Tariffs, Masculinity, & Everything in Between (with Scott Galloway)
37:34 Share

I can say to my new Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, hey, find a keto-friendly restaurant nearby and text it to Beth and Steve. And it does without me lifting a finger. So I can get in more squats anywhere I can. One, two, three. Will that be cash or credit? Credit. Galaxy S25 Ultra, the AI companion that does the heavy lifting so you can do you. Get yours at Samsung.com. Compatible with select after-pars Google Gemini account. Results may vary based on input. Check responses for accuracy.

Are you still quoting 30-year-old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide. And every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the now. It pays to discover. Learn more at discover.com slash credit card. Based on the February 2024 Nielsen Report.

From CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is Stay Tuned in Brief.

At his current pace, President Trump is on track to upend Social Security, the Department of Education, our alliances with the European Union, and everything else in between by summer. Joining me to break down some of the critical issues facing our nation and how to fix them is Scott Galloway. Scott is an entrepreneur, author, professor of marketing at NYU, and host of the Vox Media podcasts, The Prof G-Pod and Pivot with Kara Swisher. Scott, my friend,

Welcome back to the show.

Do you have any view of that? Do you think it's being taken seriously enough, too seriously? Does it have legs? All those normal questions. What do you think of that? Well, if you just go back and look at the statements of Hegseth saying that if anyone else did this, they would be fired or that these acts are treasonous and this is a violation of criminal activity. They're talking about an offense, which by any standard was a much lesser offense of Hillary Clinton's email. So I would defer to what they said a few years ago when someone else had said,

what feels like a parking ticket compared to the double murder violation of national or violation of national security. Look, I think on the left, we sometimes take for granted the prosperity and rights and advantage we hold globally based on our ability to deliver an unprecedented, almost monopoly-like capability to deliver violence around the world.

When the attacks of October 7th happen, President Biden can deploy two carrier air strike forces that has 6,000 sailors each, support ships, massive intelligence, unbelievable technical capabilities. They basically sit off the coast of the Mediterranean and tell Iran and other proxies of Iran to sit down.

And that a war, a nation that's nuclear power doesn't get backed into a corner because Hamas is unable to inspire a five-front war, which they were hoping to do, because of our ability to deliver such lethal power around the world. I think the left gets that wrong, and they make the mistake of recognizing and appreciating that the most impressive organization in history...

is the US government. There's no entity that's offered more rights, more prosperity for a lower cost, lower taxes in the US government. And within that government, the SEAL Team 6, the all-star team is the US military, which is arguably the most impressive organization in the world. And the people on the ground are the people flying.

The guy or gal flying that F-15 trusts that that individual from Kansas or Nebraska is up all night worried about making sure that every part on that plane is working effectively, that the agents on the ground are giving them good intel, that the people back at home are not reckless or careless with their safety.

And my question is, are we going to still be able to deliver that lethal monopoly-like violence in the future when allies are less likely to share information with us? When our troops on the ground are being recruited, are not confident that the senior most people in those organizations are really concerned or have any fidelity towards my safety?

So I think, unfortunately, this is the damage, real damage here is over the medium and the long term. And if you get a DUI, on average, it means you have driven drunk 80 times before getting that DUI. So the real damage here isn't

a journalist who, by the way, understands more about defense protocols and security protocols than our Secretary of Defense, that did not release the data until after the attacks, that immediately, once he recognized he was privy to data, errantly exited the chat, resisted the temptation to get no number of Pulitzers by staying and finding out what else they were talking about. What you have here is the real serious question is, how many times has this happened across our defense infrastructure apparatus

that bad actors didn't do the right thing and log off and then write about it. So when you put a bunch of peewee little league players in the MLB, in the major leagues, to believe that there's not gonna be unforced errors everywhere is obvious. What's more dangerous here

is the errors that have likely taken place are not in plain view. And the one guy was in Moscow. I mean, it's so, the problem here is- It keeps getting worse and worse. So who should resign? The whole lot? Oh gosh, I don't know. I think there's going to be, I want to get your view. I think there needs to be a blood offering. I think Trump is starting to get upset because day four, I mean, they're shocking all strategy.

of executive orders and memoranda and crazy statements and shows of force and renaming gulfs like the one that used to be the gulf of mexico and depending on whether you're the ap or not the ap uh is still the gulf of mexico and when you do all that and you have one story that has broken through for four i i i don't know that there's another story that is that is adverse to the trump administration that has gone all day every day for four days and running

And by the time people listen to this on Monday, maybe it'll be seven days. Now that's not, you know, the most important marker of what is important because once upon a time, CNN covered one airliner missing for, I think, 5,000 days, not to minimize that. Why this thing more than the other things? Is it because it has a sort of natural nonpartisan flavor to it?

This just seems incompetent even for this level of, this is especially stupid even for this group. And also I think when you're talking about national security, it does become a bipartisan issue. So it feels you're allowed to insult and shitpost anyone in government unless they're carrying a gun or an ax. You know, cops, firemen in the military are generally considered competent people. And so when you reflect incompetence that puts those people in danger, you can fire a bunch of people in the National Forestry Service.

you can cut off payments for USAID. But when you start reducing our kind of, you know, there's a certain macho feel to the military that Americans take very seriously. And just the irony here, the hypocrisy, the incompetence, the, I mean, they're not even, we're arguing over apps and phones. They're not even supposed to be using apps and phones. They have skiffs. It reflects a certain lack of any recognition that

of protocols or expertise that the nation has developed to this point to ensure that our allies and our soldiers are not errantly shot out of the air for dumb, reckless reasons. The Trump administration has been brilliant at what I would call deploying weapons of mass distraction. So for example, just in this case,

I think Trump said, how do we turn lemons into lemonade? Everyone's focused on this. I know I'll launch or I'll announce the stable coin from a company that's backed or owned by my kids. If Sasha Malia Obama and Chelsea Clinton launched a stable coin, I can't while, while Clinton or Obama was president, there'd be calls to impeach them. And I think some Democrats would probably move to impeach them. The level of grift here is,

There's so many things. Okay, let's argue over whether a helicopter crash was because of DEI. Let's argue over the naming of a Gulf such that we can distract from the fact that we're surrendering to Putin and we're about to massively increase deficits, which is nothing but a tax on young people such that we can cut taxes for the rich. And it goes to how we respond. I think we need to be focused on a small number of issues, not go after everything, not realize we have to respond to everything and be calm and bring facts.

But this issue does seem to have coalesced moderates and even some Republicans and all Democrats around. Competence matters. We kind of knew that, but we did. We didn't want to believe it. Competence really matters. And I do think you're going to see a blood offering here, not because the president cares about national, the safety of our our men and women in uniform, but because, quite frankly, this is embarrassing him. I've said this before, and maybe you said a similar thing. Joe Biden's numbers began to plunge and never fully recovered significantly.

after the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was not an issue of ideology. It was an issue of competence in the minds of many people that involved our soldiers. So combining incompetence with harm and danger and risk to our soldiers is a fairly unforgivable thing in the United States. You know, when you're talking about how, you know, the military is a special thing and not everyone appreciates it every day, the sort of most palpable expression

of admiration for and gratitude I've ever had towards our United States military was a moment on September 11th, where I was in downtown Manhattan and watched the buildings go down. And at some point that day, I saw a fighter jet over Manhattan. And I don't know, something about the sight of an American fighter jet over the island of Manhattan, which in normal times would be like, what's that about?

Or is there a ballgame nearby? In this instance, I was very happy that we're a powerful country, even though we were brought to our knees on that day. Do you think that Trump, just a segue to the way Trump seems to be treating veterans in this country, my question is not an articulate one, like what the hell is he thinking, even if he's not directing it, allowing the narrative to get written that the doge is willy-nilly,

dumping veterans out of their jobs. Is that because Trump, as people have told us over the years, actually thinks that veterans are suckers or is it something else? To a certain extent, I think Doge is kind of a bit of a misdirect again from some of the bigger issues I think we should be focusing on. And that is supposedly so far, according to the Wall Street Journal, they've saved $2.6 billion in terms of cost cutting. And if this has been sort of a, call it a

full body physical cavity search of the corpus and the health of the US government around fraud and waste. It's striking what a clean bill of health the federal government is getting. They're having trouble finding waste. If you look at their wall of receipts, the first one they said was 8 billion. It ended up being 8 million that had already been spent. And then items two, three and four in the wall of receipts were just not true.

They're having trouble. To me, this almost is like a clean audit. You get audited and the auditor comes back and says, wow, this is pretty good. Well, audits usually last more than nine weeks. There you go. This represents so many weird things. I do think it's a bit of a distraction. 2.6 billion. They could 6X the savings of Doge by cutting off all subsidies to Tesla, which has been 15 to 50 billion.

So I think that is also a bit of a misdirect. I think the Democrats believing there's going to be outrage, and I think you've seen it in some of these town halls, especially around veterans and people getting their Medicaid or fears around Medicaid. I think that stuff really hits home and you see that in the town halls. But I think some of the Democrats clutching their pearls, if you will, over the injustice of being fired by email.

I think a lot of Americans sort of say, "Welcome to the work week." That's happened to me before. I've had injustice all over the place in the private sector. And I do think some people like the idea of the government facing some of the same pressures as the private sector. Now, I've run companies my whole life. The idea of firing the entire tech team and then realize I needed them back, similar to what they did with the people overseeing our nuclear stockpile and then saying, "Oh, we screwed up. We need those people back."

You're not going to get all of them back. Who you're going to get back are the people who don't have the same opportunities. The people with the most opportunities will not come back. They will take that call from Google or from Constellation Energy and they'll leave. And the people who do come back are going to be constantly on the lookout for some other more secure job, are they not? The NSA, the military recruit out of my class at Stern. I think you're going to see a noticeable dip in the quality and number of people who want to go to work for the government because the government has always been seen as

a place to make a decent living. You don't go there for the money, but you're doing something in the agency of something bigger than yourself. And there's some job security. Let's be honest. It's not, oh, we had a bad quarter. Let's lay off 20% of the staff. And so they're able... And again, there's a myth that government workers are bureaucratic and incompetent on the whole relative to what we pay them.

The U.S. government has exceptionally skilled people who go to work for at all levels. So if the damage here that will be lasting is that in 2028, God willing, if Democrats retake the White House, they're going to have no trouble finding really talented people to fill the most senior roles, including people like yourself. What is going to be much harder is the millions of people in the engine room.

who you're just going to see a permanent degradation because of the issues you're talking about. A lack of consistency, a lack of pride, feeling that they're not taken seriously, feeling as if they're treated with a lack of respect. That's just not the place where our best and brightest at every entry mid-level are going to go. That's the real damage that's been done here.

With Fanatic Sportsbook.

Lowe's knows how to help pros save. That's why the new MyLowe's Pro Rewards program lets you unlock exclusive member deals on the things you need every day on the job. Plus, MyLowe's Pro Rewards members can get volume discounts on eligible orders through a quote of $2,000 or more. Join for free today. Lowe's. We help. You save. Exclusions, more terms, and restrictions apply. Programs subject to terms and conditions. Details at Lowes.com slash terms. Subject to change.

If you love a Carl's Jr. Western Bacon Cheeseburger, if you're obsessed with onion rings and barbecue sauce, next time, tell them to triple it. If you need that El Diablo heat, heat, heat, and more meat, meat, meat, triple it. If you're gaga for house-made guacamole, bacon, and spicy Santa Fe sauce, you already

So, Mr. Business Professor, tariffs and recession discuss.

Well, I'll go in reverse order. Guys like me have predicted nine of the last three recessions, so it's dangerous to predict a recession. Did you predict the one in 2022 that didn't happen? I didn't. Keep in mind, in 2021, for the first time ever, the Bloomberg panel of 100 economists all guessed we were going into recession, all 100, and of course we didn't. Yeah.

The economy, I think we tend to over and underestimate how much impact on the economy the president, the executive branch has, because the U.S. economy is this miracle of innovation, risk-taking, capital, greed that keeps on churning during wartime and even during periods like this. Now, having said that, if you said, I want to find the most elegant way to increase our prices and

and reduce the competitiveness of our products overseas such that we elegantly and crisply reduce our prosperity in the United States, it would be difficult to think of a more elegant way than tariffs. I taught, I was a graduate student instructor in business school for macro and microeconomics, and we used to refer to tariffs, we did an entire class on tariffs, the same way I imagine they talk about leeches in medical school.

And the general view was, can you believe they were stupid enough to do this? Now- But some tariffs okay, right? To restore asymmetric trade, right? 100% tariffs on our cars, theirs are coming in for zero. Now we're going to levy similar tariffs with the goal of doing away with all tariffs. You probably need some level of domestic steel production in case we have to make tanks overnight. So it probably makes sense to protect some of those industries.

Chips, it might make sense to have tariffs. Strategic tactical use of tariffs makes sense. Blanket tariffs against our allies that they don't even know what they did to deserve those. Canada,

Canada, we're gonna hurt their economy more than ours. It's impossible to understand. They used to be this amazing ally. They still are an amazing ally. I would say that I love that test that Warren Buffett's friend who was a Holocaust survivor said, "How do I know if someone's a friend? I ask myself, would they hide me?" That is such a puncturing question that brings so much perspective. And you know what? Canada in 1979 and the Iran hostage crisis, they hit us.

They hid six Americans at incredible danger to their own personal wellbeing because they saw us as real friends. It's the largest undefended border in the world.

We have NBA and Major League Baseball and basketball teams there. They love us. We love them. They're our largest trading partner. And we're claiming it's because of the unfettered flow of fentanyl coming across the border, which, by the way, could fit into a backpack. It's less than 1%. Don't we send more fentanyl to Canada than Canada sends to us? Well, 80% of arrests around fentanyl drug trafficking are Americans, despite the fact our desire to demonize everyone else. You could make the argument that

that China and Mexico have been lax around the flow of fentanyl. I'm willing to listen to that argument, but Canada? So we are essentially tearing up these unbelievably prosperous 80-year-long alliances and relationships that someone else will fill the void. By the way, you know who's crawling? I live in Europe. You know who's crawling all over European companies and governments right now? China.

And they're basically saying the following. You may not like us, but you can trust us. We do what we're going to say. Have you thought about buying steel and cars from us? Have you thought about lowering the tariffs on our cars? Because we're here. We're good business partners. And China's also showing up at hospitals in Cambodia and saying that infrastructure around that hospital that takes care of people with rare diseases, we heard it got cut off. It's an infrastructure where good people have built an amazing hospital. We're here. We'll pay for it.

So you have this void, this vacuum that I don't think most Americans appreciate how much work has gone into establishing these unbelievable relationships that we benefit from. 88% of our toys come from China.

A lot of our lumber, our electricity comes from Canada. Parts of a car will sometimes go across and back from Mexican and Canadian borders a half a dozen or a dozen times. These tariffs might raise the prices of cars by $12,000 domestically.

And kind of overnight with the reciprocal tariffs that we will register will make our cars much less competitive overseas. So if you want to raise prices, you want to decrease our quality of life, tariffs. Predicting a recession is a dangerous business. But the Goldman Sachs has taken GDP growth down from 2.4 to 1.7 and the Atlanta Fed-

GDP estimator went from 4%, thinking this year was going to be a banner year, down to negative 1.7. Now, that's an analytical response without human oversight that might be a little bit volatile, but it's hard to imagine an easier way to reduce our prosperity. Can we sink for a moment to the level of armchair psychology? This issue of Trump not caring about our allies, one could suggest, I'm not suggesting it, but it just occurred to me as you were talking, that

That's a man who doesn't have close friends. He's never been known to have a close buddy like people have, male or female. He's a pretty detached and aloof guy, although he's turned out to be a very good retail politician. Is it silly to think that has something to do with

the lack of value he places on alliances and friendships between countries? Well, the basis of the unlock of capitalism is that people recognizing that the butcher and the baker don't trade for humanity. They do it because if they both focus on what they're good at, they can each get the other's products more inexpensively and raise their quality of life.

And the capitalism recognizing it doesn't have to be win-lose, it can be win-win raises, lifts all boats. And we've decided as a nation that helping other nations be more prosperous makes a more peaceful nation. That if we make this extraordinary, generous investment in former enemies in the form of the Marshall Act, and they build unbelievable economies, that we wake up with the second or the third and the fourth largest economies in the world, Germany and Japan, and they're our allies. Trump would never have gone with the Marshall Plan. I've asked this question on multiple- No way, no way. And it would have been really too bad.

Right now, moving to armchair psychology, I think I suffered a little bit from this. And that is, I think before the age of 40, I thought of relationships as transactional. And that is if an employee came into my got off the elevator, one of my companies were two bubbles above his or her head. One was how much value they were adding and how much I was paying them. And if the right bubble ever got bigger than left bubble, I would warn them and then I would fire them if I wasn't getting as much out of a friendship or romantic relationship.

In the short or the medium term, I put that relationship on probation. And then as you get older, I think part of what it means to be a man is you pursue surplus value. I'm now trying to pay above market and I'm doing a lot of virtue signaling right now, but anyways, I am my goal.

My goal is to pay my employees 30 to 60% above market. My goal is, you know, if I die thinking, you know, I've given my kids more love than they've given me, I've paid more tax revenue than government services I've absorbed, then I win. And I didn't recognize that. That's been an enormous unlock in my life. It's created a lot of happiness in my life that I realize now.

I am here to add surplus value. I'm meant to be on the debt side of the ledger. That doesn't mean I'm ever abused, but if occasionally it's okay to leave a little bit of money on the table in a business transaction, it's okay to pay people if you can a little bit more maybe than they would get in the free market. It's okay to...

witness someone's life in your life and notice them and absorb their upset and complaints and sometimes irrational behavior sometimes it's I think that's what it means to be a man and a good person and I don't think that President Trump has ever really registered that unlock. I think he sees everything as win-lose. Is he neither a man or a good person? I'm writing a book on masculinity and I would describe that sort of the pillars of masculinity are

to be a provider, a protector, and a procreator. Now, in terms of a provider, I think you'd have to acknowledge that he's provided for his children and

I don't know how well he pays his employees or he doesn't. In terms of a protector, I think he fails on every level. I think he makes more people feel bad about themselves. I think he's conflated masculinity with coarseness and cruelty. On the right, they conflate masculinity with being kind of cruel. And on the far left, we've decided that masculinity is to act more like a woman. And I think there's a void of an aspirational vision of masculinity.

I don't think you would make people feel this bad about themselves or be this insulting or cut off benefits or be this unethical. Quite frankly, I think the worst role model in the world right now for young men is Elon Musk. And that is, here's a guy who is addicted to drugs, who has two women suing him concurrently for sole custody of their child because he doesn't see them.

and is recklessly cutting off payments to children and veterans despite having a net worth of over $400 billion. I mean, that's just not what a man does. That is not being a protector. And I believe that if you really want to talk about the most masculine images of a person, it's firemen.

or fire people, it's cops, it's our military. And what they do is the following. Their operating system is they default to protection. They're here to protect you. I remember I had a fire alarm go off at a hotel in Seattle. The fire, seven guys and a woman. And by the way, I think a lot of women demonstrate wonderful masculine qualities and a lot of men demonstrate wonderful feminine qualities. These attributes aren't sequestered to people born as one gender or the other.

But they look, they hear there's a fire on the seventh floor. They don't look at the cameras to see if there's a raging fire to see if they're putting themselves in harm's way. They bombed to the seventh floor and they put, you know, that kind of putting yourself in harm's way in the service of other people and protecting them. I think that's wonderful masculinity and demonstration of what it means to be a man. And I think of Elon Musk as someone, and most recently, I just find this abhorrent and I don't like to talk about people's kids, but when he makes it a public spectacle,

He is saying that his daughter, because of a decision she made that he disagrees with, he has said publicly she is dead to him. That is exactly what it means to not be a man. You may not agree with your kids' decisions, but your default mechanism as a dad is protection. You default to protection. I can't imagine any man I know or that I would ever be friends with publicly shaming his child.

And this is a guy that young men look up to because of some of his remarkable accomplishments in other fields of his life. And I worry that young men are thinking, this is what it means to be a man. And I do believe that it's okay to say there are masculine attributes. Toxic masculinity is a terrible term. The two are oxymorons. The biggest, the people who break up fights at bars are big, strong men. The people who defend our country are oftentimes, you know, demonstrate wonderful masculine qualities. And I just don't think we're...

We're defining what it really means to be a man. And even when you say that, it triggers people because they immediately go, well, does that mean a woman can't lead our country? I'm not saying that at all. I'm going to get some mail from your comments, Scott. If we don't get pushed back, Preet, it means we're not saying anything. It's like what we say in prosecutors. If you have 100% conviction rate, you're doing something wrong.

You're not convicting enough people. You're not going after enough people. Well, you're not trying hard enough. You're not doing anything that's a little bit difficult. Well, if you always get it right, I get it wrong a lot. If you always get it right, it means you're stating the obvious. No, exactly correct. At least from my former field of work. Final question, we had what people call a rising star, Mallory McMorrow, who's very likely to run for the Senate, the US Senate in Michigan. She's a state senator now, who has a really good message about the American dream and the new American dream and

how Democrats can win again. What is Scott Galloway's prescription for how Democrats can win again? We need to shift from being the party of indignance, just being outraged and emotional about everything, to the party of ideas. And in my view, you need a unifying theory of everything that you reverse engineer every idea to. And my unifying theory of everything is the following. I think the group that has fallen furthest fastest in our nation is people under the age of 40 and specifically young men. And

Anyone under the age of 40 now is 24% less wealthy on average than they were 40 years ago. People over the age of 70 or 72% wealthier. Almost every tax policy, whether it's mortgage interest rate tax deduction, capital gains tax deduction, the annual transfer of $1.2 trillion

to social security. That's a transfer of wealth from young to old. The massive overdone stimulus that took stocks and housing from 290 to 410 was nothing but bailing out people our age at the costs of entrants who want disruption. Where do they get a chance to buy Apple for 10, Netflix, $10 and $12 a share, which I got in 2008 because we let the markets fail. So everything I think we do

is a transfer of wealth from the young to the old. I think the unifying theory of everything is the following, that every person under the age of 40 should have the venues and the opportunities to find someone and fall in love. And should they decide to have kids, have kids. And should they decide to have kids, have housing, healthcare, and a reasonable standard of living. And the incumbents will plead complexity that that is impossible. That is bullshit. We have one company

That creates $400 billion in value in 15 minutes post the earnings call. We have created more wealth in a seven mile radius of SFO International Airport in the last 10 years. And Europe's created since World War II. Corporations are paying their lowest tax rates since 1939. The 25 wealthiest Americans pay an average tax rate of 6%.

universal childcare, where do we meet? More freshmen classes, more vocational programming, more bars. I believe young people need to drink more. I think the non-alcohol movement is the worst thing to happen to young kids. Wow, I didn't see that coming. Well, there you go. So let's talk about non-traditional ideas, right? The risk to a 25-year-old liver is

are dwarfed by the risks of social isolation. I'll ask you a straight up question, Breit. What percentage do you think of your romantic relationships and your friends, the most important thing in your life, at some point involved alcohol? Before the age of 30, very high percentage. And I think what I... Peter Attia and Andrew Huberman, I love them, but what these anti-alcohol movement people see is they see drunkenness. I see togetherness. I'm not suggesting you abuse alcohol,

We need more third places. We need more parks. We need more nonprofits, religious institutions. We need more opportunities for young people, specifically young men, to demonstrate excellence to a partner. The greatest innovation in history was not the iPhone or the semiconductor, it was the middle class. We had 7 million men come home from war. They demonstrated heroism. They were fit. We put money in their pockets through the GI Bill, National Transportation Act, FHA loans.

And they were attractive. They made it. They created a ton of kids. And then these loving, secure households decided, why wouldn't we bring women and nonwhites into this incredible prosperity offered to us by this unbelievable operating system called America with all sorts of wonderful civil rights? We need to level up young people dramatically. We need a tax holiday.

Alternative minimum tax on corporations of at least 30%, 40% on people making more than $10 million, because they have no incremental happiness from that money above $10 million. And we need a tax code that levels up young people. 7 million houses, manufactured houses, which are 30 to 50% less expensive than houses built on site in the next 10 years, dramatically bring down the cost of housing, dramatically bring down the cost of education. If you have an endowment over a billion dollars, you're not growing a freshman class faster.

Then population, you lose your tax-free status because you're not a public servant, you're a hedge fund with classes. Every person in America under the age of 40, should they desire

should have the opportunity, the venues, and the economic wherewithal to do what is the most rewarding thing in most of our lives, and that is develop a deep and meaningful relationship with someone else and then have children. And if you decide not to do it and spend that money on brunch in St. Barts, more power to you. But everyone should have the economic wherewithal. And right now in the most

prosperous, wealthy nation in the world. 40 years ago, 60% of people at the age of 30 had a kid. Now it's 27%. And is it because they've decided they don't like kids so they don't want to partner with somebody? No, they don't have the money. The old in this country continue to vote themselves more money. America has become an operating system for transferring money from the bottom 99 to the top one, and it needs to stop.

The unifying theory of everything is love and prosperity. Everyone under the age of 40 should have a reasonable shot at meeting someone, mating, having kids, and being able to deepen those relationships with somewhat of an absence of economic stress. I would just add, you should have that opportunity after 40 as well. Agreed. As we live longer and longer and longer. You said a lot of interesting, provocative things as always, Scott.

I don't have the time to follow up on a number of them and interrogate you on some of them, but I appreciate your flooding the zone with innovation and ideas. And I will always take your call, sir. I appreciate that. I'll hold you to it. Because I don't have particularly high standards about the conduct of a client for a good

For good or ill. Key for my lawyers and my romantic partners. Sixth Amendment. You have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel. And we have a tradition of, you know, you can choose whatever counsel you want. Scott Galloway, it's always a treat. Thank you so much. Likewise, Preet. Congrats on all your success. For more analysis of legal and political issues making the headlines, become a member of the Cafe Insider. Members get access to exclusive content, including the weekly podcast I host with former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance.

Head to cafe.com slash insider to sign up for a trial. That's cafe.com slash insider.

If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice. Tweet them to me at Preet Bharara with the hashtag AskPreet. You can also now reach me on threads, or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338.

That's 669-24-PREET. Or you can send an email to letters at cafe.com. Stay Tuned is presented by Cafe and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tadishore. The deputy editor is Celine Rohr. The editorial producers are Noah Azoulay and Jake Kaplan.

The associate producer is Claudia Hernandez. And the cafe team is Matthew Billy, Nat Wiener, and Leanna Greenway. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I'm your host, Preet Bharara. As always, stay tuned.