge entrepreneurism, especially in Korea and Taiwan, less in Japan. This built a strong and prosperous middle and upper middle class.Japan has gone through hard times—they let their companies get too big and they stagnated. But Korea and Taiwan have gone from being third world economies to Taiwan now being wealthier per capita than Japan. The United States is another strong example, vacillating between being very big and very small. Even at its biggest, it still has a strong entrepreneurial culture and sectors with many small entities. Germany is another good example. There's no perfect version, but what I'm saying is that the model of monopolized economies and just having a few winners and hoping that anybody else can get tax payments is really a losing proposition.Andrew Keen: You were on Chris Hayes recently talking about antitrust. You're one of America's leading thinkers on antitrust and were brought into the Biden administration on the antitrust front. Is antitrust then the heart of the matter? Is this really the key to decentralizing capitalism?Tim Wu: I think it's a big tool, one of the tools of managing the economy. It works by preventing industries from merging their way into monopoly and keeps a careful eye on structure. In the same way that no one would say interest rates are the be-all and end-all of monetary policy, when we're talking about structural policy, having antitrust law actively preventing overconcentration is important.In the White House itself, we spent a lot of time trying to get other agencies to prevent their sectors, whether healthcare or transportation, from becoming overly monopolized and extractive. You can have many parts of the government involved—the antitrust agencies are key, but they're not the only solution.Andrew Keen: You wrote an interesting piece for The Atlantic about Biden's antitrust initiatives. You said the outgoing president's legacy of revived antitrust enforcement won't be easy to undo. Trump is very good at breaking things. Why is it going to be hard to undo? Lina Khan's gone—the woman who seems to unite all of Silicon Valley in their dislike of her. What did Biden do to protect antitrust legislation?Tim Wu: The legal patterns have changed and the cases are ongoing. But I think more important is a change of consciousness and ideology and change in popular support. I don't think there is great support for letting big tech do whatever they want without oversight. There are people who believe in that and some of them have influence in this administration, but there's been a real change in consciousness.I note that the Federal Trade Commission has already announced that it's going to stick with the Biden administration's merger rules, and my strong sense is the Department of Justice will do the same. There are certain things that Trump did that we stuck with in the Biden administration because they were popular—the most obvious being the turn toward China. Going back to the Bush era approach of never bothering any monopolies, I just don't think there's an appetite for it.Andrew Keen: Why is Lina Khan so unpopular in Silicon Valley?Tim Wu: It's interesting. I'm not usually one to attribute things to sexism, but the Justice Department brought more cases against big tech than she did. Jonathan Kanter, who ran antitrust at Justice, won the case against Google. His firm was trying to break up Google. They may still do it, but somehow Lina Khan became the face of it. I think because she's young and a woman—I don't know why Jonathan Kanter didn't become the symbol in the same way.Andrew Keen: You bring up the AT&T and IBM cases in the US tech narrative in the essay, suggesting that we can learn a great deal from them. What can we learn from those cases?Tim Wu: The United States from the 70s through the 2010s was an extraordinarily innovative place and did amazing things in the tech industry. An important part of that was challenging the big IBM and AT&T monopolies. AT&T was broken into eight pieces. IBM was forced to begin selling its software separately and opened up the software markets to what became a new software industry.AT&T earlier had been forced to license the transistor, which opened up the semiconductor industry and to some degree the computing industry, and had to stay out of computing. The government intervened pretty forcefully—a form of industrial policy to weaken its tech monopolies. The lesson is that we need to do the same thing right now.Some people will ask about China, but I think the United States has always done best when it constantly challenges established power and creates room for entrepreneurs to take their shot. I want very much for the new AI companies to challenge the main tech platforms and see what comes of that, as opposed to becoming a stagnant industry. Everyone says nothing can become stagnant, but the aerospace industry was pretty quick-moving in the 60s, and now you have Boeing and Airbus sitting there. It's very easy for a tech industry to stagnate, and attacking monopolists is the best way to prevent that.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Google earlier. You had an interesting op-ed in The New York Times last year about what we should do about Google. My wife is head of litigation at Google, so I'm not entirely disinterested. I also have a career as a critic of Google. If Kent Walker was here, he would acknowledge some of the things he was saying. But he would say Google still innovates—Google hasn't become Boeing. It's innovating in AI, in self-driving cars, it's shifting search. Would he be entirely wrong?Tim Wu: No, he wouldn't be entirely wrong. In the same way that IBM kept going, AT&T kept going. What you want in tech industries is a fair fight. The problem with Google isn't that they're investing in AI or trying to build self-driving cars—that's great. The problem is that they were paying over $20 billion a year to Apple for a promise not to compete in search. Through control of the browsers and many other things, they were trying to make sure they could never be dislodged.My view of the economics is monopolists need to always be a little insecure. They need to be in a position where they can be challenged. That happens—there are companies who, like AT&T in the 70s or 60s, felt they were immune. It took the government to make space. I think it's very important for there to be opportunities to challenge the big guys and try to seize the pie.Andrew Keen: I'm curious where you are on Section 230. Google won their Supreme Court case when it came to Section 230. In this sense, I'm guessing you view Google as being on the side of the good guys.Tim Wu: Section 230 is interesting. In the early days of the Internet, it was an important infant industry protection. It was an insulation that was vital to get those little companies at the time to give them an opportunity to grow and build business models, because if you're being sued by billions of people, you can't really do too much.Section 230 was originally designed to protect people like AOL, who ran user forums and had millions of people discussing—kind of like Reddit. I think as Google and companies like Facebook became active in promoting materials and became more like media companies, the case for an absolutist Section 230 became a lot weaker. The law didn't really change but the companies did.Andrew Keen: You wrote the essay "The Real Road to Serfdom" a couple of years ago. You also talked earlier about AI. There's not a lot of AI in this, but 50% of all the investment in technology over the last year was in AI, and most of that has gone into these huge platforms—OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Gemini. Is AI now the central theater, both in the Road to Serfdom and in liberating ourselves from big tech?Tim Wu: Two years ago when I was writing this, I was determined not to say anything that would look stupid about AI later. There's a lot more on what I think about AI in my new book coming in November.I see AI as a classic potential successor technology. It obviously is the most significant successor to the web and the mass Internet of 20 years ago in terms of having potential to displace things like search and change the way people do various forms of productivity. How technology plays out depends a lot on the economic structure. If you think about a technology like the cotton gin, it didn't automatically lead to broad flourishing, but reinforced plantation slavery.What I hope happens with AI is that it sets off more competition and destabilization for some of the tech platforms as opposed to reinforcing their advantage and locking them in forever. I don't know if we know what's going to happen right now. I think it's extremely important that OpenAI stays separate from the existing tech companies, because if this just becomes the same players absorbing technology, that sounds a lot like the darker chapters in US tech history.Andrew Keen: And what about the power of AI to liberate ourselves from our brain power as the next industrial revolution? When I was reading the essay, I thought it would be a very good model, both as a warning and in terms of offering potential for us to create this new architecture of parity. Because the technology in itself, in theory at least, is one of parity—one of democratizing brainpower.Tim Wu: Yes, I agree it has extraordinary potential. Things can go in two directions. The Industrial Revolution is one example where you had more of a top-down centralization of the means of production that was very bad for many people initially, though there were longer-term gains.I would hope AI would be something more like the PC revolution in the 80s and 90s, which did augment individual humanity as opposed to collective enterprise. It allowed people to do things like start their own travel agency or accounting firm with just a computer. I am interested and bullish on the potential of AI to empower smaller units, but I'm concerned it will be used to reinforce existing economic structures. The jury's out—the future will tell us. Just hoping it's going to make humanity better is not going to be the best answer.Andrew Keen: When you were writing this essay, Web3 was still in vogue then—the idea of blockchain and crypto decentralizing the economy. But I didn't see any references to Web3 and the role of technology in democratizing capitalism in terms of the architecture of corporations. Are you skeptical of the Web3 ideology?Tim Wu: The essay had its limits since I was also talking about 18th century Denmark. I have a lot more on blockchain and Web3 in the book. The challenge with crypto and Bitcoin is that it both over-promises and delivers something. I've been very interested in crypto and blockchain for a long time. The challenge it's had is constantly promising to decentralize great systems and failing, then people stealing billions of dollars and ending up in prison.It has a dubious track record, but it does have this core potential for a certain class of people to earn money. I'm always in favor of anything that is an alternative means of earning money. There are people who made money on it. I just think it's failed to execute on its promises. Blockchain in particular has failed to be a real challenge to web technologies.Andrew Keen: As you say, Hayek inspired the book and in some sense this is intellectual. The father of decentralization in ideological terms was E.F. Schumacher. I don't think you reference him, but do you think there has been much thinking since Schumacher on the value of smallness and decentralized architectures? What do people like yourself add to what Schumacher missed in his critique of bigness?Tim Wu: Schumacher is a good example. Rawls is actually under-recognized as being interested in these things. I see myself as writing in the tradition of those figures and trying to pursue a political economy that values a more balanced economy and small production.Hopefully what I add is a level of institutional experience and practicality that was missing. Rawls is slightly unfair because he's a philosopher, but his model doesn't include firms—it's just individuals. So it's all about balancing between poor people and rich people when obviously economic power is also held by corporations.I'm trying to create more flesh on the bones of the "small is beautiful" philosophy and political economy that is less starry-eyed and more realistic. I'm putting forward the point that you're not sacrificing growth and you're taking less political risk with a more balanced economy. There's an adulation of bigness in our time—exciting big companies are glamorous. But long-term prosperity does better when you have more centers, a more balanced system. I'm not an ultra-centralist suggesting we should live in mud huts, but I do think the worship of monopoly is very similar to the worship of autocracy and is dangerous.Andrew Keen: Much to discuss. Tim Wu, thank you so much. The author of "The Real Road to Serfdom," fascinating essay in this month's issue of Liberties. I know "The Age of Extraction" will be coming out on November 10th.Tim Wu: In England and US at the same time.Andrew Keen: We'll get you back on the show. Fascinating conversation, Tim. Thank you so much.Hailed as the “architect” of the Biden administration's competition and antitrust policies, Tim Wu writes and teaches about private power and related topics. First known for coining the term “net neutrality” in 2002, in recent years Wu has been a leader in the revitalization of American antitrust and has taken a particular focus on the growing power of the big tech platforms. In 2021, he was appointed to serve in the White House as special assistant to the president for technology and competition policy. A professor at Columbia Law School since 2006, Wu has also held posts in public service. He was enforcement counsel in the New York Attorney General's Office, worked on competition policy for the National Economic Council during the Barack Obama administration, and worked in antitrust enforcement at the Federal Trade Commission. In 2014, Wu was a Democratic primary candidate for lieutenant governor of New York. In his most recent book, The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age (2018), he argues that corporate and industrial concentration can lead to the rise of populism, nationalism, and extremist politicians. His previous books include The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads (2016), The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires (2010), and Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World (2006), which he co-authored with Jack Goldsmith. Wu was a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times and also has written for Slate, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post. He once explained the concept of net neutrality to late-night host Stephen Colbert while he rode a rollercoaster. He has been named one of America's 100 most influential lawyers by the National Law Journal; has made Politico's list of 50 most influential figures in American politics (more than once); and has been included in the Scientific American 50 of policy leadership. Wu is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He served as a law clerk for Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Ryan and Emily discuss Trump and Musk with Hannity, Hamas open to stepping down in Gaza, Jewish man shoots Israeli tourists he thought were Palestinian, Bannon calls Musk 'parasitic", Trump border czar demands AOC prosecution, Trump FTC sides with Lina Khan, Chappelle says SNL censured Gaza monologue. James Billot: https://x.com/james_billot/highlights Doha Mekki: https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/staff-profile/doha-mekki-acting-assistant-attorney-general To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The zealously anti-regulatory Trump is back and anti-corruption activist Frank Vogl is very worried. Vogl warns that MAGA's increasingly deregulated America financial landscape could make the 2008 crash look like a minor bump in the economic road. With Trump putting the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act on "pause" and DOGE kingpin Elon Musk openly dreaming of turning X into a bank, we're watching traditional financial regulation shrivel to the minimal levels of Calvin Coolidge's 1920's. Meanwhile, Melania is launching crypto tokens, Putin's kleptocracy has been legitimized by the Ukraine “peace” negotiations, and the increasingly unaccountable banks are begging to gamble with our money again. What could possibly go wrong? Here are the five KEEN ON takeaways from this conversation with Frank Vogl:* Financial Deregulation Concerns - Frank Vogl warns that Trump's administration is actively dismantling financial regulations, including pausing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He fears this deregulation could lead to a financial crisis potentially worse than 2008.* Three-Pronged Financial Risk - Vogl identifies three interconnected areas of concern:* Traditional banks seeking reduced capital requirements and fewer restrictions* Unregulated expansion of Silicon Valley firms (like X/Twitter) into banking* The growing crypto market and its potential for money laundering and speculation* Regulatory Enforcement Weakening - The Trump administration is systematically weakening regulatory agencies by appointing anti-regulation leaders and reducing staff (e.g., the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation lost 500 staff). This reduction in oversight capacity could enable financial abuse and fraud.* International Corruption Implications - The suspension of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and potential lifting of Russian sanctions could create a vacuum in global anti-corruption enforcement, as no other country (including the UK or Switzerland) is positioned to take over America's leadership role in fighting international financial crime.* Big Tech and Government Contracts - There's growing concern about the relationship between the Trump administration and tech leaders, not just for potential government contracts but also for their control of media platforms. Vogl argues this could be problematic for democracy if proper procurement and transparency processes aren't followed.FULL TRANSCRIPT: Frank Vogl Warns of a New Financial Crisis Under Trump 2.0Interview with Frank Vogl February 16, 2025Two months into Donald Trump's second presidency, financial corruption expert Frank Vogl returns to Keen On to discuss the dismantling of America's financial regulatory system and its potential consequences. Vogl, co-founder of Transparency International and author of "The Enablers: How the West Supports Kleptocrats and Corruption, Endangering Our Democracy," warns of parallels to both the 1920s and 2008 financial crisis, but with new digital-age complications.Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. It is Sunday, February 16th, 2025. A couple of years ago, we did a show with my old friend Frank Vogl on the global fight against corruption. He is the author of "The Enablers: How the West Supports Kleptocrats and Corruption, Endangering Our Democracy" and co-founder of Transparency International, a nonprofit focused on exposing financial corruption. Last year, we had Frank back to discuss whether Donald Trump 2.0 would be what we called a semi-legal repeat of the Sam Bankman-Fried FTX debacle. Now, almost two months into the Trump regime, I'd like to revisit this question. Frank, you have an interesting new piece out in The Globalist about Trump-style U.S. financial deregulation and its global ramifications. Is it as bad as we feared?Frank Vogl: Yes, it's good to be with you, Andrew. We are in danger of developments that could lead to a financial crisis in a few years' time, potentially worse than the 2008 financial crisis. That crisis led to massive unemployment and economic hardship, not just in the U.S. but across the world. It was caused by wild speculation, greed, and mismanagement by fewer than two dozen financial institutions, many of which were bailed out. Now, thanks to what Trump and Elon Musk are doing, we're setting the stage for a new era of financial deregulation with all the risks that involves.Andrew Keen: It's chilling. Frank, I wonder about the historical parallels. Some people have made much of Trump's interest in McKinley's presidency, colonialism, and Latin America. But I wonder whether we're really returning to the 1920s and the unconstrained speculative capitalism of the Coolidge, Harding, and Hoover era. Are there historical analogies here? The teapot scandal and unregulated capitalism of the '20s resulted in the great crash.Frank Vogl: Yes, that's true. But we should remember it led to a new era of regulation - the establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory bodies focused on ensuring financial institutions didn't have excessive power. What we're facing now is not only the prospect of excessive power by financial institutions but a much more complicated array of financial institutions. Take Elon Musk, who unquestionably wants to enter the financial arena by operating his own quasi-bank.Andrew Keen: He's always been clear about that - he's said X will ultimately be a bank among other things.Frank Vogl: What we're seeing now is not only the possibility of bank deregulation, but also the emergence of a whole new unregulated system of finance from Silicon Valley. Add to that the complete mayhem of gambling, greed, corruption, and money laundering associated with crypto tokens. Put all of that together and you have a dangerous situation that could affect the global economy.Andrew Keen: Some might say you're overreacting. A Silicon Valley entrepreneur friend who was on the show yesterday argued that the Biden administration, particularly figures like Lina Khan, was stifling innovation. They'd say Trump's people are just letting innovators innovate, with Musk as a prime example. How would you respond to that?Frank Vogl: I disagree when it comes to finance. Let me explain. Our government essentially has two components: the administrative state, where government departments monitor and implement programs and projects, and the regulatory state, where agencies protect American citizens in health, consumer safety, and finance. First and foremost, we need a safe and sound financial system. Everyone benefits from that. We have a healthy financial system right now - just look at the stock market. It could be improved, but let's not demolish it. The profits of the biggest banks in 2024 were at record levels. Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan Chase, took home a record $39 million in compensation. The head of Goldman Sachs got an $80 million bonus.Andrew Keen: Which in Silicon Valley terms isn't that much money, certainly compared to the Musks and others of this world.Frank Vogl: My point is that banks are the bedrock of our financial system. The people at the top are being compensated better than ever before. So what are they campaigning for? What are they supporting Trump on? They're arguing for the kind of deregulation that Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve Board president, warned would be dangerous.Andrew Keen: My understanding of the 2008 crash was that banks took advantage of vulnerable consumers and lent them money they shouldn't have borrowed, creating the subprime mortgage crisis that crashed the economy. What do bankers want to do in 2025 that, in your view, they shouldn't be allowed to do?Frank Vogl: You're right about what happened, but also many financial institutions borrowed enormous sums. They leveraged their basic resources to speculate on complicated derivative financial instruments. They were essentially gambling. As Chuck Prince, who ran Citigroup, said, "We have to keep dancing as long as the music is playing."Andrew Keen: Capitalism is about dancing, Frank. It's about taking risk, isn't it?Frank Vogl: To some degree, but when you have an institution like JPMorgan Chase with over $4 trillion in assets, you have to think hard about its mission. That mission fundamentally is to serve customers, not just the top executives. Let them get rich at the top, but let them be prudent and maintain integrity. Trump and Musk have no time for that. Let me give you one example: Trump recently announced we're no longer going to investigate international and corporate corruption. He put the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act on pause.Andrew Keen: Yes, that was February 10th. Quoting from whitehouse.gov: "Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement to further American economic and national security," whatever that means.Frank Vogl: The act was signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. The largest single fines ever paid for foreign bribery were by Goldman Sachs - nearly $4 billion globally, with $1.6 billion to the U.S. alone. Now we're ending investigations of exactly the kind of activity that made Goldman Sachs very profitable. We're ending all manner of fraud investigation in finance. Take another example: last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was essentially shuttered. A judge ruled it should continue, but Trump's appointees ensure it has minimal resources to investigate. The CFPB investigates banks that commit fraud against regular customers. Remember what Wells Fargo did? The CFPB caught them, and they paid major fines.Andrew Keen: How does all this add up to a financial crisis? The CFPB situation is troubling, but why should this cause the whole system to collapse?Frank Vogl: Let's look at this in three components: banks, digital finance, and crypto. Starting with banks - they're lobbying hard for reduced capital requirements, meaning less money in reserve for crises. They want fewer regulations on how they use their money so they can speculate on their own account. Why? Because banks' short-term profits determine the bankers' compensation. Their bonuses are tied to those profits.Andrew Keen: So if banks are allowed to gamble aggressively, that's great if they win, but if they lose, we all lose. Is that the argument? Then we have to bail them out again?Frank Vogl: That's part of it. The other concern is that as some banks lose, they may get merged into other banks until you have just a handful of enormous banks that can never fail. If they were to fail, our economy would fail. The moral hazard is that banks know when they take huge risks, they'll be bailed out. Now add to this all these quasi-banking systems from Silicon Valley - PayPal, Venmo, Apple Pay. And X recently announced a deal with Visa on payment systems, just the first step to creating X Financial.Andrew Keen: You're sounding a bit reactionary, maybe alarmist. What's wrong with PayPal? It's simply a digital system for people to buy stuff.Frank Vogl: You're right, it's fine the way it is today. But what if these entities are allowed to take deposits and make loans, doing everything banks do, all online? Who's regulating that? Where's the safety?Andrew Keen: But where's the evidence that the Trump administration will allow PayPal or X or Apple Pay to become banks without traditional regulations? From a traditional banking perspective, I'd assume Jamie Dimon and his peers would fight this because it undermines them.Frank Vogl: We're seeing an administration tearing the system apart. Look at each regulatory agency - Trump has put people in charge with long histories of opposing regulation. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation just lost 500 staff through "voluntary resignations." When you reduce regulatory enforcement and investigation, you open the door to abuse. History shows that when there's opportunity for abuse, abuse happens. I hope your optimism about Silicon Valley's ability to manage complicated finance is justified, but I'm skeptical.Andrew Keen: So you're saying Apple or X or PayPal shouldn't be able to be banks, even with traditional banking regulations?Frank Vogl: No, that would be fine. But who's going to regulate it? Do you see Trump proposing to Congress that a brand new regulatory agency be established for this kind of finance? That's not how the Trump team thinks. Just look at crypto.Andrew Keen: Yes, let's look at crypto. Melania Trump launched her own cryptocurrency - it's an enormous speculative bubble, like the tulip speculation. Last week, both Donald and Melania Trump's crypto tokens plummeted. Someone's profiting, someone's losing. How important is this to the broader economy? Is it just another sideshow, another way for the Trump family to get rich while we lose?Frank Vogl: It's contained at the moment. The whole crypto token business is perhaps $3-4 trillion in size - very small in terms of global finance. But I worry about an administration with strong conflicts of interest developing this kind of rapid gambling speculation. Most people invested in crypto are young, between 18 and 35. Many don't have experience with past financial crises.Andrew Keen: And there's a clear difference between using PayPal to buy something online and investing in crypto. One is entirely speculative, one is just a financial transaction.Frank Vogl: Do you really think Elon Musk's X Financial will be satisfied just being a rival to PayPal's payment system? Or does he have bigger ambitions to turn X Financial into something much more like a bank?Andrew Keen: I think he does, but...Frank Vogl: And then comes the question: who is going to regulate this?Andrew Keen: Musk himself? That's a joke. Although at the moment, there's no concrete evidence. X is still struggling for survival as just a social media platform.Frank Vogl: Look, I may sound pessimistic, but I'm only talking about the potential. There's very little public attention on what's happening with financial deregulation, as I wrote in The Globalist. The impact could be substantial. When you have this complete dismantling of the FCPA, other fraud investigations, the removal of inspectors general - the whole dismantling of the government's apparatus for accountability and transparency - then you have to worry about mounting financial risk in our system.Andrew Keen: Let's return to crypto. When does crypto become dangerous? If it becomes a rival to the dollar? At what point do we start worrying that a crypto crisis could become a broader financial crisis?Frank Vogl: I don't worry about that actually. I worry about the conflicts of interest - Trump and his children and cronies all making money from deregulating crypto. I think crypto will remain a sideshow for a long time. But I'm considerably worried about money laundering. With a Justice Department that's stopped investigating financial crimes, and a cryptocurrency system free of regulation - something Trump has promised - organized crime and kleptocrats worldwide will be able to hide their ill-gotten gains and transfer them between countries. That's worrying in itself, even if it doesn't cause a global financial meltdown.Andrew Keen: I wonder if there's another dimension to Trump's upcoming meeting with Putin in Saudi Arabia to discuss Ukraine. There's what one author called "KGB-style capitalism" - the mass laundering of illegal wealth. How much does Trump's eagerness to bring Putin back into the international system have financial ramifications?Frank Vogl: Putin and the oligarchs, Lukashenko in Belarus and his cronies, the former oligarchs of Ukraine who made their money with Russia - all these people have been sanctioned since the war started in February 2022. We're approaching the third anniversary. Putin really wants those sanctions lifted to restore global money laundering and financial crime opportunities. This might be leverage in a deal.Andrew Keen: Can Trump get away with that politically in D.C.? If he pulls the sanctions card to establish what he'd call a Ukrainian peace - really a peace imposed by America on Ukraine - will mainstream Republicans accept that?Frank Vogl: They seem to accept everything today. Trump seems to get away with an awful lot. But I'd like to return to something earlier - there needs to be more public attention on the dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. To use a new word in the vocabulary, it has been "Musked." The CFPB, like USA Today, has been Musked. Musk and Trump have weaponized their authority to dismantle these institutions. We'll see it at the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. When you weaponize authority, you monetize power. This is where the conflict of interest comes in. Unfortunately, Congress isn't alert to these developments.Andrew Keen: In a broader international sense, I've always understood that American law is more aggressive than the UK's. Oliver Pollock, who's been on the show, wrote "Butler to the World" about the corrupt British system that invites dirty money from overseas, particularly Russia. Given that Trump is demanding half of Ukraine's mineral resources, could this Trump revolution undermine America's role in standing up to dirty money, both domestically and overseas?Frank Vogl: It might undermine it, but there's no authority anywhere to replace it. The U.S. Justice Department did a fantastic job investigating cryptocurrencies, crypto finance, and bribery of foreign government officials - not just by U.S. companies but by many companies worldwide with U.S. listings, like Airbus Industries. There's no authority in Europe willing to take on that task. So we leave a vacuum. And who fills the vacuum? Kleptocrats, organized crime, and corrupt businesses. A Nigerian paper recently headlined that Nigerian politicians are now open to American bribes. We're being seen as permitting corruption - a terrible reputation. The Swiss or British won't suddenly become super-active in filling the roles the U.S. Justice Department has played.Andrew Keen: As The Guardian headlined today, "Elon Musk's mass government cuts could make private companies millions." We all know the famous photo from the inauguration with Zuckerberg, Bezos, Google's CEO, and Musk. Some might say, what's wrong with that? These companies are the engine of the American economy. Why shouldn't the Trump administration focus on making big American companies more profitable? Won't that make Americans wealthier too?Frank Vogl: There are two answers. First, I agree - if standard public procurement, accountability, and transparency procedures are in place, then companies winning competitive bidding should win. If these happen to be the companies you mentioned, good for them. But if contracts are given without proper bidding processes and transparency, the public loses. Second, Trump didn't embrace these people primarily for their business power - they control media. Autocrats worldwide, from Orbán to Netanyahu, ensure they have media-controlling business tycoons on their side. Trump is incredibly sensitive to publicity and has attracted these powerful media tycoons. I worry about how this media power will be used to undermine democracy and freedom of speech.Andrew Keen: What's the headline for today? Last time, we discussed whether Trump 2.0 would be a semi-legal repeat of the Sam Bankman-Fried debacle. What's the worst that can happen in this new regime?Frank Vogl: Actions are being taken, sometimes inadvertently, that undermine the safety and soundness of our financial system. If that happens, everyone - not just here at home but internationally - will suffer.Andrew Keen: So we'll get 2008 again, or 1930?Frank Vogl: I hope we get neither. But we must be acutely aware of the risks and call out all deregulatory measures if we believe they risk our system, especially when prompted by corruption and greed rather than public interest.Andrew Keen: Well, Frank Vogl, I hope you're wrong, but I suspect you may be right. This won't be the last time you appear on the show. There will be many twists and turns in the financial history of the Trump regime. Thank you so much, Frank. Keep watching in D.C. - we need eyes and ears like yours to make sense of what's happening.Frank Vogl: Andrew, it was once again a great pleasure. Thank you.Frank Vogl is the co-founder of two leading international non-governmental organizations fighting corruption -- Transparency International and the Partnership for Transparency Fund (Frank is the Chair of the PTF Board). He teaches at Georgetown University, writes regular "blog" articles on corruption for theGlobalist.com and lectures extensively. Frank is also a specialist in international economics and finance with more than 50 years of experience in these fields - first as an international journalist, then as the Director of Information & Public Affairs at the World Bank official and, from 1990 to 2017, as the president and CEO of a consulting firm, Vogl Communications Inc.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

So what to J.D. Vance's highly controversial speech at the Paris AI Summit this week? According to That Was The Week's Keith Teare, it was “a breath of fresh air”. Others will argue it was just more MAGA putridity designed to alienate our European friends. Some tech notables, like Union Square Ventures partner Albert Wenger, take both views simultaneously, acknowledging on the one hand that Vance was correct to push back against “regulatory capture”, but on the other that Vance was “mistaking jingoism and wishful thinking for true global leadership”. Here are the 5 KEEN ON takeaways from this weekly tech round-up with Teare:* J.D. Vance's Paris AI Summit speech marked a potential turning point in US-Europe AI relations. His message prioritizing AI opportunity over safety prompted European regulators to pull back on some restrictions, with the EU dropping its AI liability directive and the UK rebranding its AI Safety Institute.* Anthropic's growth is accelerating, with projections of $34.5 billion in revenue by 2027. They're currently outperforming OpenAI in some areas, particularly coding, and are expected to release a major new AI model soon.* The Musk-OpenAI conflict has intensified, with Musk's $100 billion bid for OpenAI's non-profit arm being rejected. Meanwhile, OpenAI is planning to incorporate its Q* (Q-star) model into a new GPT-5 release that will combine reasoning, operational capabilities, and multimedia functions.* The AI industry is seeing rapid advancement in humanoid robotics, with companies like Apptronics and Figure receiving significant valuations. Figure's valuation jumped from $2 billion to $39 billion after securing a major automotive partnership.* Traditional political alignments are becoming less relevant in tech policy, with Teare arguing that economic growth and technological progress are transcending traditional left-right divisions. This is exemplified by some progressives like Reid Hoffman embracing AI optimism while traditional conservatives champion technological progress. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody. It is Saturday, February 15th, 2025, a day after Valentine's Day. It's been a day or a week dominated by a certain J.D. Vance. Yesterday, he made a very controversial speech in Munich, which apparently laid bare the collapse of the transatlantic alliance. He attacked Europe over free speech and migration. So he's not the most popular fellow in Europe. And a couple of days before that, he spoke in Paris at the AI Summit, a classic Parisian event talking about summits. Macron, of course, also spoke there. According to The Wall Street Journal, Vance's counts were good. The German, of course, being a conservative newspaper. According to The Washington Post, which is a progressive newspaper, he pushed the "America First" AI agenda. Others, like Fast Company, ask what to make of Vance's speech at the Paris AI conference. According to my friend Keith Teare, the author of That Was The Week newsletter, the speech was a breath of fresh air. I was going to call you Marx, Keith. That would have been a true Freudian error. What do you admire about Vance's speech? Why is it a breath of fresh air?Keith Teare: Well, it's in the European context that it's a breath of fresh air. I think from an American perspective, he didn't really say anything new. We already think of AI in the way he expressed it. But in Europe, the dominant discussion around AI is still focused on safety. That is to say, AI is dangerous. We have to control it. We need to regulate it. And as a result of that, most of the American developments in AI are not even launched in Europe, because in order to be made available to citizens, it has to go through various regulatory layers. And that slows everything down. So in the context, Vance stood up on the platform in front of all of the people doing that regulation and told them basically, rubbed their noses in it, saying how self-destructive their approach was for European success. His opening lines were, "I'm not here to talk about AI safety. I'm here to talk about AI opportunity." And in the days since, there's been quite a big reaction in Europe to the speech, mostly positive from normal people and adjusting policy at the regulatory level. So it's quite a profound moment. And he carried himself very well. I mean, he was articulate, thoughtful.Andrew Keen: Yeah. You say his speech marks a crucial inflection point. I wonder, though, if Vance was so self-interested as a MAGA person, why would he want even to encourage Europe to develop? I mean, why not just let it be like social media or the Internet where American companies dominate? Is there anything in America's interest that the Trump-Musk alliance would benefit from strong European AI companies?Keith Teare: Well, from strong European AI openness, yes. I don't think Vance thinks for a minute there are any European companies that will be able to compete in that open environment. And so most of his purpose is economic. He's basically saying open up so that our guys can sell stuff to you and the money will flow back to the U.S. as it has done with Amazon and Google and every other major tech innovation in recent years. So it's basically an economic speech masquerading as a policy speech.Andrew Keen: I wonder if there's an opportunity for Europe given the clear divisions now that exist between the U.S. and Europe. I wonder whether there's an opportunity for Europe to start looking more sympathetically at Chinese AI companies. Did Vance warn in his speech, did he warn Europe about turning to the Chinese, the other potential partner?Keith Teare: Yeah. There are two parts of his speech I didn't really incorporate in the editorial. The first was a subplot all around China, which he didn't name, but he called "dictatorships." We don't want dictatorships leading in AI. And then there was another subplot, which was all about free speech and openness and not censoring, which was aimed at the Europeans, of course, and the Chinese.Andrew Keen: Discussion of their free speech, or at least it's their version of free speech, isn't it?Keith Teare: I think the funny thing is in order to be consistent, they're going to have to allow all free speech. And they will, because they know that. And so, weirdly, the Republicans become the free speech party, which makes no sense historically. But it is happening. And I thought there were a lot of interesting things in that speech that symbolized a very confident America. However, the reason America is doing this is because it's weak, which is a paradox.Andrew Keen: Politically weak or militarily weak or economically weak?Keith Teare: Not militarily - it's super strong, but economically it's relatively declining against China. It's the next Europe. America is the next Europe. China is the next America. And in that context, America's brashness sounds positive to our ears and to mine as well, because it's pro-optimism, pro-progress. But actually, it's coming from a place of weakness, which you see in the tariffs and the anti-Chinese stuff.Andrew Keen: And I want to come to the Munich speech where Vance was pretty clear. Trump's always been clear that if there is an opportunity for Ukraine, Ukrainians have to work for American access to its raw materials, minerals, etc. Whether America's foreign policy now is becoming identical to that of China, helping other countries as long as they provide them with essential resources.Keith Teare: Yeah, exactly. By the way, one of our commentators, David John William Bailey on LinkedIn, is saying we need to explain this. He says he's also attempting "$1 trillion mob-style shakedown." Anyone defending this is either deluded or only reads hard-right propaganda.Andrew Keen: Well, but Keith, you've always claimed to be a progressive. You always claim to be a man of the left. You have a background in left-wing communist activism. Now you're on board with Vance. You were on board the week before with Musk. You're ambivalent about Trump. What does this say to you? What does this suggest about you personally, or is the reality of politics these days that the supposed conservatives like Vance are actually progressive in their own way and the supposed progressives in the Democratic Party are actually conservative?Keith Teare: Well, as you know, I don't like those labels anymore because I think they're trying to fit a modern narrative into an old set of boxes. I think, broadly speaking, Vance is an economic progressive. He wants the economy to grow. He wants GDP to grow.Andrew Keen: Some people say everyone's a progressive in that sense if they want GDP to grow.Keith Teare: Yeah, but not very many people can do it. So I think they really are serious that they believe innovation in tech and GDP are correlated. And I believe GDP and social good are correlated. And so if you really want to be a progressive that wants people to have a good life, you have to support economic growth. And I think Vance does. And I think that's what his narrative is about. He's basically telling Europe that they're going to get the opposite, which has been true, by the way, now for a decade. European GDP per capita is as low as $35,000 a year. American is $85,000 a year.Andrew Keen: That's an astonishing shift. And this is going to be remembered, I think, as an important week in the American-European relationship. You said that the aftermath of the Vance speech has been remarkable and telling. The EU dropped its AI liability directive. The UK rebranded its AI Safety Institute. OpenAI removed diversity commitments. So a speech is now having an impact, particularly this Paris speech when it comes to AI policy, both in Europe but also in the US as well.Keith Teare: Yeah, I wouldn't give too much credit just to the speech. I think the speech is symptomatic of a lot of zeitgeist change and everyone is getting in line with the new zeitgeist, which is tech is good, AI is good, censorship is bad.Andrew Keen: Well, I don't know if that's - I'm not sure I would call that the zeitgeist, Keith. I mean, you're talking in Palo Alto, where that's always been the zeitgeist. I think if anything, in universities and book publishing, the reverse is true.Keith Teare: Yeah. So I'm an avid MSNBC watcher. I watch Morning Joe every morning with Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough. And so I'm kind of imbued with the liberal narrative compared to what's going on. And what's happened is a very rapid change from the days after the election when the liberal narrative was "we need to look at ourselves" has now become a narrative that "the judges have to save us from the administration." The administration is not democratic, even though it was elected, and we've got to rely on judges because there's no one else to rely on.Andrew Keen: That doesn't mean the zeitgeist has shifted. It just means that the people on one side have shifted their focus, but they still are not sympathetic to Trump, Vance, Musk.Keith Teare: I think there is increasing sympathy. I think you're going to be surprised. I think if an election was held today, Trump would win by more.Andrew Keen: Well, he would certainly win by more if he was running against Harris. That's another question. So it's been another remarkable week for AI content. One piece that you pick out, which I thought was interesting, is from somebody called Elizabeth Yin. Nice to have a female author - too many of our authors are male. Maybe I'm being too woke. But the AI takeover, according to Yin - no one's jobs are safe. This isn't exactly news, is it?Keith Teare: No, she's really summarizing what we've been talking about in That Was The Week for quite a while. But I thought it was a good summary. And she gives some kind of prioritization. There's a section that talks about regulated professions, human-centric jobs, creative and entrepreneurial jobs, energy and infrastructure and distribution. And she then breaks down what she thinks the main impact of AI is going to be. She kind of leaves it where you kind of want more from her because she doesn't thoroughly go through all of these. But she's a VC, she does early-stage investing. She's very good. And the one thing she says, which I don't think anyone's going to disagree with, is "fewer workers more." I was at an event this week in San Francisco where there was a panel with some VCs and entrepreneurs on exactly the same questions she's asking - where the cuts are going to come first or what sectors are going to be most dramatically affected in the short term. And people weren't entirely clear. But the one area that comes up is healthcare - that's the lowest hanging fruit at the moment.Keith Teare: Yeah, there's a funding event this week from a company that applies AI to biology, specifically cancer programming - anti-cancer cells. So you're going to see AI in everything. And it's that will lead to an acceleration of invention for sure, because the individual is still really important. By the way, there's another article about that this week. The individual now has an army of talent in AI, able to help them make progress. It just speeds everything up.Andrew Keen: Yeah. So what other AI news in the summary? There's a couple, 2 or 3 pieces on Anthropic. I use Anthropic. I like it. Their growth soars to 34.5 billion in 2027 revenue. That's of course, speculative. And they announce their next major AI model could arrive within weeks, Anthropic competitive with OpenAI.Keith Teare: Yes, and they're better than OpenAI at some things. They're already better than OpenAI at coding. If you put it in context, those three Anthropic pieces sit alongside the Google piece and the OpenAI pieces. And what it tells you is we've seen a major acceleration of product roadmaps and plans in the last couple of weeks, mainly in response to the DeepSea news, I think.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's interesting that DeepSea was a one-week wonder, but there are no headlines at least from you on DeepSea. It seems to have stimulated change as you suggest, rather than change things in its own way. And then your Google pieces - interesting that they're rolling out a new memory feature for Gemini AI, allowing recall of past conversations, which is increasingly getting to the point where these AIs, if not human or sentient, certainly are able to remember things and have conversations.Keith Teare: Yeah, and that becomes much easier once you go from LLMs to other LLMs with agents. An agent is a piece of software that speaks to another LLM to complete a task. And so you could have in software a memory agent or a recall agent whose only job is to say, "Is this question been asked recently and what did I look at the last time?" and bring it into the context for whatever the current question is. And I think we're going to see more and more of this. I've spent most of my week building a multi-agent system for my company, Single Rank. I have a question taker agent that you ask a question of. It then farms out to a database agent or a chart drawing agent or an expert reasoning agent. They all have different jobs and they come back and give their answers to the original agent, and then it gives the answer to the user. So this collaborative agents concept is becoming very real now. And memory is one of those - I think Perplexity is the most advanced.Andrew Keen: Yeah. We were talking about Perplexity before we went live. You convinced me - I use Anthropic but you said for me it's probably wiser to use Perplexity where I still have all the access to Anthropic, but it adds a layer and some more intelligence. As I said, I was at an event this week where one of the venture people from OpenAI was there who talked about Sam Altman's projection that in the not too distant future there'll be billion-dollar individual startups. Are you suggesting, Keith, that's not that far on the horizon, given the power of AI that individuals can do all and do the entire startup without needing the help of anybody else?Keith Teare: Depends on the startup. If the startup is mainly software, that's probably true. But if it needs account management and billing and all the others...Andrew Keen: But eventually all that stuff will get - that's the easy part, isn't it? You can always get that done.Keith Teare: It's the hard bit right now, like reconciling invoices to receipts. I'm not very good at that. So I think it's coming with two things: rising agents and then agents that can use tools to follow, do actions, if you will. So it's coming and it's probably coming this year and it'll accelerate. So, yes, it will get there. I think the headline of a single founder of $1 billion company is just a headline. But it's directionally correct.Andrew Keen: It does. And it does reiterate Elizabeth Yin's point that no jobs are safe - in finance, in HR, in coding, in content. I mean, I'm using it more and more to summarize these conversations. I don't need a large editorial staff. So clearly dramatic change. And in fact, your startup of the week, Keith, the robotics startup Apptronics, is in talks for new funding at an almost $40 billion valuation - a hardware company. Does this speak of the reality of this new AI revolution? That it's not just theory, it's practice now?Keith Teare: Yeah. Well, Figure has gone from 2 billion to 39 billion in less than a year. And why? Because one of the major car companies signed an agreement with it to have these robots on production lines in its factories. And the start of the week, by the way, is Apptronics, which is a different humanoid robotics company, also raising a lot of money but slightly earlier in its journey than Figure.Andrew Keen: It's my mistake - I have to admit I thought it was Figure so that's my error. I'm going to add an Apptronics image to this content. I'm rather embarrassed.Keith Teare: You've probably already got one. That said, they both speak to the same truth, which is AI is going to manifest itself in the physical world in the form of humanoid robots sooner rather than later.Andrew Keen: And that was another of Tim Draper's - he was one of the speakers at this event I went to in San Francisco. I know he's an investor in your firm. That was his big prediction. So Apptronics is building robots for humans. Are they just a kind of earlier version of Figure in some ways?Keith Teare: An earlier version, possibly more advanced in concept because they started later when the software gets better by the week. So the later you start, the more advanced the software is that you can leverage. And so we're not going to see an end to this. There's going to be a lot more of it. I think humanoid robots are really interesting because the physical world is built for humans. You know, steps, ladders, everything.Andrew Keen: But I'm not sure that would be the case, especially when it comes to, say, self-driving cars and roads. That's going to change as well, isn't it?Keith Teare: Well, you still have roads because they still are...Andrew Keen: You still have roads. But I'm saying the roads themselves will become more and more suited to self-driving cars as opposed to human-driving ones.Yeah. You would hope the roads would become more intelligent and communicate to the cars, but that seems to be much further off.Andrew Keen: But I'm sure the Chinese will do that. Not the Americans, not even in San Francisco. Meanwhile, there is still lots of tech news. There's this open feud between Sam Altman at OpenAI and Elon Musk. Musk this week had a bid to buy OpenAI for around $100 billion. Is this just sensational, meaningless stuff? Is this froth or is it meaningful in the long run? The Musk-Altman fight?Keith Teare: Well, the specifics of this are super interesting because it's very clever of Musk. What Musk is offering to buy is not OpenAI. He's offering to buy the not-for-profit part of OpenAI. Now Altman is trying to put a value on that not-for-profit because he wants it to go away, or at least be subsumed. And he's trying to do it at a very low valuation so that the stakeholders in the not-for-profit don't get much. So Musk put a super high price on the not-for-profit to force the board of OpenAI to put a proper value on it as it transitions or to stop transitioning - one or the other. And I think if I was on the board of OpenAI now, I'd be very worried. They rejected his offer yesterday, by the way, but that will not be the end.Andrew Keen: What is Musk doing? Is it just because he hates Altman and he's annoyed that he was one of the co-founders and he's no longer involved? Because if he does indeed do what he seems to want to do, which is weaken, even undermine OpenAI - I mean, the real winners are probably Anthropic and Google then rather than Musk.Keith Teare: Well, and Grok - he has his own Grok xAI.Andrew Keen: But is xAI a real player? I mean, he can get massive valuations, but how does it compare with Anthropic or Gemini?Keith Teare: It's good. I mean, it's very good. And the next version, rumors are that it's going to be a top performer.Andrew Keen: Certainly not a top - you said it's good, but it's not...Keith Teare: It depends on what for. But it's certainly as good or better than DeepSea already.Andrew Keen: So there is a method to Musk's madness. It's not just about hating Altman and OpenAI.Keith Teare: Well, because it's Musk, there's more than one thing going on. He has economic interests in xAI, for sure. He's also really pissed off with Altman because he considers that Altman basically stole the OpenAI idea from him, which is not really true when you get into the facts. But he believes that. And not only that, but lied by making it not-for-profit and then turning it into a for-profit when he promised he wouldn't. So Musk basically feels like he's got the moral high ground and that gives him the energy to fight. Altman is clearly tired of the whole thing. He's just trying to do what he's trying to do, you know, and having a light shone on it.Andrew Keen: So it's the first time you have articulated some concern about OpenAI. You've always been quite bullish. Are you suggesting that your bullishness in the past is changing a little bit?Keith Teare: I don't think so, because I think this is a bit of a sideshow. The biggest news this week about OpenAI is the decision to abandon the Q* model - not abandon it, but incorporate it into a new GPT-5 later this year.Andrew Keen: So how would a unified next generation release work? Which would be what? Everything together?Keith Teare: It would do reasoning, operational stuff, actions, and it would do what other LLMs do, including being capable of video and image production all in one, and probably will retain its position as the best across all of those different things. So I don't see that anything bad is going to happen to OpenAI. I do think Musk can be an irritant and it could force them into corporate decisions about valuation and merging their different components that aren't to their liking. That could happen.Keen: My interview of the week, which you were kind enough to include in this week's newsletter, is with Greg Betta. Most people won't be familiar with Greg Betta. He's a tech writer, journalist based in the North Bay San Francisco, but he's also the coauthor with Reid Hoffman, who everybody knows, of a new book called "Super Agency: What Could Possibly Go Right With Our AI Future?" And from a progressive point of view, it's optimistic about AI. So I guess Hoffman is one of the few progressives, Keith, who actually is optimistic about AI. Is that fair?Keith Teare: Yeah. He really represents that part of the liberal spectrum that was in the New York Times article last week suggesting the Democrats should embrace technology and innovation. And the book is symptomatic of that. I didn't have a chance to listen to the interview - give us a flavor of what he said.Andrew Keen: It's standard - it's like listening to you. He believes that this progress will ultimately benefit. He distinguishes himself a bit too, I thought, created some light between him and Hoffman. I think he sees Hoffman as being slightly more optimistic than him. But it's about super agency - you and I have talked endlessly about agency, about humans being able to shape their lives. And of course, that's the big debate. For the critics, it's the AI that will shape us. For the optimists, AI will enable us to shape the world. It's an age-old argument, and it's not going away.Another figure on the left, if that's still a term that means anything, is Albert Wenger. He's your post of the week and he comes back to the Vance speech. He says praising this speech by Vance is mistaking jingoism and wishful thinking for true global leadership with a real vision of AI and humanity. I'm assuming you don't agree with Albert on this issue.Keith Teare: I do agree with him. I think I wanted to take a positive view of Vance's speech for his optimism in the context of Europe. It was a great speech. Albert's right that the American framing is entirely jingoistic. And AI isn't - AI is entirely global and humanistic. So there is a contradiction between a declining superpower being a champion of progress for its own nation versus what Albert would prefer, which is leadership that is truly global in nature.Andrew Keen: It's interesting that the first comment on Albert's tweet was from someone called "e/acc" who says this may be the most e/acc speech of all time. I didn't know what that meant - it meant effective accelerationism. Are you familiar with this term, Keith?Keith Teare: Yeah, this is the Marc Andreessen Peter Thiel framing against the philanthropists.Andrew Keen: So are you an effective accelerationist? Do you believe in...Keith Teare: Effective altruism versus effective acceleration? This is interesting. You say they're the same thing - I don't think anyone thinks that. But I think you might be right. But as long as you put them in the right order, I think if you get acceleration and growth and value, you're going to get a better life.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's a play on effective altruism, but it's thinking in the same way that the world can become a better place.Keith Teare: Yeah. And the altruists wanted it to be done by good deeds as opposed to by economic progress.Andrew Keen: And even Albert acknowledges, like you, that there are aspects of the speech which in your language are a breath of fresh air. He said the only good point was the clear pushback against regulatory capture. Is it going to be effective? I mean, is it clear that the days of Lina Khan are over? Are we at the end of the period of regulatory capture, whether it's in Europe or the U.S.? As you say, one of the consequences of the speech was that the Europeans have taken a step back from regulation.Keith Teare: I would say the new Lina Khan is Elizabeth Warren. Lina Khan's gone. She's a sideshow. But Elizabeth Warren is still mainstream.Andrew Keen: Yeah, but a much, much older and perhaps less powerful figure, especially in Trump's America. I mean, Warren, she can talk a lot and get people annoyed, but she can't actually do anything. Whereas Lina Khan actually controlled regulatory capture - I mean, she was the head of the FTC.Keith Teare: Exactly. But I find Warren intensely irritating. It's amusing to me that Musk is asking how her net worth went from $200,000 to double-digit millions. And it's because she got subsidized by pharma, because she's pro-vax. And she's plugged into that.Andrew Keen: That's a controversial observation. You're saying anyone who gets supported by big Pharma is pro-vaccine? Does that mean that anyone who's anti-vax is not going to get the money? Most of us are pro-vax.Keith Teare: I'm totally pro-vax. But I'm just saying politicians like her typically get high net worth through serving stakeholders. And she is very against the credit card industry, for example. But she's not against pharma. So she's found her niche.Andrew Keen: Well, that's not a very generous interpretation, although it does suggest that when you give Elon Musk the keys to the Treasury and the IRS, then all these things are going to get revealed. And we should end with another interesting X from Albert, which I think gets to a lot of this. He said, "If you're young and capable and care about democracy, you should work for Doge." What do you make of that? I tend to think he's right.Keith Teare: I can't fully understand his meaning. In my brain, I'll interpret it the way I would, which is what I said last week.Andrew Keen: And to add to the quote, he said, "Offense is the best defense."Keith Teare: Yeah. The main threat to democracy is unelected bureaucrats blocking progress. I mean, if you think about it...Andrew Keen: Like Elizabeth Warren, in your view, at least.Keith Teare: No, I'd use the Obama example. Obama wanted to get a really good healthcare plan. And as soon as he was in office, he made speeches saying, "I won't be able to achieve what I want to achieve unless you, the people, are on the streets." Because Washington is averse to change. And it turned out that he had to make all kinds of compromises. And he ended up with what we today call Obamacare. But his experience was an experience of being blocked. And Trump basically has been through that himself. We're probably mostly thankful for that based on his first administration. He now is older, and he's not prepared...Andrew Keen: Suddenly older. I don't know about wiser.Keith Teare: He's not prepared to let the bureaucracy stand in his way. And Musk is his weapon. And there is something positive about a better, cheaper state and more democratic if the elected people can do what they said they were going to do.Andrew Keen: Yeah. And bring the expenses down. "If you're young and capable and care about democracy, you should work for Doge" - wise words from Albert Wenger. We will return to all these themes, Keith, in the future. Have a good week and we will see everybody again next week. Thanks so much.Keith Teare: Everyone. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Guest: Bobby Kotick, former CEO of Activision Blizzard; and Bing Gordon, general partner at Kleiner PerkinsIn 2020, when President Trump signed the executive order that would ban TikTok in the U.S., Bobby Kotick called his old friend Steven Mnuchin. The former Secretary of the Treasury told him that, if TikTok's U.S. operations were to be sold to an American company, Microsoft would be the only bidder.A couple calls later, he reached ByteDance founder and CEO Zhang Yiming, who said he'd rather sell to Bobby than Microsoft. Concerned about his ability to get the deal done solo, Bobby called Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and offered to make a joint bid. Nadella declined, but added, “ if the deal doesn't get done, we should sit down and talk about us buying Activision.” TikTok currently remains Chinese-owned, but three years later, Microsoft paid $75 billion for Activision Blizzard.Chapters:Mentioned in this episode: Harvard-Westlake School, Alison Ressler, Vivendi, Berkshire Hathaway, Bruce Hack and Arnaud de Puyfontaine, John Riccitiello and EA, Call of Duty, Bizarre Creations, Atari, Apple II, Commodore 64, Jean-Louis Gassée, Apple Lisa, Howard Lincoln, Philips, Magnavox Odyssey, Sutter Hill Ventures, Infocom and Zork, Toys-R-Us, Howard Hughes, E. Parry Thomas, Sun Valley, Thom Weisel, William Morris Endeavor, Guitar Hero, Davidson & Associates, Michael Morhaime, Allen Adham, World of Warcraft, Medal of Honor, Steven Spielberg, Michael Crichton, Chris Roberts, Overwatch, Tencent, Time Warner, Jeff Bewkes, Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In, Lina Khan, Samsung, Elon Musk, James L. Jones, UFC, E. Floyd Kvamme, Toy Story 2, Procter & Gamble, Ron Doornik, John Lasseter, Xerox PARC, Shigeru Miyamoto, Satoru Iwata, Goldeneye 007, James Bond, Barbara Broccoli, Oculus, Apple Vision Pro, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Sam Altman, Mustafa Suleyman, Spotify, Candy Crush Saga, Disney, Phil Spencer, Clarence Avant and Motown Records. Links:Connect with BobbyTwitterLinkedInConnect with BingTwitterLinkedInConnect with JoubinTwitterLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.com Learn more about Kleiner PerkinsThis episode was edited by Eric Johnson from LightningPod.fm

On today's episode of AD Nauseam, Amy and Daniel are back with special guest, Randy Shaheen, a fellow partner at BakerHostetler, to discuss the final week of Lina Khan's role as chair of the Federal Trade Commission.Questions & Comments: amudge@bakerlaw.com, dkaufman@bakerlaw.com and rshaheen@bakerlaw.com

What's the easiest way for dictator Xi Jinping of China to invade Taiwan? Bribe the President of the United States! Trump's loyalty lies in enriching himself and his family, all thanks to the highest bidder – including China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others. As China shows more signs of preparing to invade Taiwan, Musk's Twitter is normalizing this very idea. Andrea and Russian mafia expert Olga Lautman discuss this and more, including Trump and Melania's meme coin cash grab, in this week's Gaslit Nation bonus show. We also cover ways to fight back, even if things seem to spiral out of control.   Olga Lautman will join the Gaslit Nation Salon on February 10 at 4pm ET! And don't miss our Gaslit Nation Game Night on Friday, February 7 at 8:30pm ET—we'll be playing Codenames! For game night, make sure to create a free account on BoardGameArena.com. Zoom links will be shared the morning of the events on Patreon.com/Gaslit, so be sure to subscribe and help support the show!   Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!   Show Notes: Check out Olga Lautman's Substack! https://substack.com/@olgalautman?utm_source=profile-page Opening Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xvJYrSsXPA Excellent thread on Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan's lawsuits holding corporate giants accountable: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1880370418932150623.html Trump's Crypto Meme Coin Is His Most Lucrative Get-Rich Scheme Yet https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/what-just-happened-with-usdtrump-and-usdmelania-meme-coins.html  China Suddenly Building Fleet Of Special Barges Suitable For Taiwan Landings https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/china-suddenly-building-fleet-of-special-barges-suitable-for-taiwan-landings/ Man says his binned Bitcoin fortune now worth £500m https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgr0dyy152jo ICYMI: Here are previous documents the Security Committee has shared: • Tech Travel Tips : https://web.tresorit.com/l/hmKP6#FFHiLuu45pSJtMo_Z9Zp9Q • Why defending your right to privacy is important: https://web.tresorit.com/l/73FHq#ip5_zE6hhWkuaDMBAAhpYw • Introduction to VPN https://web.tresorit.com/l/WHdqz#-zI5O7Q2zHznO_NG7aZWPQ • Three Security Steps to Take Today: https://web.tresorit.com/l/417K9#CaDJOcOrEOta4T5oDlNsYw • Practice Safe Data Security: https://web.tresorit.com/l/hiw9s#wOykkL6Lh_Hz_TbRsiCiEQ Read all the details in the PDF here: https://web.tresorit.com/l/W6ots#IydZ2pnTmE1MLPJLkLZ73A   For the Gaslit Nation Book Club – First Meeting at the Gaslit Nation Salon on February 24 at 4pm ET: Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl https://bookshop.org/p/books/man-s-search-for-meaning-viktor-e-frankl/8996943?ean=9780807014271 The Stranger: Introduction by Keith Gore Albert Camus (Author)  Matthew Ward (Translator) https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-stranger-introduction-by-keith-gore-albert-camus/18890716?ean=9780679420262

Frank Morano discusses some of the hottest topics and gives his opinion. Frank talks about the show's numbers going up in December and then Frank talks about politics in New Jersey. Frank talks about Lina Khan's legacy as the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission and then Frank talks about the recent data of speed cameras in NYC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Offline's favorite foe of Big Tech, FTC Chair Lina Khan, joins the show to talk to Jon about standing up to Meta and Amazon, how the internet has changed the way monopolies operate, and why her work has made her an unlikely folk hero. Plus: Max and Jon sit down to talk about the misinformation spreading about the Los Angeles fires, Meta's decision to abandon fact checking, and the last ditch efforts to save TikTok before the US ban takes effect next week.

Announcement! If you're a Gaslit Nation supporter on Patreon, join us for the first ever Gaslit Nation Game Night this Friday at 8:30pm ET, organized by Gaslit Nation listeners. The game of the night will either be Codenames or Chameleon. The Zoom link is posted in the Victory Chat as well as this episode page on Patreon!  When it comes to the DNC Chair election on February 1st, the only choice is Ben Wikler, chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin since July 2019. None of the other candidates, except for Ken Martin, the state chair of the Democratic Party in Minnesota, even come close. Why? Because, unlike Martin, Wikler has faced off with the worst of our national demons in Wisconsin—a state that's long been a laboratory for GOP autocracy, as detailed in Ari Berman's must-read book Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People—and the Fight to Resist It. In this week's bonus show Q&A, shaped by our Democracy Defender-level supporters and higher, we make the case for Wikler and break down the dynamics of a race that could shape not only the future of the Democratic Party but the soul of America. We also dive into the People's March, formerly the Women's March, and announce the Gaslit Nation sign contest for the best protest sign! Join Andrea at the march in New York City at 10 AM on Saturday, January 18th—details to come! To find a People's March near you, or to help organize one if there isn't already one in your area, check out this handy guide: https://map.peoplesmarch.com/local If you didn't hear your question answered this week, keep an eye out for it soon as the Gaslit Nation Q&A continues! To our Democracy Defender-level folks and higher, submit your questions in a private message for the next Q&A! Thank you to everyone who supports the show—we couldn't make Gaslit Nation without you! Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit! Show Notes: Books: What If We Get It Right?: Visions of Climate Futures By Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, the marine biologist behind the Blue New Deal: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/645855/what-if-we-get-it-right-by-ayana-elizabeth-johnson/ The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming by journalist David Wallace-Wells https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-uninhabitable-earth-life-after-warming-david-wallace-wells/12097261?ean=9780525576716 The Future We Choose: The Stubborn Optimist's Guide to the Climate Crisis Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac, two of the architects of the Paris Climate Agreement https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-future-we-choose-the-stubborn-optimist-s-guide-to-the-climate-crisis-christiana-figueres/13156367?aid=1676&ean=9780593080931&listref=caring-for-the-earth-each-other-practicing-sustainable-living   Reading:  Researcher Jenny Cohn wrote a disturbing thread about Sillicon Valley bro-fascists setting their sights on Greenland: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1877052010559844478.html?utm_campaign=topunroll Historian Timothy Snyder on why the U.S. needs a Shadow Cabinet, like the U.K.: https://snyder.substack.com/p/shadow-cabinet A bombshell report confirming that Russian intelligence paid tens of millions of dollars to the Taliban to target American coalition forces in Afghanistan. What is Trump going to do about this as president? https://theins.ru/en/politics/277723   The Gerrymander Has Been Slayed: Wisconsinites Get Fair Maps for 2024 Election https://campaignlegal.org/update/gerrymander-has-been-slayed-wisconsinites-get-fair-maps-2024-election As Democrats Reel, Two Front-Runners Emerge in a Leadership Battle The race to lead the Democratic National Committee centers on the favorites, Ken Martin and Ben Wikler, but the party's infighting over them looks nothing like a broad reckoning with its 2024 defeats. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/05/us/politics/dnc-race-ben-wikler-ken-martin.html The People's March Website: https://www.peoplesmarch.com/ Trump's inauguration coincides with an unprecedented string of high-stakes security events in DC https://apnews.com/article/trump-inauguration-security-a3df8ed878f2c0587f7038d68a0447f6   FTC antitrust case against Meta can move to trial, court rules. The decision marks a victory for the agency and its Democratic chair, Lina Khan, after early legal setbacks. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/11/13/meta-ftc-antitrust/   Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People--And the Fight to Resist It https://bookshop.org/p/books/minority-rule-ari-berman/19994801?ean=9780374600211    

Lina Khan emerged as one of the most pro-public-interest FTC chairs in recent memory.

With just over a week left in her role as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan reflects on her four years regulating corporate mergers and acquisitions. In an extended sit down interview, she discusses her hopes for her successor and weighs in on big tech's goals to stay big in the coming years. Meta is making big changes; the UFC's Dana White will join the company's board, and Meta is rolling out “community notes,” ending its third party fact-checking program in favor of a model similar to what's used on X. Plus, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is stepping down. Jon Fortt - 13:26Lina Khan - 23:02 In this episode:Jon Fortt, @jonforttJoe Kernen, @JoeSquawkBecky Quick, @BeckyQuickAndrew Ross Sorkin, @andrewrsorkinKatie Kramer, @Kramer_Katie

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Discover how inflation is destroying the value of your money and eroding the ethical foundations of society. Legendary author Doug Casey reveals the insidious ways rising prices lead to social decay, unethical behavior, and the breakdown of trust.  Learn how to protect your prosperity by shifting away from the falling dollar and into real assets like gold, real estate, and carefully selected investments.  Don't let inflation rob you - get the insights you need to thrive in this challenging economic environment. Will you please leave a review for the show? I'd be grateful. Search “how to leave an Apple Podcasts review”.  Resources: Visit internationalman.com to read Doug Casey's weekly articles and watch his "Doug Casey's Take" videos on YouTube. Show Notes: GetRichEducation.com/534 For access to properties or free help with a GRE Investment Coach, start here: GREmarketplace.com GRE Free Investment Coaching:GREmarketplace.com/Coach Get mortgage loans for investment property: RidgeLendingGroup.com or call 855-74-RIDGE  or e-mail: info@RidgeLendingGroup.com Invest with Freedom Family Investments.  You get paid first: Text FAMILY to 66866 For advertising inquiries, visit: GetRichEducation.com/ad Best Financial Education: GetRichEducation.com Get our wealth-building newsletter free— text ‘GRE' to 66866 Our YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/c/GetRichEducation Follow us on Instagram: @getricheducation Complete episode transcript:   Automatically Transcribed With Otter.ai    Keith Weinhold  0:01   Welcome to GRE. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, inflation does not mean rising prices. Inflation is an expansion of the money supply which results in rising prices, and it leads to wider societal decay and moral breakdowns in ways that you've never thought about before. It misdirects inflation frustration toward people like housing providers and grocers, we explore it today on get rich education.   Mid south home buyers, I mean, they're total pros, with over two decades is the nation's highest rated turnkey provider. Their empathetic property managers use your ROI as their North Star. So it's no wonder that smart investors just keep lining up to get their completely renovated income properties like it's the newest iPhone. They're headquartered in Memphis and have globally attractive cash flows and A plus rating with a better business bureau and now over 5000 houses renovated. There's zero markup on maintenance. Let that sink in, and they average a 98.9% occupancy rate, while their average renter stays more than three and a half years. Every home they offer has brand new components, a bumper to bumper, one year warranty, new 30 year roofs. And wait for it, a high quality renter. Remember that part and in an astounding price range, 100 to 180k. I've personally toured their office and their properties in person in Memphis, get to know Mid South. Enjoy cash flow from day one. Start yourself right now at mid south homebuyers.com that's mid south homebuyers.com   you know, whenever you want the best written real estate and finance info. Oh, geez. Today's experience limits your free articles access, and it's got paywalls and pop ups and push notifications and cookies disclaimers. It's not so great. So then it's vital to place nice, clean, free content into your hands that adds no hype value to your life. That's why this is the golden age of quality newsletters, and I write every word of ours myself. It's got a dash of humor, and it's to the point because even the word abbreviation is too long, my letter usually takes less than three minutes to read, and when you start the letter, you also get my one hour fast real estate video. Course, it's all completely free. It's called the Don't quit your Daydream letter. It wires your mind for wealth, and it couldn't be easier for you to get it right now. Just text GRE to 66866, while it's on your mind, take a moment to do it right now. Text GRE to 66 866.   Speaker 1  3:12   you're listening to the show that has created more financial freedom than nearly any show in the world. This is get rich education.   Keith Weinhold  3:28   We are the GRE from Albany, New York to New Albany, Ohio, and across 188 nations worldwide. I'm your host, Keith Weinhold, and this is get rich education. You have probably heard it been said by now that money must have three attributes. It is a store of value, a medium of exchange and a unit of account. The US Dollar does not meet the first one store of value. That's due to inflation. How is the dollar a store of value, it is not so then the dollar is a mere currency, not money. You can make the case that gold is a store of value, maybe that Bitcoin is, although it's got a short track record and it's a volatile ride the S, p5, 100, you could say that's nothing more than a store of value long term. When you understand all the drags on it, you're only treading water long term with the s, p, I've discussed that on shows earlier this year. That leaves real estate as not just a good long term, stable store a value, but when it's done right, it is the vehicle where inflation actually increases your purchasing power. And here's a new way to think about it, money is your time and energy captured in an abstracted form for the government to take out debt. They are borrowing your time and energy. Government debt is the closest thing we've ever seen to time travel.They're borrowing the collective time and energy from your future. How do you achieve time travel? You borrow human time and energy from the future currency debasement steals the time and energy of you and everyone alive today. That's why you've got to protect yourself. And what this does is that it actually increases your time preference. Yeah, the term time preference, that's something that Bitcoin authors like Dr saifedean Amos often use time preference and actually think that it's sort of a confusing term. Time preference, though, it sounds like a good thing, it's actually a bad thing. It means that you would rather consume now and over consume now instead of later. Having a high time preference means that you want to all out, ball out right now, and not consider your future. Well, that's what inflation does whenever you see the term time preference out there. I think the best way for you to remember what that means is think of it instead as a now preference. I think now preference is more intuitive than time preference. Teach me how to Dougie, yes, we've got public figure and mega popular author Doug Casey back with us today to discuss how rising prices lead to social decay and makes humans have a higher time preference resultantly, I guess that is teaching us how to Dougie. Yes, indeed, that is a reference to that, like 15 year old song, teach me how to Dougie, and we would drop some bars of that song right now. Oh, you know that me and the team here, we really want to, but we would probably have some royalty issues with that one here, and I'll tell you that is such a stupid song. Teach me how to Dougie, but at the same time, once you've heard it, the next thing that you want to do is hear it again somehow. But it's pretty likely that Doug Casey and I have some more important things to talk about. So fortunately for you, rather than discuss a 2010, rap song any further, we're going to discuss how rising prices lead to social decay.   Monetary inflation is even worse than you think. This era's rising prices and falling values actually lead to social decay. Villains and unethical actors are getting rewarded and they're stealing from you. We're going to discuss just how the international man himself, a legendary and generationally popular author, is back with us for a sobering look at inflation and social decay today. Hey, welcome back in. Doug Casey.    Doug Casey  8:04   Nice to talk to you, Keith. I'm speaking to you at the moment from my farm in Uruguay, which is one of the, I would say, two, most stable countries in Latin America, and one of the two or three most stable countries in the Western Hemisphere, there's a lot of real estate in the world, other than in the US. And I know that you mostly talk about real estate. I've actually done a lot of real estate too, all around the world, in the Orient and in Europe and South America, and, of course, a lot in the US and Canada. So I'm generally friendly to real estate, and it's been very, very good to me.   Keith Weinhold  8:44   Well, you're truly living up to the International Man moniker again today, joining us from that small South American nation of Uruguay and Doug. Before we talk about the inflation and the social decay, what are property taxes like there in that part of Uruguay. And I know you often spend time in Buenos Aires Argentina as well. If you can talk to us in terms of the percent of the value of the property that you pay in property tax each year, which tends to be one to one and a quarter percent on an average in the United States.   Doug Casey  9:13   that's right. And I think in some states like Illinois, it can go up to about 2% if I'm not mistaken, which means that you really don't own your property. If you don't pay your real estate taxes for for a year or two, you'll find out who really owns it, right? But taxes are high in South America, but generally, not too bad on real estate per se, certainly not on farmland, but farmland everywhere in the world doesn't pay much in the way of real estate taxes, and that's certainly the case here in Uruguay, and the same in Argentina, which might be worth more discussion, because Argentina is doing something that's actually unique in world history right now. And I.hope it's a story that ends well, because they're going in the right direction. But to answer your question, if you buy a condo or a house in a city in Uruguay or Argentina or most of these countries down here, you're going to pay real estate taxes, but it's less than in the US typically, like a half a percent, when they get you in South America is value added taxes, or anything you buy, including labor. In most places, you have to pay the government someplace in between 18 or 20 or 22% depending it's like a huge extra sales tax that's hidden in the cost of the item. And of course, they have income taxes down here, just as what they do in the US, approximately American levels. But on the bright side, not that I know about these things from a firsthand point of view, but these Latin American countries are kind of corrupt and not as completely grasping as the US is they're not as competent in going after you, and don't have a worldwide reach, which the US does.    Keith Weinhold  11:07   Yeah. Oh, well, that's an interesting comparison there. And yeah, Doug, a lot of Latin American nations have had high rates of inflation in both the recent past and now in a piece that you recently wrote is titled, inflation and social decay, rising prices and falling values. And here in the United States, whether it's at the grocery store or the mall or restaurants or airports or anywhere you turn, people really are finding inferior goods and services yet at higher prices. I mean, everyone sees that now. And Doug, I know that you've maintained that living standards have taken a big step, not forward, but backward, and are trending even worse. So tell us about it.    Doug Casey  11:49   Well, the way that you become wealthy is by producing more than you consume and saving the difference. That's the basic formula. Produce more than you consume and save the difference. But when the government inflates the currency, and the government's entirely at fault with it, they have the printing presses. They control the currency. It makes it very, very hard to save, and you can't get ahead. You can't build capital which you need in order to invest and become a capitalist. So inflation is the enemy of the average man, and it's the enemy of society as a whole, but some people do very well because of inflation. Why? Because in the US, it's the people in basically New York and Washington and other big cities that stand very close to the fire hydrant of money that comes out of the government, and they get to drink deeply before something trickles down to the plebs below inflation will destroy a country, and that's why in Latin America in particular, you've got very rich people who are usually connected to the government, who get that money first, and a lot of poor peasants who don't get it, and I'm afraid that the US has been going in that direction for some years.    Keith Weinhold  13:08   Well, I'm so glad Doug that you gave us the reminder that the government is the source of inflation. That's where it all begins, because people often blame the landlord for higher rents, but they blame the grocer for the higher beef prices, but the landlord in the grocer, they're only the messenger, not the source. You're absolutely right. It's a question of very bad economic education throughout the school system, all the way up to college and post grad work the butcher and the baker and the oil maker produce real goods that make your standard of living higher. They're the heroes in this scenario. The government, which prints up money through its deficits that it runs, is the villain in this and I never cease to be amazed and shocked how people look at politicians to be their saviors, right? They're heroes. They're not. They're the villains in this piece. They serve no useful purpose. And the same goes for most of these agencies that they set up, which once again, make things easier for the guys on top, that have capital, that have political connections, that can hire the lawyers, hire the accountants to twist things in their favor, makes it very hard for the little guy who can't jump over the hurdles that are put up by regulation as well as taxes as well as inflation.    Tell us about how inflation erodes ethical standards.    Doug Casey  14:38   Well, that's a problem too, because if you can't trust money, the validity of contracts becomes questionable if you borrow. It's terrible in a country like Argentina, if you borrowed 100 pesos from me and only gave it back to me next year, it'd be worth half as much. But you say, Hey, here's your 100 pesos, but you're subtly cheating the person that you borrowed the money from, right? And it erodes trust. Not only that, but inflation tends to make the banking system unsound for a number of reasons. If you can't trust your bank, you really can't trust any financial institutions. So money is the lifeblood of a society. It represents everything that you want to do and want to provide for other people in the future. And if the government destroys your money, it's destroying your future life. And that erodes trust. It makes people think in terms of, I want it all, and I want it now. I'm not willing to wait, because in the future, I don't know what anything is going to be worth. So it leads to an unstable society. And in an unstable society, you don't trust anything.    Keith Weinhold  15:57   right? Well, first, I love your example of the 100 peso loan. I mean, how would one know how much interest to charge in a runaway inflationary environment? Because some people don't realize that high inflation also means more volatile levels of inflation, and banking and lending really break down. You know, Doug, I've got my own example or two about how inflation introduces unethical behavior when the big wave of inflation started to hit in 2021 and 2022 in the United States, you know my favorite cold brew bottled coffee, which I drank because it had good ingredients in it, rather than raising the price on that with inflation, they replaced their higher quality sweeteners in my cold brew coffee, like stevia and monk fruit extract with a junky sucralose sweetener, they could keep their price the same that way. They sure didn't point out that they substituted a junkier sweetener. And really this is another form of inflation called skimplation That was pretty sneaky behavior here.   Doug Casey  17:00   you're absolutely correct, Keith, and this further breaks down the bonds of trust in society, because you no longer really trust that manufacturer, and that's just your one particular coffee manufacturer, but it's happening across the board with all manufacturers, so no wonder people start saying, Hey, I hate these companies. They're trying to rip me off. Well, they're not trying to rip you off. They're just trying to survive the consequences of the government debasing the currency. So we have to assign blame where it belongs. That's a very good example that you just gave. I think.   Keith Weinhold  17:35   yeah. And I think another way that inflation introduces unethical behavior is say that there are two different manufacturers of wine, and they're selling their bottle of wine for $20 then the currency supply doubles. Okay, well, one manufacturer can go ahead and keep selling their $20 wine with inferior ingredients. Well over here, the honest guy, the other company, they double their price to $40 and they continue to use good quality ingredients. But what do consumers notice? They notice the price more than the ingredients. So therefore the unethical one that waters down their wine ingredients but keeps their price low actually gets rewarded and will get more business.    Doug Casey  18:15   You're right, certainly in the short run, but in the long run, inflation is going to destroy both of them, but for different reasons, inflation really destroys the basis of society itself, because it makes it so much harder to produce and you don't have any savings to consume. So money is the basis of society. When you destroy the money you're destroying the basis of society itself.    Keith Weinhold  18:43   We're talking with Doug Casey about his recent piece that you can find@internationalman.com it'stitled inflation and social decay, rising prices and falling values. He also hosts the eponymous show, Doug Casey's take more with Doug when we come back, including how inflation leads to a more litigious society and actually creates more lawsuits. That's straight ahead. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold.   oh geez, the national average bank account pays less than 1% on your savings, so your bank is getting rich off of you. You've got to earn way more, or else you're losing your hard earned cash to inflation. Let the liquidity fund help you put your money to work with minimum risk, your cash generates up to a 10% return and compounds year in and year out. Instead of earning less than 1% in your bank account, the minimum investment is just 25k   you keep getting paid until you decide you want your money back. Their decade plus track record proves they've always paid their investors 100% in full and on time. And you know how I'd know, because I'm an investor in this myself, earn 10% like me and GRE listeners are text family to 66866, to learn about freedom, family investments, liquidity fund, on your journey to financial freedom through passive income. Text, family to 66866   Hey, you can get your mortgage loans at the same place where I get mine, at Ridge lending group  NMLS, 42056. They provided our listeners with more loans than any provider in the entire nation because they specialize in income properties, they help you build a long term plan for growing your real estate empire with leverage. You can start your pre qualification and chat with President Caeli Ridge personally. Start Now while it's on your mind at Ridge lendinggroup.com That's ridgelendinggroup.com   Richard Duncan  20:53   this is Richard Duncan, publisher and macro watch, listen to get rich Education with Geek Weinhold, and don't quit your Daydream.   Keith Weinhold  21:11   Welcome back to get rich education. We're talking with legendary author Doug Casey. In fact, his classic book strategic investing broke the record for receiving the largest advance ever paid for a financial book at the time. And Doug, I know, in one of your latest pieces, you talked about how inflation actually leads to a more litigious society as well. Tell us about that.   Doug Casey  21:34   The US is actually the most litigious country in the world, and it's because a company may have a hard time meeting its obligations when the currency that its obligations are denominated in turns into a floating abstraction, and if you can't fulfill your obligation, is the way you would righteously on a handshake. Might you may want to call in your lawyers to help you survive. So it percolates through all areas of society.    Keith Weinhold  22:06   Now, on top of inflation, I think there's a problem that's really in one's face today, America has a tip inflation problem where increasingly you are being asked for tips at places where you weren't beforehand. And I think a lot of that really began with COVID. Places like Subway restaurant began asking for tips even though you're standing up to order your food, and it was a way for you to show appreciation that they showed up during the pandemic. But when the pandemic waned, the tip request didn't go away. In fact, I think they've increased. So we have tip inflation on top of inflation. Doug, I recently attended a conference, and the little convenience stores inside the event site hotel, they stated that they are now cashless. Okay, so you're going to be paying with a card, and when you bring your groceries up to the counter, there's a little screen, and they ask you two to three questions. You have to answer two to three prompts if you don't want to leave a tip. This is just at a convenience store. This holds up the line. It's a little frustrating. It wears me out. They say humans can only make 35,000 decisions a day. I just spent three or four of them saying I don't want to leave a tip for this sandwich that I just brought to the counter. And you know what's funny, Doug, I almost consider if this gets annoying after I deny the ridiculous tip request when they didn't provide any additional service. You know what I think about asking Doug, asking that person, oh, okay, well, you asked me to pay more than we agreed to. Where's my discount? Now let me ask you a few questions about my discount now that you ask that I pay more than what we agreed to. So tenations become a problem.    Doug Casey  23:47   Actually, it's worse than that, because now that the world is going to computer money less cash, they give you some choices. I know at Starbucks, this is the case. You want to leave a 10% or a 15% or a 20% tip, those are the things that you can check to make it easy for yourself. But wait a minute, I just wanted a coffee, and what services this person provided for me, other than just drawing a coffee for me and I'm given a choice of it used to be that tips were this is a long time ago, but it's still the way it is in many countries in the world, the tips were just the excess change that you left there. Or the waiter in many countries in the world, like, well, two I can think of off the top of my hand, or Japan, where tipping is is not accepted. In fact, I remember in one Tokyo restaurant, I left some money on the table, and the waitress ran down the street after me to give me my money back. She thought that I inadvertently left it on the table and it was supposed to be a tip. Other countries, like New Zealand, there's no tipping. Certainly out in the country, it's only in the big cities. So yeah, it's become a rather pernicious habit, but I understand, because the average guy doing manual hourly labor like waiting is having a really hard time making it these days, and that's evidenced by the fact that both Trump and Kamala Harris were talking about making tips exempt from income taxes, because you might have to pay the government, well, forget about it. You have to pay them 15% in Social Security taxes, which are non deductible, and then you have to pay income taxes on top of the Social Security taxes. So I I understand why you'd want to do that, but inflation is just another kind of tax, actually, when we get right down to it, that's what it is. It's a subtle tax. It's a tax that you don't see. It's a tax that you blame on the person providing the service of the good, rather than the government, which if they tax you directly. Yeah, you see that, but you don't see that. Inflation is just another form of tax.    Keith Weinhold  25:59   Sure, an income tax or a property tax is sort of front stage inflation really a backstage tax being surreptitious. To your point, well, if the government is so bad and does such a poor job of issuing currency, Doug, what are your thoughts about the government just getting out of the currency issuance business? Whatever that would look like, a gold standard, a Bitcoin standard. Does the government have to be the one that issues the currency?    Doug Casey  26:27   No, it doesn't actually look and we might want to forget about this concept of currency. You've heard that the BRICS, a bunch of third world countries, Russia, India, China, Brazil, many others who want to get out of using the dollar, they don't want to use the dollar because the dollar is turned into a floating abstraction, and they can't trust the US government, as the Russians found, because all dollars clear through New York. So what are they going to do? They don't trust each other's phony baloney currencies. I think that those countries are going to go to gold, not a gold currency, gold, which was money since day one of human history. Actually, I think that's going to happen in the US. And for many, many years, I've suggested that people do their saving in gold, not in dollars. I've been saving in gold for the last 50 years, starting when gold was in the low 40s. And as you do with savings, you put it aside, you forget about it. And the gold that I first saved at $40 an ounce, it's now at 2700 more or less, has treated me very well. I think that people should be saving with something that's not going to lose value the way the dollar does. If the dollar is in a lot of trouble, it could dry up and blow away, quite frankly. So one reason why you want to own real things, commodities, properties, gold, things of that nature, or stocks, if you choose the company well.    Keith Weinhold  27:59   I've helped people that have been hesitant about putting a little bit of money into gold or Bitcoin with the mindset of, don't think about how you are buying gold or Bitcoin. Think of it rather as how you are shifting a portion of your prosperity from dollars, pesos, yen or euros over into gold or Bitcoin. Really, you're just shifting some of your prosperity there. Is the way that I like to think about it. But Doug, as we've been talking about inflation, in this theme of government really having intervention and distortions into free markets, including things like inflation. You know, I've got something that I'm thinking about, and you might help shape or change my thinking about this. We generally champion free markets around here that's typically a good economic system. However, is a free market with some guardrails on it actually helpful? Or do you think that the guardrails shouldn't be there? You mentioned Donald Trump a little bit earlier? One thing, for example, that he says he wants to do Doug is fire the current FTC chair, Lina Khan now the Federal Trade Commission. What their role has really been in the past few years is they spend a lot of their energy cracking down on fraudsters, but Lina Khan wants to bust up mega corporations. So really, what I'm getting at is, can one of the guardrails that's important be that say the FTC make sure there isn't like a an early 1900 style, John D Rockefeller monopoly. What are your thoughts with the government's role in breaking up monopolies? Is that a valid guardrail on the free market?    Doug Casey  29:30   No, I don't think it is. Look, you've got two kinds of monopolies. You've got market monopolies and legal monopolies. A market monopoly is one where the company provides the good or service so cheaply at such a high quality that nobody can compete with them. It's not worth it. Well, leave it alone. And if they start pricing their product too high, or the quality falls enough in a free market, Competitors will come in. That's one type of monopoly. nothing wrong with that kind of monopoly. The other kind of monopoly is a legal monopoly where the government says you have a franchise to do this, you and only you can do it like, well, like almost anything today, where you have to, you have to get government approval in order to provide the good or service. Like railroads, for instance, you couldn't start a new railroad today if you wanted to. So if it's a legal monopoly, you're fighting the law. If it's a market monopoly, you just have to provide a service or good, cheaper or better. So no, I don't think the FTC or any of these three Leader Letter agencies serve a useful purpose. All they do is add to costs and slow down competition and employ people that stick their nose into your business and tell you what you can or can't do both as a producer and a consumer. Look, the government is force. It's coercion. It should only do three things in a civilized society, we want to limit coercion. That means protect you from coercion outside the country with the military inside the country, with the police force, and allow you to adjudicate disputes peacefully without resorting to coercion through a court system. Everything else can be solved through market processes. Believe it or not, I know that shocks most people to hear they're so used to thinking that big brother is watching over a man is going to save my bank and protect me from bad people out there. I wish there are plenty, but it's not the best way to do it. Frankly.   Keith Weinhold  31:33   you've done a good job of drawing a distinct line as to what you think government should stay out of but what about this monopoly power? What if, even with AI inroads, Google still owns more than 90% of the search markets, so therefore they can charge exorbitant prices. Shouldn't something like Google be broken up in an antitrust lawsuit?    Doug Casey  31:51   No, no, it shouldn't, because there are other companies out there that provide people are just used to using Google. I use it myself, but there are at least a half a dozen, and I'm not a computer jock, so I think there are more than that, other services out there that you can use instead of Google, and believe me, I don't like these big companies. I mean, they act like semi governments onto themselves. No, you don't want the government to step in, because the government is a far greater danger than Google is. Google can't break down your door at three in the morning with cops and haul you off to jail. Google can just charge you more than you'd want and do other things like that. But you have other alternatives to Google. It's not an active over weeding physical danger the way the government does. And I'm not saying I like Google either. I don't. Let's admit it, they provide us a tremendous service at basically zero cost, and if you can find ways to get around them, I think that's great. Like I said, it's wonderful what they do. But that doesn't mean I'm a fan of them because of the way that, like any big organization, sure, they try to take advantage around the edges. Unfortunately, that's a negative part of human nature. But the government is not the solution to the problem.    Keith Weinhold  33:13   And of course, this doesn't mean I'm a pro regulation person. Some states and jurisdictions landlord and tenant act can be overbearing.For example, the FDA is not doing a good job with what is allowed to be put into our food, either. So the size of the regulation probably is too big.    Doug Casey  33:31   My old friend Dirk Pearson, who wrote a book called Life Extension, a practical scientific approach, was a huge bestseller some years ago, and Derek always liked to say the FDA it kills more people every year than the Defense Department does decade. And he's right.    Keith Weinhold  33:51   Yeah, that is a pretty sad indictment on the state of things there. But do you have given us quite a few things to think about with how inflation is actually an unethical source, and some more thoughts about free markets. If our audience wants to connect with you, what's the best way for them to do that?    Doug Casey  34:07   Well, go to internationalman.com I write an article there every week, but every day we have great articles by great people. So go to internationalman.com that's one thing on YouTube. Doug Casey's take, where I have a conversation on these and many, many other subjects with Matt Smith every week. And the last thing is, since you can say some things in the form of fiction that you dare not, or better not say in the form of non fiction, right, I have three novels, speculator, drug lord and assassin that I think are excellent reads, so go on Amazon and pick them up too.    Keith Weinhold  34:47   Yeah, Casey, it's been insightful as usual. Thanks for coming back onto the show today.    Doug Casey  34:52   Appreciate it, Keith, it's been a pleasure.   Keith Weinhold  35:00   Yeah, good insight from Doug. As always, tipflation has become awfully intrusive. I recently made a donation on my nephew's behalf for his soccer team or something like that on the donation platform, okay, they called that donation my pledge. Okay, sure, but before I finaled out my pledge on the site, they next asked me if I would like to leave a tip on top of my pledge. Sheesh. Well, do you blame the donation platform for trying to up charge me after I'm just trying to be giving or instead, after listening to today's episode, do you blame the government for inflation in spending? Is this all just a result of that? And now we have listeners that when they find this show, they want to go back and listen to all currently, 500 plus episodes. Well, if you're listening to this five or 10 years from now, you might find my tipflation stories unusual because the practice could be so common and embedded into society by then. Right now, it's still pretty novel here in the mid 2020s there's a rapid rate of change on the tip flation front. And the next time that you are asked for an out of bounds tip, are you next going to ask the merchant where your discount is and make them answer three questions about it.   And by the way, the cold brew coffee that I mentioned with Doug is not the erstwhile la Columbia brand that I talked about two weeks ago. My favorite and real go tos are the Slate and O, W, Y, N brands. That way you get 20 grams of protein with your coffee and no cheap sweeteners in those two. Now, when it comes to the anti trust stuff, breaking up monopolies and duopolies, see real estate is super fractured with who owns it. I mean, even with more institutional buying of real estate, like we've seen this past decade on a national basis, these huge groups that own 1000 homes or more. All those groups, they only own about 710, of 1%of the US single family housing stock. So real estate investing is free market and it is fractured. It is not at all consolidated.    And now let me give you something outside of real estate, an example from another segment of business, supermarkets. There is no need for you to frantically hoard Annie's mac and cheese. It's not good for you anyway. But two courts rejected the Kroger Albertsons merger earlier this month, and that effectively broke up the deal that would have brought together two of the largest grocery store chains in America, the decision that really gave a sweet victory to FTC chair Lena Khan, like I mentioned there in the interview, but her time at the agency's Helm, that's going to end in a few weeks with the beginning of a new presidential administration. But see, in my opinion, and going after antitrust cases, she was pro free market and pro competition, which I see as a good thing. That way you have more companies vying for your business with better quality and lower prices. But I do like to listen to the other side, because, like I said in the interview, I'm still forming an opinion on this. That's why I wanted Doug Casey's take. And in this case, the two grocery companies, they had argued that creating a larger entity merging them both that would allow it to compete with Walmart and offer higher wages and lower prices. That is their side of it. Now Andrew Ferguson, he is the apparent new FTC chair. He has promised to reverse what he called Khan's anti business agenda, so we're not going to see as much antitrust crackdown from the looks of things. And note that there is also an antitrust division at the DOJ, so their influence weighs in as well. This really hasn't been much of a problem for real estate, one of the most highly fractured major markets around and now you do have though adjacent industry, like the home builder space, where there is a home building giant like Lennar, but even the home builder space isn't nearly as consolidated and anti competitive as say, the online search industry or the airline industry. I would like to wish you a happy new year. As always, we are back next week with more great content coming up on the show. We go in depth on some real estate asset classes and also how you can really, accionably and seriously reduce your tax burden next year with vehicles like bonus depreciation and cost segregation, simplifying those things for you, these are exactly the types of tools about how the rich get ahead by knowing how the tax laws benefit them, and pretty soon you will too.   If you like what you hear here each week, please go ahead and tell a friend about the show. I would really appreciate it. Until then, I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, don't quit your Daydream.   Speaker 2  40:15   Nothing on this show should be considered specific personal or professional advice. Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate, financial or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own. Information is not guaranteed. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. The host is operating on behalf of get rich Education LLC, exclusively.   Keith Weinhold  40:43   The preceding program was brought to you by your home for wealth, building, get rich, education.com

It's Hump Day! Sam speaks with Madi Oates, shift supervisor and bargaining delegate for Starbucks Workers United (SWU), based in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Michelle Eisen, organizing member of SWU, to discuss Starbucks recent update to its parental leave policy. And then, Sam is joined by David Dayen, executive editor at The American Prospect and co-host of the Organized Money podcast, to discuss the prospects of the Democratic Party going into 2025 and beyond. First, Sam runs through updates on the GOP's continuing resolution, the Matt Gaetz ethics report, the Fed's rate cuts, Senate judicial confirmation, Lina Khan's FTC, Luigi Mangione, Palestinians' and Palestinian-Americans' suit against the State Department, Trump's legal woes, Amazon labor action, and the US' TikTok ban, also expanding on the GOP infighting around the continuing resolution and Mike Johnson's message to unelected billionaire bureaucrats Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. Madi Oates and Michelle Eisen then join as they dive right into the major victory won by Starbucks Workers United in securing the same level of paid parental leave for Starbucks' workers as it provides for its executives, tackling the major exploitation and effort put on the company's pregnant workers and unpacking the various policy benefits that this negotiation has won. Stepping back, Eisen and Oates paint a picture of the major progress SWU has had in expanding its US presence, organizing some 5% of stores nationally, and the major progress they've made in securing rights and fair wages for their members, before looking forward to the future of this fight, as Starbucks' myriad open unfair labor practice cases and lack of a clear economic proposal come into their crosshairs. David Dayen then joins, first touching on the coalescence of a rudderless Biden Administration with a floundering Democratic Party that seems incapable of working as an opposition party, dissecting the overlap of these issues in the role the party's gerontocratic class putting their egos and ideological commitments over the need for the party to readapt to a younger electorate with vastly evolved concerns. Expanding on this, Dayen and Sam zero in on the role Nancy Pelosi has played in legitimizing this cling to power (even amid failure), with her recent obstruction of AOC's bid for Dem chair of the Congressional Oversight Committee serving as a key example of her refusal to back down from dictating a party for which she is no longer Minority Leader. Wrapping up, they assess the problem of Democrats' utter dearth of a plan for acting as an organized opposition to Trump, and whether internal dissent in the party will be able to push leadership back on track. And in the Fun Half: Sam unpacks Trump's plan to privatize the USPS, with some helpful confusion added by a member of the TimCast team, before tackling RFK Jr's ongoing pivot right on abortion. Sean Hannity is suddenly pro-Europe, Kowalski from Nebraska helps us understand why food in the US is unhealthier than in Europe (freedom… and deregulation), and the DOGE caucus sets their sites on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Hillary from Brooklyn helps us understand the NYPD's attempt to charge Luigi Mangione with terrorism, and John from San Antonio parses through the turnout and demographic numbers for the 2024 election, plus, your calls and IMs! Follow Michelle on Twitter here: https://x.com/michelleeisen Find out more about SWU here: https://sbworkersunited.org/ Follow David on Twitter here: https://x.com/ddayen Check out Organized Money here: https://www.organizedmoney.fm/ Check out all the work at the American Prospect here: https://prospect.org/ If you can donate to the GoFundMe in honor of the late Janie Ekere, a writing fellow at the American Prospect: https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-fund-janie-ekeres-final-farewell Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Join Sam on the Nation Magazine Cruise! 7 days in December 2024!!: https://nationcruise.com/mr/ Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 20% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: Select Quote: Get the RIGHT life insurance for YOU, for LESS, at https://selectquote.com/majority. Go to https://selectquote.com/majority  to get started. Givewell: If you've never used GiveWell to donate, you can have your donation matched up to 100 DOLLARS before the end of the year or as long as matching funds last. To claim your match, go to https://Givewell.org and pick PODCAST and enter The Majority Report with Sam Seder at checkout. Make sure they know that you heard about GiveWell from The Majority Report with Sam Seder to get your donation matched. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Leah Nylen, antitrust reporter for Bloomberg News, breaks down the latest news surrounding a failed merger of two major supermarket chains, and what the future of antitrust enforcement might look like as president-elect Donald Trump considers his pick to replace Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan.

As president-elect Donald Trump considers his pick to replace Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan, a look at the role of the FTC in the economy.On Today's Show:Leah Nylen, antitrust reporter for Bloomberg News, breaks down the latest news surrounding a failed merger of two major supermarket chains and what the future of antitrust enforcement might look like

Ryan and Emily discuss Mitch McConnell health coverup, CEO shooter manifesto revealed, Israel invades Syria after Assad toppled, Pete Hegseth allegations explained, Trump ousts Lina Khan as FTC chair, Trump DOJ caught spying on journalists, Bill Maher stunned by Trump guest saying he hasn't been cancelled. To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A.M. Edition for Dec. 11. Donald Trump picks Andrew Ferguson to succeed Lina Khan as FTC chair, seeking to remake the agency. Plus, Trump pledges to speed up permitting for companies investing over $1 billion—and while reform in this area has garnered bipartisan support in recent years, the WSJ's Siobhan Hughes says other parts of the president-elect's agenda could meet resistance in Congress… though we could also see some surprising alliances. And GM walks away from its Cruise robotaxi program after nearly a decade and $10 billion in development. Luke Vargas hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

BLOCKBUSTER NEWS FROM INTEL Intel announces Arc B-series GPUs!!! CEO Pat Gelsinger "retires," but was really forced out by the board of directors Why? Theories include too-slow progress, major partner bailing on foundry, disagreements over keeping x86 design and foundry, etc. Windows All Quiet on the Windows Front No Insider builds last week. Thanks Thanksgiving! Today, a new Canary build with Win32 app updating in the Store Patch Tuesday is next week - this will be a big one The rest of December will be quiet too Microsoft: TPM 2.0 is "non-negotiable" in Windows And now, a long-threatened change: Watermark on the desktop of unsupported PCs PC sales slid 1.5 percent in Q3 after two quarters of "growth"/flat sales Samsung is killing DeX Phone Link is the new Dex. Interesting, given the partnership with Microsoft Plus, Google is FINALLY adding desktop capabilities to Android. This should have always come from the platform maker AI, Cloud FTC is investigating Microsoft for cloud licensing too - And about 16 other things apparently Microsoft: SHE HIT ME FIRST! Spotify Wrapped 2024 uses Notebook LM to create a personalized podcast for each customer OpenAI is solving the biggest problem with AI... its lack of advertising! The Browser Company's next browser is called Dia and it's all about AI. Does it have a chance? Xbox Xbox Year in Review is live Indiana Jones and more is coming to Game Pass in the first half of December Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 is getting big reliability updates. Hopefully, Boeing is helping out here For some reason, Sony announces that it sold 160 million PlayStation 2 consoles Tips and Picks Tip of the week: Get out of the basement App pick of the week: Google Drive RunAs Radio this week: A SysAdmin Christmas with Rick Claus and Joey Snow Brown liquor pick of the week: Dewar's 8 Year Old Caribbean Smooth Rum Cask Finish Hosts: Leo Laporte, Paul Thurrott, and Richard Campbell Download or subscribe to Windows Weekly at https://twit.tv/shows/windows-weekly Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Check out Paul's blog at thurrott.com The Windows Weekly theme music is courtesy of Carl Franklin. Sponsors: 1password.com/windowsweekly Melissa.com/twit veeam.com uscloud.com

The Federal Trade Commission is reportedly looking at how Microsoft bundles its cloud business with other offerings, such as AI and cybersecurity products. The investigation is something of a parting shot from an aggressive Federal Trade Commission under the leadership of Lina Khan. We’ll hear the latest. Also on this morning’s show: a look at jobs and AI use, France’s political crisis, and spending on home construction.

The Federal Trade Commission is reportedly looking at how Microsoft bundles its cloud business with other offerings, such as AI and cybersecurity products. The investigation is something of a parting shot from an aggressive Federal Trade Commission under the leadership of Lina Khan. We’ll hear the latest. Also on this morning’s show: a look at jobs and AI use, France’s political crisis, and spending on home construction.

In this episode, Scott Becker examines five key stories, including the potential Treasury Secretary pick, critiques of Medicare privatization, Walmart’s strong performance, and Lina Khan’s controversial tenure at the FTC. He also highlights the resilience of SkyBridge Capital’s leadership and shares a personal anecdote about his travels in Jordan.

JD Vance reserved his most outrageous takes on trans issues for a sit-down with Joe Rogan. Trump suggests ""war hawk"" Liz Cheney should have guns “trained on her face.” A pregnant teenager dies after seeking care in three Texas emergency rooms. Elon Musk predicts, “Lina Khan will be fired soon.”" HOST: Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur), John Iadarola (@johniadarola), Sharon Reed (@SharonReedLive) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks

Krystal and Saagar discuss Mark Cuban joins war on Lina Khan, quarter of Israelis want to flee, Fox reporter calls out IDF killing journos, UFO whistleblower sounds off.    To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.com/   Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.