Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
#FinanceDaily: Debt Ceiling | Jobs Data | Jamie Dimon For President?
Recorded: June 1, 2023 Duration: 1:16:39Space Recording
Short Summary
The discussion primarily revolved around the political dynamics of the debt ceiling deal, the potential candidacy of Jamie Diamond for president, and the economic implications of recent job data. There was no significant crypto-related content in the transcript.
Full Transcription
All right. Everybody that's listening will be getting started in five minutes.
I just wanted to encourage people to start putting quotes and to start putting questions and comments in the bottom right.
If you have questions and comments, please put them in the bottom right into the comments section.
Today is going to be a little bit different. I'm going to switch it up a little.
We're going to have a quick conversation about debt ceiling.
Jobs data comes out. We're going to talk about Jamie Diamond for president.
But I also want people who are listening to tell us what topics they want us to cover, and we will cover them live.
There's a lot of things going on.
The real estate market, AI...
I won't give you too many ideas because I want some original ideas.
We want to do something crazy.
And what we'll do is I want you to put in a topic and then ideally also put in who you think we should bring up.
And we will reach out to them in real time.
Mario's team is going to kill me for doing this to them.
But the idea here is what if we change it up a little?
And we're going to stick to the time today.
We're going to go quickly, but we're going to cover a shit ton.
So I'm going to bring the rest of them up.
Give me like one or two minutes and we'll get started.
Eugene, what do you think about this idea?
I think it's a great idea.
I think it adds to the, it sort of leverages the spontaneity of spaces and sort of the best ways.
But I guess as an experiment, we'll have to see how it goes.
Yeah, it's hard to do things in real time, but, you know, I'll just have, I'll just make it harder for everybody.
Oh, man, already.
Jamie Diamond is getting killed in the comments.
Interesting.
Oh, man.
We haven't even talked about him yet.
He's in the title.
He's in the title.
I know, I know.
What did you think about my meme?
A live look at Biden?
I think it's good.
I think it's very up for a...
Did you watch the whole thing?
Holy cow.
No, not the whole thing, but yeah, wow.
That's pretty incredible.
That was really good.
Thank you.
Hold on.
I'm just going to bring a couple of more people and we'll get started quickly.
Oh, good.
I saw Gordon.
Gordon's here.
I saw his tweet around real estate.
Gordon got a lot of pushback, so we'll talk maybe a little real estate, Gordon.
But, all right.
So let's get started.
So really quickly, I don't know if anybody has heard.
But the debt ceiling deal got done yesterday.
We were on spaces last night, pretty late.
And I have to say the general consensus was,
except for maybe one or two people,
the general consensus was this was very favorable
to the Biden administration.
And then McCarthy definitely took a big L.
But that was nothing compared to what came after.
So since we last hung out,
Information has come out.
Axios reported that a side deal was made by McCarthy to get to whip the votes that he needed from Hakeem Jeffries.
I am not kidding.
This is probably even crazier than people think.
I heard it happened in a tripotle.
I said it again.
I heard it happened at a tripotle.
that is possible i literally i'm not i'm literally trying to find the article now i literally
generally think it happened at a chapolte that that's where all the best deals happen uh but i was
going to say that you know this is pretty big news uh uh and now i'm completely distracted by
chippotle uh but and it's 7 a m here in in san lewis i was going to say that you know the the
The thing that's crazy about this deal, the thing that makes this deal incredibly worrisome,
is that as we continue to beat the drum, right, and there's been multiple people that beat the drum
of, oh, my God, we're just adding to the deficit.
Oh, my God, we're adding to the balance sheet.
A deal was made to add more what we would call pork.
in Washington, and essentially the deal was that they provided earmarks for Democrats in Democrat districts for Democrat projects, Democratic projects.
I'm not kidding. Yes. Isn't that nuts? I will find that Axios article and pin it to the top.
But, I mean, again, this is not confirmed by either side.
in that article, this was reported.
Actually, Sher Michael's here.
I'm going to bring him up just to get his thoughts.
I'm sure he's seen the Axis article.
You know, I think, you know, while I thought that it could be,
oh, Sir Michael jumped off.
You know, I thought that there might be some pushback to the deal itself.
Obviously, McCarthy's going to get some pushback on the deal itself.
But any initial thoughts on...
agreeing to earmarks with Hakeem Jeffries to get the deal done.
And I can kind of walk through why they had to do that, because I don't think he had the votes.
And he had to essentially guarantee that the deal passes, because can you imagine if the deal
didn't pass, how bad McCarthy would look? Any initial thoughts on this? And I'll find the
Axis article and put it while people are talking. Cody, what are your initial thoughts?
Oh, Dakota.
So, yeah.
Sorry about that.
Yeah, I mean, the Republicans lost this one, right?
I mean, it looks like the Democrats pulled out every thing that they wanted out of this deal.
Maybe other than having the gas pipeline for Mitch McConnell in his backyard there.
So, yeah, I don't know.
This backdoor deal with Hakeem Jeffries and a Chipotle does sound pretty interesting.
If you find that Axis article, I'd love to take a look at it.
Just an update on the Tripoli thing, they've got takeout.
That's what the financial times are saying.
They actually generally had to briefly stop the meeting to get Tripoli Mexican takeout for lunch.
Rob, what is your fascination with what they ate when the deal was being made?
I read it on 20 yesterday and I got myself rabbit hole on like, I was just like, what like why?
Imagine that conversation.
What do you want for lunch?
Jesus Christ.
I think he's hanging down a new sponsor.
That's right.
We are sponsored by Chipotle.
I'm just kidding.
Actually, I shouldn't say that.
We're going to get in trouble.
We are not sponsored by Chipotle.
All right.
But, but yeah, apparently, and again, it's hard to run the space and find the article.
If anybody can go and find that article for me and put it in the comments so that people
that are listening can get there and then I can put it up in the nest.
That'd be super helpful.
Anybody that's listening, please do put it in the comments and we'll put it up.
But...
It's, uh, the concern that I have more than anything else is that this is Washington being Washington.
And I think that's what's really heartbreaking is that, you know, we, but, uh,
With austerity politics going on, in the back end, they made deals so that Democrats can look good in front of their constituents.
And I think that that's kind of nuts.
Brian, your initial thought on this additional news late last night, I think the article was at 10.41 p.m.
I mean, it was pretty late.
Brian, your thoughts on this Axios article around the side deal that was made, supposedly made.
It's not been 100% confirmed.
Yeah.
Brian, would love to get your thoughts
and Jim, I'll come to you.
Yeah, I mean, like you said,
it's politics,
it's how politics works.
And I think Americans
are sick of it.
Whether,
whether this deal is accurate or not,
whether the article is accurate,
I don't know.
I'm kind of waiting to hear more about it.
But,
but yeah,
I mean,
it's just,
it's all about just trying to
appear as if
you're the better political party in front of your constituents.
And I think that it's what's been happening for decades,
but it's continuing to happen,
and I think it's pissing Americans off.
Hopefully we can figure this debt thing out
without having a gun held to our heads, though.
I'm glad that we have moved past this, and hopefully...
Hopefully next time, maybe we don't have to feel like it's default or die.
Well, the problem is if it's not default or die, nothing gets done, right, Jim?
I mean, that's the argument the Republicans have been making.
Yeah, so can I just reply to that?
Yeah, Brian, go ahead.
I agree.
So I think that's a good point in that nothing's going to get done unless the guns held to your head.
But...
nothing, nothing gets done anyway. You know, you have, you have this, the same thing happens
every single time the debt ceiling debate comes up. And, and you have a lot of posturing,
but you don't actually have major changes. And,
I would rather there be legitimate debate that we don't feel like, oh, we have two weeks left to actually make a decision.
The problem is that neither party wants to do that because it's going to hurt the party in power.
But Brian, the deal, this is what really upset me about it.
So, you know, I am definitely, I definitely, as you know, lean left.
I am a moderate.
But what's really nuts about this is Hakeem Jeffries didn't fight for people suffering from inflation.
Right. He didn't fight for people that are suffering from all the things that will happen because our debt is increasing. He fought for earmarks in the back end. That's what he negotiated with McCarthy. That actually upset me more than anything else that has happened.
Right. I agree. I wish we would have, you know, I wish we would have fought for, for, for, for measures that reduced inflation at somewhere. Like, you know, as I was saying yesterday, inflation, you know, if, if the Democrats want to claim that they're the party of the common man.
what the hell are we doing?
You know, like inflation hurts poor people,
way more than it affects, you know, rich people.
And I think that that's what's really fascinating about this,
is that, you know, maybe, maybe,
I just don't want to end up with a world in which, you know, that,
that Democrats become the party of the rich, the educated elite,
and the Republicans become the party of the rich elite.
There's no difference there.
Jim, go ahead.
Can you post the article?
Yeah, I'll post the article in a second.
Jim, go ahead.
Yeah, what I find really funny is that if we, the last, well, the current debt ceiling,
this thing hasn't passed the Senate, so the one that is in place right now, had we
taken the simple step of say plusing up let's just I'll grant this will plus up
2019 numbers by 1% and that's considered austerity like we are 40% higher in our in our spending
on an annual basis right now
than we were prior to COVID.
And even though I totally disagree with all the extra COVID spending,
one can rationally argue somebody wanted to do something in an emergency.
I mean, I think there was no need for it, but I do grant that those arguments happen.
Hey, Jim, I'm so sorry to cut you off.
So I've looked at, so last night when the article came out, I'm sorry, Jim, I just want to correct myself because they're, this is, they corrected themselves. And this is just a reminder that a lot of, you know, community notes came and community notes to us about the debt ceiling deal when we broke it on Friday. Like we were the first to break it on Friday.
And, you know, people were like, whoa, you guys did a false flag.
And then we got, wait, the space got community noted?
It got community.
No, one of the posts got community noted because the language that was used was a little bit
stronger than what I had actually said on stage.
And they said, well, you know, and so it was the tweet associated with it.
But what was really interesting was that the following tweet, which
which was saying the exact same thing did not get community noted
because guess what, on Saturday it came out that we were correct
and there was a 3% increase in defense and all these other things.
But anyways, that's not the point here.
This is not a victory lap right now, even though I love those
and I will accept all your trophies.
I was going to say that, you know, the thing that is interesting
is that the news that came out last night,
which I, you know, in the back channel we actually discussed in significant detail
because I was so upset by it.
Axios has now retracted, and I just put it up there.
The story has been updated to include denials by McCarthy and Jeffrey's office of any deal in exchange for Democratic support for the procedural vote.
So I did want, you know, because unlike them, we actually check our sources.
Right? Isn't that crazy? Can I just say for a second how crazy this is?
There's a little bit of a political slide of hand in that statement.
That, you know, be very clear what they said.
There was no deal made for the procedural vote.
Well, you know, they were running.
Oh, God.
So you're saying for the passage vote, there actually was a deal.
Oh, my God, Jim.
And the deal is that they're not allowed to say that there was a deal as well, by the way.
No, no, no, but Jim, go ahead.
What Jim is saying is kind of important.
Yeah, so what...
Listen, I have no confirmation that actual deals were made, so I'm just going to tell you that.
But I am going to say this in the back channels, and all this week, everyone was talking about deals being made of this sort to get Jeffries to help.
Because keep in mind, this is one of those subtle things that people don't typically notice, and I don't expect they would.
But when the vote was playing out last night, you could see how hard they were working to have just as many Republicans and Democrats.
Now, McCarthy couldn't ultimately pull that off, but it was really close.
And the vote was held.
They won it early.
They could have called.
They can call the vote down any time.
By the way, and that does happen.
If you get to a majority and you think that anyone might come home.
Jim, you're so right.
I just want to make sure people know.
I want everybody to read.
Sorry, Jim.
I want to make sure because I'm reading this article in real time, and it's very interesting.
I'm going to read this out.
I know you all can read, but I hope it's more fun when I do it publicly.
So I'm going to actually read it in a different order because the way that they put it, it's very confusing.
And I think that this might be on purpose.
All right.
So the original article was saying, and I'm going to, if somebody can go into Wayback Machine and pull the original article, that would be incredible.
I will love you forever.
But, but this, but, but, but I remember what the original article looked like because it's, it's seared in my brain.
But I was going to say that.
What we're hearing is where it started.
Four Democrat lawmakers
said that they had been told of a deal
with two saying they believed it involved
boosting federal funding for projects
in Democrat districts, known as earmarks
or community project funding.
I have Democrats voted to advance this bill.
When...
And I'm going to just read in the order that it was written the first time because it's very interesting.
When reporters asked Jeffries about whether there had been a deal, the minority leader had said,
House Democrats to the rescue to avoid a dangerous default and help House Republicans get legislation over the finish line that they negotiated themselves.
Now...
McCarthy came out this morning that he had not cut a deal to ensure the Democratic votes and that there was no deal and that it was not an accurate article.
And so they had to change all of this.
And then Jeffries, I'm not even kidding.
An hour later came out and said, oh, yes.
There was no side deal.
House Democrats simply did the right thing and made sure the procedural vote passed.
Again, Jim, you're so right.
The words being used are around the procedural vote.
So they're not confirming that there was no deal.
And again, I'm hopeful that they go and find this out.
But first of all, what an L for Axios for reporting something that they hadn't confirmed directly with the offices.
What an L?
Listen, not that I'm inclined too often to stand up for Axios, but I think they probably got the story right.
Now, let's just grant for a moment that we actually do not have real confirmation that this deal was made.
What you have to do in thinking through this is recognize what I was just starting to describe, and thanks for those clarifications coming in, which is they had the vote, they had a majority early on in the vote.
Like they'd already closed, they'd already gone past the original 15 minute time.
kept that thing open for a long time and you'll notice that all the numbers were working so that they could get 150, 150 Republican Democrat.
That is literally what McCarthy was trying to do.
And he was unsuccessful in it because you're trying to talk people into coming off their no votes on his side.
That's literally what was happening.
I don't say this.
to be obsequious or anything.
I've watched this over and over again
when working on Capitol Hill.
So they were doing that.
Now, why would you do that?
Well, you would do that because some agreement was come to.
Now, is it this particular agreement?
I can't absolutely confirm that.
But all my back channel conversations all week were that this was happening.
And I haven't personally confirmed it.
But I can confirm that the discussion was happening.
And don't underestimate the fact that they would do this very thing.
And they do all the time.
Let's go ahead.
I'm going to be reaching out to all the sources that I know that helped us break the debt deal early.
I'm going to reach out to all of them.
I really want to know if this deal got made because it will break my heart for the, like literally, I'm telling you publicly that it will be really hard for me to vote Democrat again.
Like I have in the last 10 elections.
Well, who would you vote?
Who would you vote for?
I don't know, but it would be really hard if this is what they fought for.
Brian, you've got to admit this would be like heartbreaking.
Because literally they, because what I'm upset about is not that they fought for a side deal.
I actually think that that shit happens all the time.
I'm upset that given that what's happening to the American people,
that American people are losing purchasing power.
right their dollars worth less that they fought for this deal if this is what they fought for i will
i will not only confirm with sources i will probably ask them to speak publicly and we'll try to have
spaces on this this side deal did they go into any specifics at all they said that the side deal was
for earmarks in districts in democrat but they didn't say what those were though no no no no those
get worked out along the way that that that that the
people they don't even know what they are they just wanted to get a commitment to it if this but they're usually
and jim please correct me but they're usually projects like new libraries or new that things like that
they're not swimming pool you know it can be yeah might be a swimming pool things that you can get a press
release all when you go back in your district
So brief note on this, Dr. Donish, when I was on the radio, I broke some news and the local city was really ticked off because we weren't supposed to announce it. It was about Apple and they did some data center. And there was like one building and it was this tiny little project, but actually it was an enormous project and their mayor, just the local mayor, but he leaked it on the air.
And they said, you need to retract everything, you need to take it off the stream, you need to take it down.
And our news director, she said, put me in, you know, put me in, I'll deal with this.
And basically she made a deal, it's public now, but she made a deal that they will take it down off the stream and take it down everywhere and edit the story in exchange for breaking the story when it was official and when they had more details.
So to Jim's point, this stuff does happen, and it happens.
So it might actually turn into a big W for Axias later.
Maybe.
By the way, Denise, I shared...
But a big L for the country.
Go ahead, Jim.
I shared up in the nest.
Eric Watson of Bloomberg quoted Democrat Brad Sherman of California saying, quote,
now we are allowed to say it.
We rolled them.
I mean, how funny is it?
And Jim, what an L for the Republicans?
I have to say...
that a guy that they, you know, one thing that was said yesterday that I really liked,
and as Sotomon said it, so I'll give him credit for it,
was that the Republicans have gotten really good at making memes,
and they've gotten really good at making fun of Biden for like stumbling here and there
or maybe slurring his words, but man, did they get whooped by Biden yesterday?
Like, can we just admit, Jim, I know it's going to be hard.
Let me just finish because I need to finish.
I know you have to retort back, but, but, but man, they got whooped yesterday.
And they got whooped in 2022.
And they're going to, what the hell is, you know, maybe, maybe.
they should focus on governing instead of, you know, comedy.
Maybe reality TV doesn't actually translate into being, into winning.
And I keep saying this.
If there starts, you know, we can say whatever we want.
about Biden and the Democrats,
but man, they're learning how to win
and they're doing a masterclass in winning.
It always looks like they're losing,
but they end up winning in the end.
Jim, I'll let you respond to that, but you have to admit.
One thing I'll throw at you here is Hakeem Jeffries actually –
was not as slick as Nancy Pelosi in this.
He was out saying they better get their 150 votes.
He didn't have to say anything about a deal being made publicly.
And he did that.
So he was boasting a little bit about some agreements being made in the middle of the week.
And that, he tipped his hand way too much.
So actually, I don't know that they're learning how to win.
But here's the other problem.
I say constantly.
that Republicans are fantastic at pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory.
And that is the case.
Like, really, this is-
Well, except 2020 and 2020.
Hey, listen, all the negotiations of everything that I've gone through, this is very consistent.
In fact, I thought we weren't going to go down this path.
when they passed the bill in April.
And I didn't think it would be good necessarily,
but I didn't think it would be this bad.
This is exactly what John Boehner and then would have done.
And by the way, the reason why is it's the Uniparty,
and you're seeing if these earmark agreements were made,
and by the way, I predict they were, but I don't know that for a fact.
If these earmark agreements were made,
that just should just let everybody know.
We're dealing with a Uniparty in Washington, D.C.
There are a group of people...
who are running the show. Leadership always runs the show, and it's always the worst people in leadership.
And then, you know, being a House Freedom Caucus guy, and for anyone that doesn't know,
I was there from the beginning of that when I was a staffer in D.C., so I saw the whole thing.
I know most of the guys there still.
And I'm saying that these people are told, as I was told last night, or it was suggested to me,
why should we let them decide and dictate what's going on?
Well, the problem is it's people like that.
that are called on the fringes but are really mainstream people that are always hated and
And it's the people at the top who were supposed to not buck the trend on it.
By the way, on either party, we're not supposed to buck the trend on them,
but they're the most scurrilous, horrible people that are in D.C.
And they're running the show most of the time.
Well, you know, what's interesting is there's a few people that have just joined us,
Justin, so I'm just going to reset really quick.
For people that are joining us right now, the big news on the hill is that the debt ceiling –
deal has been
has been voted on and approved by the House.
It is going to be going to the Senate.
You know, there was 149 Republicans that voted for it
and more Democrats that said yes.
And this, you know, at some level,
we have averted crisis.
And at some level, we've kicked it down the road.
The big news overnight was from Axios,
that a side deal was made
between Hakeem Jeffreys
and Kevin McCarthy,
the speaker of the House,
because Kevin McCarthy
wanted to essentially make sure
that the deal got done,
that the actual deal,
the default preventing
fiscal responsibility act
passed the House,
and in that effort,
he gave up earmarks for,
for Democratic districts.
Now, Axios has since, you know, updated their article.
They're saying that both sides are now saying that the deal, that there was no side deal.
But man, it sounds like there was.
Because Akeem Jeffries in the beginning kind of was gloating, like Jim said.
We don't have any proof right now that there was a side deal done.
I want to be very clear.
Because unlike Axios, we try our best not to provide bad reporting.
Just kidding.
Sorry.
I actually like Axios.
I actually really enjoy Axios.
I apologize Axios.
It's just too much fun.
It's just too much fun.
I'm just some random guy on Twitter, like I always say.
And so it's a good time.
So my question is, because yesterday I heard a clip from the Ben Shapiro show, and he was talking about how this was not great, but kind of a win for Republicans that they were able to pry anything out of like, of course he made his like Biden's half dead joke.
but like that's i i see sir michael on the room so can i put myself down and then have can i do that
put myself down and you can bring him up to because i want to i'm dying to hear his perspective on
this so i'm going to i'm going to say i got it jesus i got to go so you stay up all right thanks
brian thanks for joining us uh apparently sure michael the crowd is asking uh but we'll have you come
up i just gave you an invite you know wanted to
I wanted to make sure that we talked a little bit because, again, our night audience is very different than our morning finance daily audience, which again joins us at 8 a.m. Eastern every day. We wanted to...
to talk through the debt deal itself very quickly.
And then I know that job data is coming out, I think, right now.
So if somebody can look that up and Neely's in the crowd.
So Neely, whenever you get a chance, please let us know.
You know, the deal itself was very, it essentially did not,
change anything.
So they, you know, we increased the, the debt ceiling by about $4 trillion.
And I think they cut about $80 billion worth.
And 20 of that was for the IRS that was getting $80 billion.
So it was like a nothing deal, pretty much.
There was one thing that they did, which was they had work requirements go from 50 to 55 for
Snap.
I mean, I guess.
And then they got, they made permitting a little bit easier.
And importantly for the Senate.
and this is the important one.
They approved a pipeline that runs right through West Virginia.
I wonder why.
I wonder why, and again, talking about projects that matter to specific people,
I wonder who's from West Virginia in the Senate.
Are they...
He's running for president.
Or maybe they got an election coming up.
Yeah.
Yeah, possibly.
I mean, like, this is like the, this is how disgusting.
Oh, and they're way down in the polls.
Jim Justice just released a poll.
I don't know if it's accurate or not.
That shows Mansion way, way, way down against him.
I don't know if it's true, but that's what he put out.
I mean, I would too if I was him.
But I was going to say that, you know, long story short, what I'm alluding to
is that Joe Manchin got his pipeline to Virginia.
That sounds like a country song.
I don't know what the song is,
but it does sound like a country song.
Pipeline to Virginia.
And so ultimately, we are seeing...
And, you know, somebody sent me a message in the back that actually, and I wanted to say this, it's not that the Dems are winning.
It's that the establishment unit party continues to win.
And he claimed that the two-party system is dead.
I'm not sure about that.
You can't take this completely away from Joe Biden.
The old man still got it.
That's what I'm going to say.
You know, Neely, were there any provisions in the Fiscal Responsibility Act that you think will have an impact on the markets?
Is there anything in there or was it largely good?
For us, it's all around the student loan, resetting a month earlier than what was prior expected on the repayments.
It's a significant consumer event.
You know, we our firm has estimated it to be...
about 75 to 100 basis points of a headwind to retail sales,
which means if your sales plan was zero,
it's now minus one, right?
And that is a big difference on a monthly basis.
Like that's a big slope change.
So that is what we're concerned about.
What we're still waiting to hear for,
and we might actually get some action today, possibly,
is the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the student
forgiveness plan.
These are two different things, repayment and forgiveness.
And we're actually getting a batch of at least one or more SCOTUS rulings beginning.
You know, it's June.
Welcome to June.
We're getting their rulings from their last session beginning today around 10 Eastern.
They never tell you which ones you're going to hear.
It's kind of like this, you know, what's it going to be kind of Hanukkah surprise, you know.
And that's what we're going to be listening for.
Yeah, I mean, the student loan repayment, I guess, was a little bit of a win for the Republicans.
They did want to move that, but nearly it was one month.
Why is the one month so significant?
You know, it was going to happen in August anyway.
Yeah, you know, it's significant to us because it basically now would cause repayment to go into effect, call it, you know, July 31st or August 1st.
And nearly the jobs data.
Yeah, I've got it.
I've got it all ready to go for you on that too.
Yeah, let's get it.
So on jobs, so basically it just affects back to school selling, which is a precursor holiday.
That's why it affects it.
So here's the deal in jobs.
ADP was out this morning and ADP came in, I think, at like, 278 off the top of my head, which was better than expected.
And yeah, forecast was 170.
Yep, exactly.
And this is two months in a row that ADP has done this.
We have been out there with a thesis that jobs would be stronger because people, remember, remember this?
They lost their health insurance because of the Medicaid pandemic assistance at the end of March.
And so they're probably coming off the sidelines and into the job market to find some employment.
If you're an expert or something, me.
What's that?
It's like you're an expert or something.
I don't know.
It's almost like I'm paid to do this.
Just for people that don't know,
just so that people don't know,
I'm gonna give Neely her flowers.
We tend to do that, unlike other places
where everybody just tries to take each other down.
But Neely had predicted a few months ago that all,
All job numbers will likely come in higher than expected because people could no longer rely on their Medicaid coverage.
And it would push people back into the workforce even if they're not.
I mean, to be honest, if they're not ready.
But still, and so ADP now two months in a row has been way underestimated, right, Neely.
And so to your point, that's what's driving this.
Right?
Thank you. I appreciate that, Donish. And what's adding to the conviction of that call is that wages are actually not strong. So it's almost as if the person who's looking for that employment is not being picky or they're unable to be choosy and they're taking the job that they can take in order to get that health care provision and benefit.
So it seems to be echoing that. Similarly, we...
We will see non-farm payrolls numbers tomorrow out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Those have been wildly revised over the last few months.
So they're feeling a little bit less reliable.
But the ADP number, we think people are looking at that one a little bit closer.
So we'll see.
Can I throw up here real quick?
I mean, because the 12.1% jobs changers pay increase is obviously very interesting,
except that every category increase is roughly consistent with the non-job changers number of 6.5%.
So what that seems to indicate is that you don't have any...
large move into back into the job market and that that uh low employment number still reflects a very
low labor force participation rate and so we're not seeing dynamism i would say in the job market
right now we still have a long way to go before we ever have the kind of economic recovery and
rebirth that is necessary for everything to start going up as it probably should
Yeah, I mean, the difference between the unemployment rate and the actual job openings is still also a big issue.
Job market, the labor market is crazy tight.
And Jim, thank you for that insight.
Gordon, I wanted to go to you really quick.
about how do you think the Fed is going to respond to this, you know, in terms of interest rates?
And how do you think the market is going to respond? Is this good news, bad news? Because right now,
we're back in the good news as bad news camp, aren't we? There's a concern that the Fed is going to rise rates again.
What do you think?
Yeah, hey, thanks for bringing me in.
So I think the job numbers clearly suggest that the Fed needs to be more active.
And I think that...
People may be getting a bit ahead of their skis with respect to what Powell's going to do.
Keep in mind, he's the ultimate decision maker.
Not even the two guys that spoke yesterday.
Clearly, the new guy is a dove, you know, Biden appoints doves.
And let me be specific.
Powell has said that he does not want to repeat the start and stop and start again.
Yeah.
policy that was a mistake pre-vulker.
And he said that he is focused on going further and potentially doing more than what's necessary versus the opposite.
So that would seem to counter a view that he's going to pause, you know, and it's not a pause, it's a skip.
I mean, everything he said goes directly against that framework.
And with these job numbers and him saying he's going to be data dependent, I would think that the odds on a rate hike, you know, they were almost 70% yesterday.
These two guys spoke.
They dropped down to 35.
I would think they're going to go back up.
when you add to that, you know, a number of different data points, whether it's the, the PCE inflation data, the service, I'm sorry, the real estate, the rent inflation data, the OER inflation data that's trended back up, you know, Powell claim victory on that, now it's going back up.
It just seems to me that they're losing control again.
So I'm sorry, guys.
One second.
Yeah, no worries.
So, you know, it seems like they're losing control again.
Mickle, your thoughts?
Yeah, I mean, I totally see that argument, but I do have to say just because the Federal Reserve has been restricting economic conditions, it doesn't necessarily mean that they won't be happy with the economy surviving and inflation is still coming down.
I see a lot of people talking with these numbers coming out, us getting good numbers and saying, oh, this means the Federal Reserve will definitely hike rates.
rates because they have to skyrocket unemployment.
But inflation has been coming down significantly.
And if you do follow data, it's like coming out of trueflation.
And if you look at some other economic indicators,
I've seen Tom Lee doing some very interesting stuff in terms of removing housing data from
inflation.
You really do see that inflation has come down a significant amount.
So I really do think we're going to end up in a point and it could be very possible
where job numbers could stay.
And I think they will increase or...
job or unemployment will increase, but so far the economy has been really resilient. And I do question
if we get to a point where the Federal Reserve just has to stop hiking because inflation is doing
what they wanted to do, regardless of what happens to the job numbers.
Yeah, interesting.
Can I comment on that?
Yeah, go ahead.
I just want to caution people.
Keep in mind, the Fed does not look at trueflation at all.
I know that a lot of people on Twitter and a lot of guys who are deflationists highlight that data,
but that's not what the Fed looks at.
Their measuring stick is core PCE inflation.
And the data last week, while it was ignored because the stock market roared higher,
All of that data showed a reacceleration and inflation.
And if you look at the OER rent data,
which, you know, there's the CPI rent and there's the OER rents.
OER is 25% of CPI.
that's clearly re-accelerating now.
And that was something that the Fed had claimed victory on.
Well, I mean, Gordon, part of that OER re-acceleration, though, sorry, there's two sides to it, right?
One is that more people are moving to renting because they can't afford mortgage payments.
But then the other is that a lot of people, a lot of the homes that are owned for rent,
are owned by institutions that are essentially a floating cap rate a floating rates and so they're just
increasing accordingly we expect that as prices increase i mean economics dictates that less
utilization will occur and when that happens essentially brents will come back down right like
this is just like an initial dislocation isn't it or do you think that this is sticky
Well, I don't know, but what I would say is that it's like, you know, some people get in trouble, including myself, you know, investing on what you hope to happen, right?
The problem is you have to invest on what's actually going to happen.
And if rent inflation is going back up, which it is, if PC, core PCE is going back up, which it did on Friday.
Right.
the Fed is going to have to act.
So it's not necessarily what we want or, you know,
trufflation data, which the Fed does not look at at all.
It's what they're actually going to do.
So I think that's something important to focus on.
Yeah, and I don't, and I definitely wasn't implying that the Federal Reserve is going to be looking at trueflation.
I guess my own personal thesis would be that the Fed data is lagging trueflation by two to three months, but I totally see what you're saying.
Obviously, if they're going to keep looking at that lagging data, they're probably going to make decisions off that.
I do wonder, though, if they do come to a point where they have to look forward a little bit, because...
I just can't. I do think there is a scenario, and Jerome Powell has talked about this before, where we could have a soft landing in his eyes, and we could have a time where unemployment doesn't skyrocket the way some people have predicted.
Now, I know for some people, that's a low probability, but so far this recession has been forecasted for a while, and so far it really hasn't materialized to the degree a lot of people thought it would have already.
Right.
Yeah, it's interesting.
Sure, Michael, would love to get your thoughts,
and then Gabor.
Go ahead, Shermary.
Yeah, you know, I think that was an interesting point in terms of the recession,
raw data versus how actual Americans feel about whether or not they're in the recession.
I think that's really important.
I think nearly raised a really interesting point that I'm surprised no one else really sort of touched back on.
And so that Jim as well pertaining to unemployment rates being relatively low,
we've sort of seen a study decline for the most part of the past couple of quarters.
Yeah.
Yet we have not seen an increase necessarily in wages and to sort of bring in the politics into the economics here. I mean, I think if you're making an argument about income inequality and enhancing workers security that this would certainly be an aspect of significant consideration, at least from a macroeconomic perspective.
And so you may say, okay, well, more Americans are finding jobs.
I think nearly stated because of health care purposes and needs, which may indeed be true.
Yet the question remains, are those wages, have the increase,
or your ability to afford basic necessities?
Have those things gotten easier?
And I think the average person would probably look at the state of the economy for the most part and say absolutely not.
Yeah, it's interesting.
You know, because purchasing power has gone down so much.
Absolutely.
Gabor.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's just wanted to add a sort of an other data point.
I think the fat is between Iraq and a hard place because regardless of what happens in the job market,
what people don't tend to look at is just by the end of this year, 30% of our treasuries are going to mature,
and by 2026, over 50%.
That means that low interest rate debt will get basically reassured at a higher rate,
which is going to effectively double our debt servicing costs from $450 billion
to literally like $900 by the end of the year and $1.4 trillion in like $2,2.5 years.
That's absolutely crazy.
So like the, you know, whatever, like I think the Fed, regardless of what happens in the job market
and even if inflation creeps up in some way, they will have to,
stop hiking. And again, I just wanted to mention this because this kind of maturity structure
with the just hasn't happened. So right now, roughly like $16 trillion dollars for the debt
will mature basically in two and a half years. And that is just, I made a tweet about this.
and it's just going to get ugly.
And that means, again, that our debt servicing costs will double in like a year,
year and a half and triple in two years.
And that's crazy.
And again, that cost is actually, again, there's a chart that I published about this will
overtake social security.
It's not trivial.
Those numbers are, you can argue about, you know, Q.
strategies in cute ways to Fed looks at PCE and inflation and what they are not looking at.
But literally the economy is going to explode if we double our servicing cost every year, year and a half.
Yeah, I mean, at this perspective.
No, thank you for adding that. Neely?
I was just going to wrap.
I got a head out to listen to both the Minneapolis and St. Paul, Mayor,
tell me, and try to convince me this morning over breakfast that our cities aren't, in fact, on fire.
But I'm going to head out here shortly.
But what I wanted to leave with is just look at the tape this morning.
Live stream that.
Live screen. Right.
I'm tempted to tweet, stream it, but I'm also going to be debating my property tax increases here shortly.
So, you know, don't want that used against me.
So Dollar General and Macy's each, you know, have reported this morning.
You can look at their stock prices to see kind of what they're probably signaling and indicating.
Each are talking about significant macro headwinds.
One actually has a lot of consumables for lower income.
The other one has seasonally appropriate apparel,
you know, kind of event-driven apparel.
Macy's has been doing really well historically
with event-driven apparel.
And they're also saying that they've seen a slowdown since March.
I think to the point that was made earlier by Shermichael is that the consumer feels recessionary,
even if we don't want to acknowledge that's the case.
And in fact, when Niebuhr tends to give their dating on recessions,
it's always like way after and then they point to things back.
Because what we're dealing with in the moment, and I alluded to it earlier,
is the data in the middle of cycle shifts is unfortunately less quality data.
And so what we think we're looking at is actually an illusion often in hindsight.
So I just wanted to just point out to like we can sit here and pontificate all we want.
The reality is we've got retailers with cash registers telling you things aren't well.
And we're facing right now an economic shift in reality with student loan payments around the horizon.
So will the Fed hike into it?
That's a great question.
Just a reminder, we get CPI on the first day of the next FOMC.
So they are going to have that data as they make that decision.
hilariously it's hard to be data driven when you have no time to process it
like reading a 2000 page bill in voting on it yeah on the same day agreed yeah i think it's
going to be it's going to be quite uh fascinating justin go ahead
I wanted to make sure, Sure, Michael, I wanted his perspective on the debt ceiling.
Do Republicans see this as a win or not?
He hasn't addressed that, or do you have thoughts on that?
Before we wrap the room later, I just want to make sure he gets that in there.
Yeah, go ahead, Shermichael.
I mean, look, I think my friend Jim was going to disagree with me because we sort of approach this on two different sides within the Republican caucus.
Right.
with me being more attached to the leadership side of things.
I think leadership is going to articulate this as a win within the caucus,
and I think even politically they're going to articulate this as a win.
And while I certainly agree with some of the points that Jim made yesterday in regards to
components of the bill not being perfect.
I read through the bill twice yesterday.
There were some parts where I certainly didn't agree and certain things that I thought
should have been negotiated far better from the House Speaker.
But I think considering...
Congress, considering Republicans right now, considering that I think the speaker could only maneuver so much on this, which has been my position for the past week now, I think he got the best possible deal that was possible while still being able to get some Democratic votes and assuring that the bill could actually pass to U.S. Senate.
So from my position, I think it is a win, and I think it can be communicated to the American public, specifically independent and swing voters that way to great success in the 2024 general election.
Yeah, I mean, Gordon, go ahead.
Yeah, just a question for sure, Michael.
So the government strategists I speak to told me two weeks ago.
They're like, this deal is going to pass.
It's going to pass on Wednesday the house.
All of this is just, you know, kabuki theater.
And I said, you know, do you think this deal is significant?
And they were like...
It's not a big deal at all.
And their point was that with new governments, caps can be changed.
So everybody talking about how this is a huge deal is wrong.
It's not a big deal.
And their view isn't a weak, people will forget about this.
What are your thoughts on that viewpoint?
Thank you.
Gordon, I think that's a fair point. I mean, the public changes their minds and focus pretty quickly. I mean, like, I'm on television every week, and I can talk about one issue today and then tomorrow we're facing the next big crisis. So I agree in that point. But however, I don't think that changes the ability, at least from a strategic position, for Republicans to sort of articulate to voters. We have attempted to rein in the...
debt and spending. We have attempted to address deficit spending. We have attempted to get
Democrats to agree that we are spending far too much, just like you may have to balance your budget.
We attempted to do the same, yet Democrats obstructed.
every way possible so we weren't able to really get there.
So from a communication perspective, a strategic perspective,
I see some advantages there, but I do agree with you, generally speaking,
a week from now, most people are going to forget,
but I know Republicans are going to attempt to utilize this next year
to sort of draw parallels between them and Democrats as pertains to spending overall.
Yeah, it's going to be interesting because what you may not remember
a few weeks from now is what precipitated the vote of the motion to vacate.
Yeah.
But you'll know that emotion to vacate is coming.
That's my big prediction, that a motion to vacate is going to be coming.
The first one, at least.
I don't know if it's going to win, but I think it's going to be coming.
And I think it's absolutely nuts that we're at this point in our politics.
But Gordon, the only one thing I'll say about what your comment around people will forget.
You know, I think people will forget some things.
What they may not forget,
is how everything kind of got done and how this was big, you know,
they may not forget that there was a Kabuki theater.
And I think that's the problem.
And ultimately, right now, we are in the middle of,
of campaign season.
Biden's going to run on his legislative wins.
He's going to run that he keeps winning
and that the Republicans keep losing.
And I think it's not a bad narrative.
Jim, go ahead.
Yeah.
Sure, Michael, I let you respond to that before, Jim.
Sorry.
I saw you on mute.
I know that's going to be Biden's talking points.
No, I think you're right, but the reality is, looking at most surveys and data, at least that's currently available, that message of legislative victories have not necessarily been transferred to the average voter.
I mean, even Democratic-leaning voters don't necessarily feel that they're winning, even though I would probably agree.
It depends who the candidate he's running against is.
If it's about winning...
And he's running against Trump to most Democrats.
Trump appears to be an existential candidate.
Like, oh, my God, we've got to beat him.
And if he says, look, I might not be able to talk so good.
I might not be the most dynamic person, but I win that could resonate for Michael
election.
But you have to keep in mind.
So Joe Biden won the 2020 election against the former president about 80%.
81, 82,000 votes across about four to five different states.
So similarly to how Trump stitched together a victory against Clinton in 2016,
Biden, for the most part, did the same thing.
Now, if you're looking at some of those places, Pennsylvania, Georgia,
Michigan, Arizona. If you're looking at the data in those states, specifically those states, I don't particularly care about the rest of the country. I'm only focused on the battleground states. Biden has a serious problem. And so while I agree about the argument that he'll likely make to his party, that argument doesn't appear at least
as of now, to be resonating with voters who are ultimately going to decide many of these elections and those particular states on the margin.
And so in that regard, I think Biden has a serious problem, even if it is Trump.
I am not convinced that Trump's ability to mathematically get the necessary electoral votes needed to become president again isn't there.
I would argue the counter. I think it actually is there.
Interesting. Jim, we'd love your thoughts on us.
So when we ask who won, then we ask who and where.
And when we try to think of the result of all this in terms of the deal itself,
uh what and to what effect so to who won well both McCarthy and Jeffries won and in some ways
they lost you know Jeffries is going to if this story is accurate he's going to suffer for that
frankly and McCarthy is suffering with his caucus right now and by the way I I'm getting asked
this morning by people just as we're on this
people in D.C. that I talk to. Someone just asked me explicitly. So I'm not hearing anybody talk about the motion to vacate.
and that's true.
I mean,
Matt Gates made a statement
that he thinks it will happen,
but he didn't make any commitment to do it himself.
So I don't know what's going to happen with that yet.
And by the way,
whatever deal,
and I'm not saying,
I'm not making a claim for the earmarks just yet.
We're waiting for that.
But there was a deal of some sort,
even if it was just a political one between,
you know,
opponents.
But whatever deal was made,
could also go into the motion to vacate thing and keep McCarthy in power with Democrats abstaining from that vote.
So in that way, isn't, isn't McCarthy becoming the new Boehner?
I mean, if Democrats end up voting...
That happened last week.
That happened last week.
That's done.
He was not the new Boehner up to the passing their debt ceiling deal in April, but he is now officially the Boehner.
So that's the other thing.
Now, so who won?
Okay, that's who might have won and how, but where did they win?
Well...
Listen, this is all kabuki theater.
Anyone that thinks that this is a uniparty kabuki theater
when we talk about the debt ceiling.
And by the way, we have this $4 trillion number.
I mean, we need to remember for the next two years,
they can blow it out as much as they want
because there's no restriction on increase in debt for two years
or almost two years.
So anyway, but where did they win?
Well, the wins only happened with their respective caucuses
and in the Washington, D.C., political class.
There's no win or lose anywhere out in the country. Independent voters are going to forget about this by the time 2024 rolls around and even by the time the presidential primaries run around. Oh, it might be brought up here and there, but it's not going to be a talking point because we've already moved on from it once it gets passed in the Senate. So that's all done and over with.
So the question is what happens from here?
And Shemichael is right to have pointed out the fact that in these battleground states,
Biden is not doing well right now.
Also, the structure of elections, although still transformed from 2020,
that have had retrenchment from what they were like in 2020.
So that is also going to have a positive effect.
It doesn't matter if it's the same.
But Jim, there's a really easy way for the Republicans to fix this entire issue.
It's very, very easy.
Just don't elect Trump as your representative.
Biden will literally have no reason.
to freaking run and that now we can move on.
This is a two-sided affair.
Well, we may want to move on, but I will tell you this.
And again, as I'm seeing it now,
and I haven't settled my opinion fully
until getting closer to the end of the year,
But if I had to put money on it right now, it doesn't matter if it's Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis.
It's going to be a 1980 election for a Republican presidential candidate for all the same reasons.
Notwithstanding what happened last year, because last year was an anomaly, not a trend because of the abortion issue.
The Dobbs opinion was so big then.
You had so much energy out in the grassroots.
that that became an anomaly.
That also is, abortion is tanking in the polls of what's most important to you.
Not that people don't have an opinion or whatever, but what's most important to you, it ain't there.
This is going to be all economy.
James Carvel's statement that's the economy stupid is 100% coming to bear next year.
Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Tim Scott, I don't care who it is.
They're going to blow through.
I really believe that right now.
And then again, I'm still settling out on this.
Talking about who it could be, Bill Ackman put out a love letter to Jamie Diamond.
That was a pretty good transition.
Sorry.
You see how I teed you up there, right?
Okay.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Jamie Diamond has not announced that he is even thinking about it.
In fact, in an interview last year, he said no.
But it was very interesting.
I'm going to pull up the tweet from Bill Ackman.
as we talk, but, you know.
We won't have long enough to read it, Danish.
It's a Bill Ackman tree.
And it's his pin.
I kid you not.
I cannot make this shit up.
Hey, Mario's team, can we get Bill Ackman up here?
He's been on Earth's faces multiple times.
It would be...
You know what?
I might actually,
if Jamie Diamond does decide to run,
we want him to announce on Spaces
and we hope that Spaces actually
doesn't glitch out
because it glitches out
with our thousands of listeners here.
But man, this is,
you know what?
Screw it. I'm going to read it. I apologize, Rob. I have to do this.
Mickle, we're moving on, my friend.
Just before you do that, Donish, it's basically Bill Ackman's personal proposal to become his vice presidential candidate.
Carry on.
Can anybody find like, by the way, in a bit of talking his book, too, Rob, wouldn't you not agree?
Let me get there.
That's a given.
That's a given.
This is one of those moments where I wish somebody had some really soft, loving background music in the back.
If somebody could pull that up, that'd be great as I'm reading this, because this is just so beautiful.
Jamie Diamond is one of the world's most respected business leaders.
Politically, he is a centrist.
He is pro-business and pro-free enterprise,
but also supportive of well-designed social programs
and rational tax policies that can help the less fortunate.
He's extremely smart, thoughtful, and pragmatic,
and he's extremely smart.
and he knows how to bring opposing parties together.
He is highly respected by the right, the left, and the center.
He is beloved by his 240,000 employees,
highly respected by our military.
I don't know how he knows that,
as well as by the political business and business leaders that matter.
He has superbly managed JPMorgan as the largest government employee.
He didn't say that.
Through every crisis.
Yes.
Don't do it.
And has built the world's best large global financial institution working for clients from
startups and moms and pops to global institutions and countries.
Our.
Are countries at risk with 32 trillion of debt with no end to massive deficits?
Is it the eyes of the angel?
What are you playing in the background?
Lower the volume just a little.
I think it's cutting me off.
And has built the war.
I kind of prefer the music, honestly.
Yeah, with 32 trillion of debt, with no end.
Next time I'm going to do it in the background, Justin, it'll be good.
To massive deficits in sight, heading into a recession, I'm still talking, by the way.
It's crazy.
At a time of great political uncertainty, we need an exemplary business, financial, and global leader
to manage through what is likely to be a critical important decade for our country and determining our destiny.
Jamie Diamond is that leader.
Jamie Diamond is of exemplary and impeachable character.
He is a no bullshit, straight-talking, charismatic leader
with an enormous grasp of the world issues
and how to address them.
He is a great communicator that makes everyone who hears his words
feel respected and inspired.
He has enormous, I'm still saying, I cannot believe this.
He has enormous energy, vigor, and drive.
He's a wonderful father.
Okay, I'm going to move forward.
Long story short, by the way, I'm only halfway through.
Rob, stop.
This is the guy lost his shirt on his short bed against herbal life.
So, you know, there you go.
Interestingly, this is insane.
He was pictured on a bit of a walk of shame this morning.
I don't know where he was coming from.
Oh my God, what a crazy.
Drinking a large glass of scotch while writing that love letter.
It was just so beautiful.
It was as if they were long, you know,
they were long lost lovers that were miles and miles apart.
Has been seen in the same room together?
I mean, would it be so bad to have a business leader, though,
that somebody that actually under.
No, no, no, Cody, no.
Cody, one second.
He's a banker, not a business leader.
Just a really important paraphration, yeah.
Also, also, I, you know, he's already the highest government-paid employee.
Yeah, exactly.
By the way, I was reading that, I think, you might as well,
you know, Ackman's looking for a new place to put some of his funds right now.
I mean, it's crazy that they, and by the way, David Sacks had a really good pushback.
He said, they said the same thing about Bloomberg.
He made it to the first question of the first debate, which was a really good response.
I mean, I have to say, Amy, I wanted to go to you since I don't see you as super political,
but I have heard you talk about Jamie Diamond before.
What are your thoughts, Amy?
Do you think you would vote for Jamie Diamond for president?
Oh my gosh. I mean, you know, at the start, I'm like, yeah, this is insane.
You know, why would we have a banker?
But then again, we had a real estate executive and reality TV star, you know, who won an election.
Can I just say like that's, that makes more sense than the banker does, because at least we all know that politicians are narcissists.
And so is a guy who was on television with his name all over buildings.
Also, I don't think James can give a speech.
Perfect.
Amy, keep going, sorry.
But, you know, Jamie Diamond also is not this dynamic leader
that makes people kind of lose their minds.
Like, you know, like, he's not entertaining.
Like, he's entertaining to us.
He's not David Sass.
Yeah.
No, I mean, gosh, I mean, from an, you know, if the economic issue is obviously going to be at the forefront of this election, I think from an economic standpoint, I mean, a banker, Jamie Diamond's probably, he probably would do a decent job with the economy. But that being said, as a political candidate on a whole, I mean, first of all, he wouldn't want the job. Why would he want the job? I mean, he like.
The joke already was said, you know, he's the highest paid government employee as it is.
He's making tons of money.
He's doing it what he wants to do.
Why would you want to be president?
It's not fun to be president.
And look at the economy we have right now.
It's a disaster.
Who wants to take this?
Nobody wants to take this.
No, no, no.
That's not why people run for office.
But if he's got loads of money already, that's not interesting to him anymore.
And he's clearly, I mean, he's Jamie Diamond.
He's like the king of...
consolidation. Imagine being in control of the
ultimate consolidation of power. That would be like
that would be epic to him. I guess the only reason he would run would be an ego
thing. He thinks he can do a good job.
Barack has already run the American political system.
He doesn't need to be president to run it.
No, I know he doesn't need. Nobody needs to be the president.
So that's not, Joe Biden didn't need to be the president.
He's already had a, he was already a highly celebrated
and very, very long-standing politician in the United States,
who was the vice president, he had no reason to run.
Apart from the fact, he hadn't done that bit yet.
And so I think from Jamie's point of view,
he's already one banking, and he's one banking in America,
which means he's one global banking.
So why wouldn't you consider it at least?
I reckon these things going out,
all these sort of tit bit articles, there's rumors going around,
is him going through a PR team and generally just asking a question.
I don't think he's actually considering it,
I reckon he's gone to a PR team,
can we get some people to ask some questions publicly
and see what the response would be?
Because Jamie wants,
Jamie Watts's,
not Amy,
sorry, Jamie Watts's ego rubbed a bit.
I think that would generally be it.
And by the way,
I want to say,
Cody,
we couldn't hear you.
Sorry,
what was that again?
Say that again.
I said,
do you think his campaign slogan
would be fiscal responsibility act?
Oh, why?
Along with guys, I'm going to now run just and generously
and say that I have no conflict of interest.
By the way, I want to make a point.
I want to make a point here. It doesn't go beyond my notice at least that one of the reasons he's such a successful banker is precisely because of what his, what the namesake of his company did in what was it, 1911 in bailing out the American banking system and, and, um,
you know,
forging the beginning of the Federal Reserve.
That does not go beyond my notice.
And I think it's almost a caricature.
I would love to see someone like Jamie Diamond run.
I used to be an opposition researcher, and I can tell you, Jim, you know this well.
I can imagine the Apple research book on Jamie Diamond,
and every horrific thing J.P. Morgan has done to the average person
and how they have screwed them over.
I'd have campaign ads all over the country of crying old people.
I couldn't get a new mortgage or I was kicked out of my home.
It would be the worst thing.
Sure, Michael, Jeffrey Epstein,
Jeffrey Epstein.
I was literally having that campaign.
Jeffrey Epstein.
He said he'd never heard of Epstein.
And now he's running for office.
Until 2019.
I'm sorry.
Whenever you say Epstein,
it's as if like 30 people speak
at the same time.
Go ahead, Cody.
I was going to say he just came out publicly saying that he didn't know who Epstein was until he heard of his name in the headlines in 2019.
Do you know how dangerous it is to say those exact words?
Because people like Shermichael will find an example of you in a meeting with Epstein or you happen to run into him at, you know, at the local bar.
Oh, my God, they would annihilate you.
Yeah, that one freaking lay out.
Even more pressing the map.
Even more basic than that, it will be...
I want to play the other side.
You will, Eugene, in a second.
We're having too much fun right now.
Rob, go ahead.
Just kidding.
We'll go to you in a second.
Rob, why don't you, we'll go to Eugene?
We'll go to Eugene.
Okay, so don't post that photo of Dr. Donish and Jeffrey Epstein hanging out of them.
No, don't even say that.
You know what that's going to say, Justin?
They already think, they already think of establishment.
Okay, Eugene, go ahead.
Not back to you said, I can create that picture, Justin, and AI.
Don't you dare.
I'm not just train the model.
I'm kidding.
No, please don't anybody listening.
Thank you.
Well, I do think AI generated images will play an interesting role in the next election.
Yeah, so I think just overall, though, you know, as we saw with like Mitt Romney,
I think like business leaders in general, you know, becoming politicians, just politicians,
let alone trying to run for presidents of the United States, has been a difficult proposition.
And actually kind of.
you know rue the fact that in america you know politics has gotten to a point where you know
folks who are i don't want to talk about jamie diamond specifically the people who let's say been
successful in business uh you know could could you know actually go and run the government or at
at least have a have a decent bit at running um for office
You know, Mitt Romney even, you know, he was like governor of Massachusetts and stuff.
So he didn't, he wasn't just, you know, ban capital, private equity.
He moved over to being, you know, to being a politician for several years before, of course, trying to make the bid.
And what I'll bring up is, you know, actually two things, you know, Plato, you know, his whole thing of like, you know, the philosopher kings.
I mean, you know, the idea of people who don't want the power should be the one who get the power.
You know, like the classic George Washington example of someone who gave up power and could have had it.
I think we've completely left that kind of camp and that's just not kind of how politics works in America, you know, in any way.
You know, I was just in Singapore, you know, just a few days ago speaking at a conference.
So I'll bring that up.
I've read, you know, Lee Kuan Yew, the longtime leader of Singapore's biography.
But, you know, he ran Singapore like a business and generated tons of success, right?
I mean, you know, it's a very special example.
Yeah.
But, you know, I think you could have run.
I think, sorry, Eugene, I'm hearing that you would support a Jamie Diamond for President Run.
And am I, am I doing that?
No, no, no, no.
That's going a little too far.
I do want to paint the other side.
The former venture capitalist support the banking leader.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
No, no.
I will officially say I don't think that's generally a good idea.
I think I'm more ruining the fact.
I also don't think...
I'm not sure it would work well with him in general.
And, you know, just to what Shermichael said,
the kind of ads that would come about
would just be, you know, probably pretty entertaining,
but probably not great for Jamie Diamond or a potential run.
I think just the way...
What I'm...
What I'm commenting on is more that the way the political system is set up in America,
it's really unfortunate that, you know, potentially serious technocrats,
you know, who could make a bit at running the government like a business, right?
Regardless over there left or right, now I forget the politics,
but those kinds of folks, generally speaking...
you know, would probably never survive, right?
They get eviscerated in the process well before they even reached, you know,
any sort of, you know, meaningful amount of success that would allow them to put in a successful bid.
So, you know, we're stuck with demagogues.
We're stuck with demagogues.
We're talking about technocrats.
If you are building something in tech,
IBC incubates and accelerates AI and Web3 companies and partners with VCs and funds to work with their portfolio companies in return for equity and zero cash.
If you're interested, reach out to Mario.
They're also doing a few shark tank tank style pitches, which will have some of these technocrats at them.
And so if you want any...
If you want any part of that, please reach out.
And also, please subscribe and follow everybody up on stage.
And I am done with my sponsors.
I was about to say something else.
You literally teed that up.
You called him a Jamie Diamond sufferer to tee that up
and then waited for the perfect.
You knew that that technocrat thing was going to genius.
This is how I do.
You're wasted on these places.
His head's getting to get bigger
If you keep calling him a genius
That's right, exactly
Great caricatures are built
When Jamie Diamond is being
Pumped by Bill Ackman
To become president
So it just opens the door for all this
It just opens the door for all of it
And I have to say
Like look
I agree with Eugene that ultimately there is something exciting about somebody who has built and grown a business.
There's one thing about a founder like Elon Musk that has built this giant business over and over again.
And then there's another thing about somebody that has come into an established business.
and grown it and made it more fiscally responsible.
And that second one is very hard to find.
Often it's very difficult to find.
And so there is something to this conversation.
The issue is he is, you know, and by the way, never say never,
A guy that had been on The Apprentice, a guy that had said, you know, all kinds of things to Billy Bush or whatever.
I mean, a guy that had, if you did Apollo research Jesus with three different divorces or how many ever he's had, you know, if you did, if you did do that, you know, it would be, no one would say that Donald Trump could win.
But let's just be honest.
He is no Donald Trump.
That's the issue.
Rob, go ahead.
And the reason I'll say, like, I'll add unto this,
is that Donald Trump didn't have the baggage of being the poster boy for 2008.
He, like, Jamie really needed to keep away from politics purely because all of that stuff.
Even though he, his bank actually got the least support and actually didn't need the support the most.
He was the poster boy after the, of the survival bankers of people who've done really well afterwards.
Right.
And people have got short memories when it comes to stuff like having their house repossessed.
And they're the marginal voters.
So I just would, my employment, if Jamie's advisors are listening, don't do it, Jamie, just go on a yacht, buy an airline, whatever you want to do.
Just do something radically different within your world to get you off and stop this madness.
By the way, I want to throw in here, listen, I am loath to say regularly.
Okay.
that the two best upticks in the economy since the Reagan administration were overseen by philandering presidents.
So I always find that very interesting.
And on that wonderful note, thank you everybody for joining us.
You know, we will be back here, 8 a.m. Eastern tomorrow morning.
And hopefully today was more entertaining than usual.
We were trying something different.
If you liked what you heard, please follow everybody that's up on stage.
And send us a note, send Mario or myself a note about your experience today because it was a little bit different.
And if you want me to keep messing with sponsors and if you are a sponsor that you like the way that we do this, reach out to Mario as well.
See you guys.
