Marvin Barth joins Niels Kaastrup-Larsen and Cem Karsan for a wide-ranging debate about the Fed, inflation and the growing pressures on the US economy. Barth argues that central bankers have become too confident in models that cannot fully capture reality, while the conversation quickly turns to Kevin Warsh, Scott Bessent and the power of signaling in financial markets. From there, Cem and Marvin "clash" over austerity, debt monetization, populism and inequality before examining why inflation expectations may matter more than individual shocks. We round this super energetic conversation by exploring the coming historic El Niño, commodity disruptions and what Warsh’s recent dovish turn could reveal about the future of Fed policy.

-----

50 YEARS OF TREND FOLLOWING BOOK AND BEHIND-THE-SCENES VIDEO FOR ACCREDITED INVESTORS - CLICK HERE

-----

Follow Niels on Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube or via the TTU website.

IT’s TRUE ? – most CIO’s read 50+ books each year – get your FREE copy of the Ultimate Guide to the Best Investment Books ever written here.

And you can get a free copy of my latest book “Ten Reasons to Add Trend Following to Your Portfolio” here.

Learn more about the Trend Barometer here.

Send your questions to [email protected]

And please share this episode with a like-minded friend and leave an honest Rating & Review on iTunes or Spotify so more people can discover the podcast.

Follow Cem on Twitter.

Follow Marvin on LinkedIn.

Episode TimeStamps:

00:00 - Why inflation expectations matter more than anything else

01:05 - Introducing Marvin Barth

04:46 - From salmon fishing to the Federal Reserve

09:09 - Has central banking become too confident in its own models?

16:25 - Bessent, Warsh and what Treasury buybacks really mean

18:15 - Why signaling may matter more than the actual policy

25:56 - Can the US actually solve its debt problem through austerity?

31:25 - Debt, inflation, China and the pressures building in the system

35:31 - Is there another way out for the US economy?

40:29 - The big debate over populism and inequality

47:39 - Free markets, fairness and who actually benefits

57:59 - Why inflation ultimately comes down to expectations

59:46 - Austerity versus monetizing the debt

01:02:06 - How El Niño could reshape inflation and emerging markets

01:11:26 - Has Kevin Warsh already changed course at the Fed?

Copyright © 2025 – CMC AG – All Rights Reserved

----

PLUS: Whenever you're ready... here are 3 ways I can help you in your investment Journey:

1. eBooks that cover key topics that you need to know about

In my eBooks, I put together some key discoveries and things I have learnt during the more than 3 decades I have worked in the Trend Following industry, which I hope you will find useful. Click Here

2. Daily Trend Barometer and Market Score

One of the things I’m really proud of, is the fact that I have managed to published the Trend Barometer and Market Score each day for more than a decade...as these tools are really good at describing the environment for trend following managers as well as giving insights into the general positioning of a trend following strategy! Click Here

3. Other Resources that can help you

And if you are hungry for more useful resources from the trend following world...check out some precious resources that I have found over the years to be really valuable. Click Here

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

The critical driver of inflation is expectations, nothing else. Like, yes, you can create inflation.

Otherwise yes, there will be short term shocks to inflation, but if inflation's expectations are stable, inflation will come back to where it was.

The problem is the Fed allowed inflation expectations to get out of control and that's why we're not going to get inflation expectations back down until the Fed does something about them.

Welcome to top traders Unplugged in markets, success doesn't come from predicting what happens next. It comes from being prepared for what you can't predict.

In each episode, we go deep with some of the world's most thoughtful minds in investing, economics and beyond to understand how they think, how they prepare and how they decide, and the experiences that shaped how they see the world. No noise, no shortcuts, just real conversations to help you think better and invest with Conf.

Marvin, welcome to the podcast and thank you so much for joining Cem and I for what I know will be a fascinating conversation with you. You come highly recommended by our recent guest and friend Dave Dredge. So, we are super excited to have you here. Marvin, how are you doing?

I am well. Thank you for having me on. Niels. Cem, pleasure to finally come on the show. I'm a big fan. You guys have a great podcast.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Has it been a quiet summer for you or has kind of the global macro environment sort of kept you from switching off completely?

Well, you know, I uncharacteristically decided to take a month off. So for last month I've been off. Supposedly off.

Right.

And you know, one of the things I like to emphasize about my research is that it has a very, very long shelf life. So, you know, I routinely have people asking me for reports I wrote a decade or more ago because they're still relevant.

And so what I did is I set up, ahead of time a whole spate of emails every two days to all my clients and subscribers that highlight things going on and say, hey, here's what I've written on that topic in the past and that's been great.

The more important thing for me is I have finally gotten a chance to just decompress and start to think deep thoughts again after what has been, I think, for everyone, a frenetic 18 months.

Right.

You know, President Trump, whatever you think of him one way or the other, is a human volatility machine. In fact, I've described him as a antidote to Minsky moments. Right.

It's impossible for too much risk to build up in the system with that guy there because there is something new every single day. Right.

And even for somebody who, for the most part, I would say, actually called everything he was doing quite correctly ahead of time, that didn't help. It didn't matter. Like, it's just so frenetic.

So for me, contrary to most people, it actually has been a relatively quiet summer, just simply because I got to disengage for the last month, even though the rest of the world kept going.

Yeah, no, indeed. Cem, what about you? Any decompression in Chicago this summer, or.

I would say I'm in this brief little eddy in the river this summer. It's been a busy, busy summer. I. My kids are back and my son's about to go off to boarding school.

So this is a beautiful week or two of just reconnecting at 15.

Yeah. Good stuff.

Fantastic.

Yeah, yeah. Now, since it's your first time on the podcast, Marvin, I did want, you know, for the audience to get a little bit of sense of your background.

It's pretty impressive. But instead of just doing the usual list of all the kind of prestigious jobs you've had, I thought maybe, maybe I could ask you to pick.

And I know it's a bit unfair when you don't know that I'm going to say this, but maybe you could pick two or three kind of pivotal points in your career where you experienced something profound, maybe that kind of shaped how you think today and which ultimately led you to where you are today and having set up thematic markets that you run today.

Okay, so let me start with something early, which was I largely worked my way through university, and I worked actually a bunch of odd jobs, but I'll highlight two. I worked in a Heinz tomato ketchup factory, and I worked as a commercial salmon fisherman in Alaska.

And the reason why I highlight those, I used to put those on leave, particularly the salmon fishing on my resume. Just because any job interview that's immediate gives people a conversation point. You are a fisherman in Alaska.

Yeah, but I mention it here because, you know, I think that's given me a very different perspective than most people in markets. Right. Most people in markets come from.

This is not universally true, but come from very similar backgrounds, went to the same schools, did the same things throughout.

And it limits their ability to see a lot of the social and political trends that you would see if you were working with different sets of people who are from socioeconomic groups that most people on Wall street or in London never really come across. So I would say that's been very pivotal to My career, it's just given me different perspective than most people.

The next thing I would say was going to the Federal Reserve. So when I was at the Federal Reserve, I started in emerging markets. I was actually dropped into the hot seat.

I was thrown in to be the Southeast Asia desk officer right in the middle of the East Asian crisis back in 98.

But as soon as that died down, I moved to what's called the Financial Markets Group, which briefed the board every week on global market developments, foreign exchange developments, and was working very closely with the senior staff. And the wonderful thing about that was we used to have this morning call to go over the morning operation.

Both of you are old enough to remember the Fed used to actually intervene in the market every day to get the Fed funds rate where it wanted, rather than this ample reserves policy they have now. And so as a result, you had to have a call to approve what the program was for, how much reserves they were going to add or subtract from the system.

And. And you would have, you know, Karen Johnson, Mike Prel, Don Kohn sitting there with you.

These people had each been, you know, the Barons, the three research directors for 20 years. They had more experience than anyone you've seen in your career. They've been through everything.

It was way better than any economics lesson I could ever have because I had people who were in the room making decisions, who, three of them, teaching me firsthand about economic history of the basically post Bretton woods period. And then the third point was, when I left the Fed, I started to.

I had effectively sort of maxed out on what I felt was my learning curve and I wanted to try new things. And so I left and I went. One of my former mentors from the Fed had gone to Citi, and I followed him there.

And for the first time, I was responsible for putting together sort of a general equilibrium view, if you sort of use economist speak, that is, how do you put together the whole global view, how all these assets fit together?

Because the Fed, you know, like most places, you're relatively siloed, but I was in currency research and I had to actually figure out how it all came together. And I had all this training, but that was a real shock to learn how everything works together. So I would say it's those three.

If you were going to pick three events, those would be the three that really had the largest effect on shaping how I think about the world.

Okay, that's pretty cool. All right.

Okay, so let me try and kind of set the scene for the first question or topic, and then I know that my good friend Jim will come in and we'll go in different directions and that's going to be super, super interesting.

So, you know, for the better part of three decades, central banks has kind of rested on a fairly powerful idea that if policymakers understand the economy well enough, set interest rates appropriately and manage expectations carefully, they can smooth out the business cycle and keep inflation reasonably stable. That broad framework became kind of the intellectual consensus insight. Central banks, you can disagree if you, if you want later on.

But after years of, let's call it extraordinary monetary policies and the inflation shock, we had many forecasting errors. And now we have Kevin Walsh openly basically questioning how the Fed thinks about the economy.

It feels as though we may be confronting something much bigger than just the next move in interest rates.

So perhaps the question is whether the entire framework gave policymakers more confidence in their ability to manage the economy than just was ever justified.

So, Marvin, we could of course start with, you know, one way would be to say what exactly the new Keynesian economics promised us and was the mistake the model itself, or that central bankers eventually started believing the model too much.

Or we could get right into the current debate among that's happening among three people who used to work together, namely Stanley Druckenmiller, Scott Bessant and Kevin Walsh. Because I think that is also kind of topical at the moment. So you can kind of choose your path here.

Yeah, so look, the only disagreement or quibble I might have with the way you frame the question was that it's been three decades that, that economists in central bank have thought that they can manage things. Frankly, it goes back many more decades than that.

This is like a rule in life. And I think that's the underlying problem. And the reason why I bring that up is because the exact same thing happened.

You went through a period of, you know, critical thinking in economics. What did we get wrong? How did we do this? And it sort of diverged. You had big debates within economics through the 70s and 80s into the early 90s.

In the meantime, you know, Alan Greenspan came in and yeah, there were a lot of really sort of fortuitous tailwinds for him. But the fact was, Alan Greenspan was actually a really interesting guy. I mean, I'm still a huge Alan Greenspan fan as a central banker.

He wasn't a particularly nice guy personally, by the way, but he was a fantastic central banker for all the people want to complain about him. And part of that was, is that he did accept that we didn't know everything. He didn't succumb to that arrogance problem.

And people started to think, especially in academic academia, that, wow, we really nailed this. We really know what we're doing now. And the new Keynesian synthesis offered an amazing number of really powerful insights into economics. But.

But it has a lot of flaws. And most importantly, it is a model. It is not reality. And it's always really important to keep that in mind.

And I think a lot of people lost sight of that and tried to apply it much too directly to the economy. And we've seen the results of that. We've seen error after error after error.

And it results from the same sort of hubris that we saw before that effectively, there was this belief that somehow economists had all the knobs and dials and they could just turn everything as they needed to and get the economy to exactly where they were. And when it didn't work out, they said they never lost faith in themselves. Right.

They would always say, we just need to try this new thing from our model or this path. Right. And so I've used this analogy for regulation as well in my writing, but it applies very, very well to this situation.

I don't know if you, either of you have ever come across this story about.

There once was this little old lady who swallowed a fly, and then she swallowed a spider to swallow the fly, and then she swallowed a rat to swallow, and so forth and so on until she swallows a horse and dies. Right. This is exactly what has happened with central banking.

Oh, well, you know, we've lost control of interest rates, so let's try using our balance sheet. Oh, well, our balance sheet isn't working well enough. So let's try doing it in much larger size. Let's try yield curve control.

But go through all these lists, and a lot of that comes just from hubris and the domination of central banking by increasingly. You know, I go back to one of the questions you asked, or the question you started with, Niels about having a different perspective on life.

Almost everyone in central banking today comes from the exact same background, studied under the same thesis advisors. They're all PhD economists for the most part. And so they all have bought into this. They have such incredible groupthink around this.

So the hubris plus the groupthink is a real problem. And I think that's what Kevin Warsh is gonna challenge. We can take that wherever you want from there. I think that's the setup for the problem.

Yeah.

No, I mean, before Jim jumps in, maybe just on that note, I mean, you say they all started the same books, but here we have, you know, three guys, Scott Besant, Kevin Walsh and Stanley Druckenmiller, who all work together.

And again, I'm not an expert like you are in these things, but it kind of strikes me that I think Scott Besant was at Soros when they broke the British pound, and now he's sitting kind of in the opposite seat trying to tell his former mentor and former colleague that maybe this thing about market deciding where rates should go, maybe that's not a good idea. I don't know. I mean, I'm just jumping in here because it's a story that popped up in the last 48 hours.

Is he trying to say that. You had a really excellent podcast last week, by the way, with Mark, where you went through the plumbing and everything.

And I thought he alleviated a lot of myths about this treasury buyback problem. And I thought that was really great rate, but I would go even further.

Like, you know, first of all, the first biggest point here is that even with the doubling of size of this program, it's 48 billion a year in a 30 trillion treasury market. Anybody who thinks that makes that's going to determine interest rates or shape the yield curve literally has no idea how markets work.

I mean, that is just absolutely insane. The program, its entire design is to increase liquidity and off the run issues. And that's what it's doing. And oh, by the way, it's working.

Look at the on the run, off the run spread, right? I mean, all of these things have gone well. So that is not somebody who is saying I'm going to thwart markets or I'm going to overcome markets.

It's somebody who's saying, look, we need to support treasury bond prices across the spectrum so that investors in them know there's a liquid market. That has always been treasury policy, by the way.

Who's a large debt issuer is managing your debt so that it is liquid and so that people want to buy it and pay the highest price possible for it.

All right, I'm going to jump in. You haven't heard from me yet, Marvin, but I'm going to have a little bit of a bone to pick here.

Please.

That to the increase from 2 to 4 billion doesn't matter. It's like fart in the wind. It doesn't matter. But he said himself, and he knows very well that it's all about signaling.

Yes.

And that's what, that's, that's why it's important.

Most people don't understand this, but markets have gotten so big, both the bond market and the stock market have gotten so big relative to 10, 20, 30 years ago, that all the map, all that matters, period, is the movement of markets themselves. I'll give you an example as it relates to equity markets. Equity markets are now 150 trillion public, 300 trillion public and private.

It, when it goes up 20% like it did in two months just a couple months ago, that's 50, $60 trillion, $250 to $300 trillion of new collateral in the system.

The $10 trillion of fiscal spending we did over the course of the next decade that caused all the inflation everybody talks about is 20% of that number. It's not about the dollars. It's about signaling. That's why we have a hedge fund manager as head of the Treasury.

That's why we have a hedge fund manager now at the head of the Federal Reserve. They know it's not about their actual policy anymore.

It's about the signaling mechanisms and they being the incremental buyer seller to shift and turn markets. You can watch what Besson is doing day to day, and what he's doing is managing markets with narrative, with signaling. That is the whole point.

And so I hear you, that people can argue all they want about how. Oh, well, it does increase liquidity. It does. Like theoretically, if you draw a curve, blah, blah, blah, blah, missing the whole point.

It's the intent. It's what they're trying to signal to the market and what they're trying to accomplish. I think that really matters there.

So I don't disagree with anything that you just said. Okay.

In fact, you know, I'm thankful that you said it because this is one of the things I keep trying to emphasize over and over, is that it's expectations that matter, not flows. Right.

You know, I think all three of us have been in markets where you can see the price move dramatically without a single trade because information and expectations changed. You've also seen especially, you know, I don't know how much either of you have been in foreign exchange markets.

You know, I used to sit at two of the largest foreign exchange dealers in the world and watch literally hundreds of billions of dollars flowing through that desk. And the price doesn't move because no, no, expectations change. So I totally agree with you. It's about expectations.

And I think that is exactly the signal he's trying to send. And I think this is foreshadowing, if you think about that. Let's sort of go back to Neil's question.

We have these three people who together, do we have a group think problem? I don't think we have a group think problem. I think we have a coordination expectation.

He forecast the next decade and a half extraordinarily well. Let's give him credit for that. I'm not sure I'll call him a hedge fund manager, as you did, Jim, but.

The.

He worked under Junker Miller. That's about. That was the definition.

Yeah, right. No, exact. Exactly. But I think there's a big difference between, say, he and Stan and Scott. I don't remember him ever being a pm.

But anyway, the point is, all of them have talked about we need to get the Fed out of market.

So go back to Neil's original question about the hubris and how we got to this position and the mistakes that they've made, and you built up this massive balance sheet. Besant has talked about the need to slim it down. Warsh has been very consistent on this over at least 15 years of his career.

We're going to a world where they're going to have to slim that down. If you were, as Scott Besson calls himself, rightly, frankly, the US's top bond salesman, what would you be trying to do?

You would be trying to convince everyone, signature to everyone, we're going to make sure there's as much liquidity in this market as can, because we're going to need it.

Yeah, but I want to be Clear, that's a difference. And I believe this is true with war as well. Signaling and trying to convince.

And I think that's we can get to the drunken Miller Wall Street Journal op ed as well. To me, that's very clear. Signaling right before Jackson Hole. It is about signaling. It is not actually about policy itself.

And I think that's a critical distinction that people don't get.

If you think that Warsh thinks we should go to massive austerity to solve this problem right now, now they can get on their theoretical high horse and put themselves on a mountain and say we need to be more disciplined, okay? And convince the world that the US is going to try and be more disciplined.

But if you think the way out of this is austerity, I got a lot of history to show you that that doesn't work and that that's not going to work. And they know that same exact history at this juncture.

Now, at some point, if you're starting, if we had started with austerity, if we weren't in this mess to begin with, sure, sure we should be fiscally disciplined.

But when you're sitting, you know, at this point, you know, with, with debt as a, you know, growing as a percent of the, of GDP where it is, and a percent of the budget, with inflation structurally because of populism, which I know you agree with, structurally being higher with an economy with a market that's too big to fail, which we just talked about, up, you know, 20% moves in the market determines, you know, $50 trillion of change of collateral day to day populism building and political need to take money from, from the rich and move it to the poor politically.

Right.

And a competition with China, which is forcing investment. And then you're going to turn and say we, we need to go to austerity, how's that going to play out?

Right?

And so my point is they know that that is not currently. It is a form of narrative that is out there to help preserve and help them manage through this process, in my view.

And, and if you, you don't have somebody there that's playing good cop, defending kind of some level of conservatism, some level of responsibility within this organization. Bessette can't do his job, which is to shoot the gap and print money and eventually that's going to force Wash into this picture as well.

And I think this is where we meaningfully disagree. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

Okay, so I think there's a few points of disagreement that we might have in there. So let's start with the first one and I'm just going to lay some of these out and knock them down.

Then you can lay out the first one is your point about austerity.

So this is one where actually the empirical research and from my perspective the theoretical research as well is very strong and it goes counter to the consensus into what you've said.

So there is an, an immense volume of cross country through time over like 50 years of macro research, almost 30 countries looking at how highly indebted countries get out of debt and which policies are most growth positive for that. And it is without, there's no question on this, this is absolutely crystal clear. The best way out is to radically cut spending.

And we just saw an example of that by the way, in Argentina. You get a short sharp recession that lasts maybe three, six months maximum and you immediately rock it off and you solve the debt problem.

That is the only path that has ever worked for any highly indebted country and it has the lowest growth cost. So this is the only possible path. Now then we get to the reality which is are we going to actually be able to do that?

You know, Congress doesn't seem to have seen that and you know, sooner or later they are going to have to deal with that. And that's where potentially I'm not sure, but you seem to allude that we might have a difference on that one.

From my perspective, you know, the central bank cannot, unless you want to start a hyperinflation, the central bank cannot participate in this process. If they do, that's how you start a hyperinflation. Because we go back to your earlier point about expectations. What is a hyperinflation?

A hyperinflation is precisely when you believe that the non coupon bearing instruments, the government issues, I.e. Currency are exactly the same as the coupon bearing ones. The difference is that they don't have a fixed maturity date on them.

So in normal day to day actions, when everybody thinks they're money instead of a zero coupon bond, we're all willing to accept them and prices are relatively stable. The second people start to think that they're a debt instrument, they become a zero coupon infinite lived bond. What's the price of that? Zero. Right.

That is a hyperinflation. That's the definition.

So the best thing the central bank can do all the way up until literally the moment of you're going to default or you have to hyper inflate, the best thing the central bank can do is do everything it can to practice sound monetary policy to keep term premia down, down. If they don't, the game is already lost.

And so the point around that is that unless Congress gets the primary deficit, which you go back to Besant's original message 333, those numbers didn't come from nowhere. If you look at what a 3% fiscal deficit is, it's effectively a zero primary deficit.

That is a non interest deficit of zero spending and receipts equal each other other than interest expense. And if you get there, the math on US debt actually works. The problem is we spend more than we take in and that's got to correct.

So just one final point on that.

In many ways what I see the Trump administration writ large doing, and this is not an endorsement for him or otherwise, this is just what I think they're trying to do do, is that on the international side, you mentioned international competition and defense that we have to expend.

On the international side they see that China has been in economic war with the US for 30 plus years and has eviscerated its manufacturing and now has actually a clear advantage in the western Pacific and is moving very quickly towards a global advantage and they need to re industrialize. But that's going to take a decade or more.

So internationally they're trying to prevent World War three or direct conflict with China before that happens while the US rebuilds.

And I think to your point, what I see the economic plan as being is that they do recognize they are going to have to consolidate the budget deficit and that's going to come after the midterms if they win, which is a big if.

But in the meantime they need to, to keep the bond market from rebelling against them, which goes to exactly the signaling plan that you were talking about before. So that's where I would just, I.

Think so let me give you my framework and I want you to pick bones because I think that'll be easier than my framework is that there are five major pressures in the system. Okay. I kind of named it before for accelerating debt. Right. That is becoming too big a part of the, the, the budget. Right.

That we, that's unsustainable. Right. That's obvious. Two, structural inflation, which is tied to populism and protectionism. Right. Which we can get into.

Which also pushes global conflict, etc.

Right.

Which are all driving a structural inflation.

Same thing as we saw in the 60s, 70s to a T. You've seen in other periods as well populism itself, which means politically the, the entities that are, you know, Congress and the entities that have to make decisions are hemmed in because they, they have to, they've created inequality and they have to address it politically.

For a market that is just too big to fail, they cannot allow equity markets to decline because the leverage and the size and scale of what's happening there can cause not just a slowdown or a recession, but truly depression.

Because the amount of capital, all economic output, the majority is driven through CapEx, which is through, driven through the capital market, the equity, the market channel at this point didn't used to work that way. China, we have a increasing, accelerating conflict with China. And all of these pressures are influencing one another and accelerating.

They're not just pressures, they are accelerating pressures. You're forcing an outcome. And there's only.

If you put this into an AI model, if you think it through, there's only one way out of that that fits all these things.

And the only reason we can do it is because the US has the exorbitant privilege of the US dollar which is to print and drive investment directly through equities. The sovereign wealth fund that they've created, the Trump accounts, everything is falling down the same path that Japan essentially went down.

They're going to do it without the Japanese central bank, by the way, without this throughout. Not through the central bank like Japan did. Johan owns over 8% of the Nikkei.

We are going to do it through a sovereign wealth fund and through printing money to fund it. There are major risks to this. Major risk. Right. Which is why we, the US has to why the real battle is over the exorbitant privilege of the dollar.

It's about the currency itself. The US is in Iran to underpin Allah Kissinger. Right, the petrodollar. We are in Venezuela to stop China trading yuan. Okay.

We have done the work in Panama and Indonesia etc to control trade. That's my view that this ultimately is a path that we're leading down where they're going to hold the long end of the curve. Where it is.

And what they're doing is already signaling that, that they already put a Hank pulse and they trotted Hank out there three months ago to tell you coming treasury crisis is on the way. We need to create his words, not mine, a facility to backstop the treasury market. He's not going on there without talking to Treasury.

That's a trial bullet.

So my view is that the set is doing exactly what they told you they're going to do, which is do whatever they need to do to hold down interest rates along the End of the curve that amounts to QE and eventually WARSH is the fly in the ointment. If you think about it just in terms of the narrative that you're talking about.

And that's why my view is that he's just there to play kind of we are a responsible bunch and we are going to be responsible until we have to react.

Because if it's just all profligacy, not thinking about, you know, just percent and printing money, then there's a much quicker bond crisis and becomes harder. You need a gas and brakes. Gas and brakes. Gas and brakes to manage this. That's what war shows. It's a good cop, bad cop routine. That's my view.

Pick bones in it. Tell me your thoughts. I'd love to hear how you think about this.

So let me give you an alternative.

Love it.

Let's go. I'm not. So some areas where we're clearly aligned. I mean, I would say absolutely the debt is a problem. I mean, that's what I was saying before.

Until they actually solve the primary deficit, doesn't matter what they do do. This ends in a default, a hyperinflation, or they actually do close the deficit. Those are the only three options.

Those other things you're talking about can delay things, kind of put things off, but there's no other options. When. When you have a fis fiscal debt like this with a primary deficit of that size, it's the only three options. Okay, we both agree on China.

You know, look, the state capitalist system has been the first real serious threat that liberal capitalist democracy has faced in 200 years. And it's really good at allocating capital to things that provide state power. And that's something that only liberal capitalist democracy had been.

Been most efficient at doing before. So you need to address that problem. Okay, populism, this is one where I think that we disagree.

So, you know, I think you're aware I've done a lot of research on populism. It's one of the things I'm most known for, this politics of rage, as I termed it a decade or more ago, and inequality feeds into it.

But inequality is not the problem. The issue is inequality of representation or a sense of disenfranchisement.

So when the average person on the street doesn't feel that their elected representatives are actually representing them, they are disenfranchised.

It's just saying that clearly our elected representatives didn't care what the people in the United States thought on that issue issue.

And we can go down the list of all the different issues, but immigration is a touchstone because our elected representatives across western democracies have not represented the underlying populace on that. And you don't have to agree with whether that's good or bad. It's just a fact. Okay? And so you know, that has been the critical driver.

And when you think about that, that it comes down to some of the problems that I have with your inflation point and your populism itself point. So there are different veins of populism.

So we're seeing a rise not just in the US with the democratic socialists, but also with elements like Delinka and in Soucience in France and other places, a rise of left wing populism. Now, left wing populism is much more about spending.

But if you look at the right wing populace, I wrote a report a year two years ago where I went across all the different governments that actually have populace in control. This is by the way, before Trump 2.0, which has had a different effect obviously. And they actually, in every single case they actually cut spending.

Right? The right wing populists do cut spending. In fact, the best example is Italy.

Italy is now fiscally sustainable now because a year ago Giorgio Meloni had one of the largest fiscal consolidations in OECD history. Three and a half percentage points of GDP in one year. By the way, Italy outgrew Germany that year, outgrew most of Europe that year.

To my earlier point about.

But that's not actually populism saying to the world that you are populist and then doing not populist policies doesn't make you a populist. And I really want to make that point because I These are.

When you say right wing populist, by the way, definition of populism, by definition, like left is, is a kind of more fair, more equal system helping improve the distribution for the people. The right doing things where you're cutting spending and sending money into the Capex capital Channel, which is what's they're trying to do now.

While having populist rhetoric doesn't make you a populist, I just want to be clear. It may be good for GDP growth. Actually, I think it is. It is good for GDP growth. It's good for the, the system working better. Ultimately.

There is no such thing as fairness, Marvin. Fairness doesn't exist. Your mom told you that. When you're a child, you know, life isn't fair. And if you.

And the whole problem with populism is it fits into a system, a system of competition and survival, the fittest. That is unfair. And when you introduce populism, it slows things down. It's that simple. It's not about GDP growth.

It's about the difference between mean economic growth, growth, mean outcomes and median outcomes. It's populism is about prioritizing median outcomes, not prioritizing mean outcomes. And they're different things.

So to put up a straw man and say GDP growth has been better than you do right policies and say they're left.

I'm just here to tell you that right wing populism as you're defining it is not populism, you know, in the sense that we're defining it, which is sending market money to the market, the capital channel and stopping spending for the poor.

I think you're taking a very narrow definition of populism. How would you define populism focused on left wing populism?

I would go back to my definition, which is it's a demand for people to represent their wishes. And I agree with you. Your point about median versus average GDP is, is a good one. Right.

And you, you do see this like, you know, these right wing populists actually are focused on, on exactly those issues. They just don't think that the government spending is the solution. They understand that that's an unsustainable problem.

Number one, they wanted someone to tackle inflation because they do not like inflation. The populist right hates inflation. This is their number one issue. Number two, federal spending.

They see federal spending as basically a giveaway to the corporations that doesn't benefit them. Those are their two biggest things. So yeah, you're right.

They want to raise their incomes relative to others, but it's because they, they feel the system is rigged. This is one of the points about the whole Epstein focus.

They think that everything is rigged against them and they want their fair share, which is part of why they want to close off borders, have less competition from immigrant workers, have less competition from foreign trade and raise their wages relative to the elites in their society. That is populism. It just doesn't necessarily mean you have to spend more.

No.

So, and this is I think an important distinction because you're defining populism as, as what the people want, not in a classical definition of populism, which is where a more, a more fair or more equal system.

And, and I think they're, they're, you're the second you go to polls of what people want and not actual economic outcomes, which is I think what you're saying because you're, you're highl what the people want and they're giving them what they want.

I understand the political realities of it and I understand also that the people may want something that is not, does not actually make it more fair for them. And I think that is part of the trick here.

Right?

There is a, a general, There are some great con, you know, contrary things between what the people want and what is actually better for them. You know, I think we could both agree on that.

That.

Right. That doesn't mean they're, they're wrong or, or that they shouldn't want.

And that's obviously that politically that sounds awful, like the people don't know what they want. But I'm telling you if, by the.

Way, that that seems to be the anti populist line. Right. Is that we shouldn't give the votes.

This is incredible. No, no, and that's not what I'm saying at all. My point, I agree that you're not. Yeah.

So but hold on, can I, can I, can I stop you there for a second, James? Because, because your actual definition you gave is exactly what I said you said.

It's that the people want a fair system and they don't believe that it is because their representatives are not representing them or the bureaucracy doesn't or otherwise.

What I think our difference falls and this is why I said you have to look at the difference between the left and the right populism is that the right wing populism honestly believes in teach a man to fish, they'll eat for a lifetime. And if you have a fair system that will work. So they don't need the government handouts, they don't want the government spending.

They want people to have a fair Opportunity to fish. The left wing populace want to raise median incomes by giving a man a fish from. You seem to think that that is.

I think there's an embedded political bias on what you're saying. I really do because. And I want to make sure that we're, we're addressing that.

Which is assuming that the left just wants to give the fish funding education. Right. Funding health care, funding things. And by the way, I grew up in a Republican household. I'm very, I'm a free markets guy.

I want to be clear from a classical definition, I may, I may write, I believe in the free market channel as the only natural way to, you know, do things. But it is naturally unfair. I want to be clear.

But, but the idea that two, there are multipliers, this is well documented where if you spend money in a way that helps improve outcomes, again, healthcare, education, infrastructure, we can keep going. Right. Those things actually help the whole. It is not. There's a multiplier on them. And the idea that.

No, no, no, no.

We need to go to the free market channel exclusively because otherwise we drive inflation and that drives wealth disparity which we've seen now for 40 years. Monetary policy, the whole structure of the Federal Reserve is one tool, monetary policy, which is supply side economics, which drives inequality.

If we can't. That is very clear and at this point to say okay, we'll just let the free market deal with it. That'll be better for GDP growth. Better for who?

Better for who?

So I didn't say let the market go. I said what are their relevant relative. So there is.

How is the right teaching the. The people to. Sorry to interrupt you. To fish.

I want you to take your metaphor and tell me how the, the right based policies are teaching people to fish as opposed to giving.

And we are talking to a prior fisherman. Let's just not forget that.

True. This is. Yeah. What your Alaskan fishing metaphor, please. Yeah, precisely.

So rather than say that, let me give you an example. I am sure that.

So we can both agree that if you give workers more capital or you give them more training, education, all those things, their output is going to go up.

And if there is a fair and equitable and we can debate what is fair and equitable and whether the market would get there sharing of the increase in output that real wages go up. Does that. We both agree with that.

I want. How you give people the money is important. So I just want to be clear. If you give it to them as checks.

So I don't want to be put into Like a, A toy model here, which is it, is not it. But go ahead, go ahead.

Okay, but the key point is you do agree that if you.

Cause you just said that, that if we give more education to people, if we give them better healthcare, all those things, we're gonna get better outcomes in terms of the economy. And most importantly, we would hope, if there is a fair system for distributing that output, that actually the median wage is going to rise. Correct?

Correct.

I think you said. Do you then agree that if we put every additional dollar we had into more education that we would still keep getting those outputs?

Of course there's diminishing returns of scale, but there's lots of other things that we can do.

Hold on. Okay, that's.

I just wanted to go there because there is actually a huge vein of research that looks at this across different localities in the United States, across different localities in Switzerland, where Niels is, that are the two countries that have a combination of direct democracy and republican democracy. So republican or representative democracy is you elect a representative to go make decisions for you.

Direct democracy is you have a referendum and everybody votes on it and decides on it.

When you mix those two things, guess what, you get far better outcomes because the representatives, because they are always our elites, do run away and represent their own interests and skew the system so that that sharing of the output is always in their favor. Doesn't matter what system, whether it's a socialist system or purely capitalist system, they make it so it benefits them relative to everybody else.

If you mix in direct democracy with it, if you go too far to direct democracy, the government is non functional. You get Poland in this 18th century or 17th century, but you mix the two do.

It's like the direct democracy, the referenda are basically a check on, hey, you guys went too far that way, come back this way.

We 100% agree.

If you look at the data on that, the places, the cantons in Switzerland, the counties in the United States that have the most mix of direct democracy and republican democracy have the highest productivity, they have the best infrastructure, they have lower government spending, they have happier people like you go down the list. It's literally way better. So this is, I think, the crucial issue that I'm facing. We both agree here on this. I'm not exactly.

Populism is about you're not being represented appropriately and you think the system is screwed against you.

And maybe I was a little bit cavalier in saying teach a man to fish versus give a man a fish, but that's a rough delineation between the populist right and the populist left. And you're right, it is a political viewpoint.

I agree 110% with you, that the answer is in the middle. And it almost by definition is because it always is. We know that.

But the reason is because free market economics are the state of the world and to divorce yourself from it altogether is incredibly inefficient and does lead to worse outcomes. Fairness is not a natural construct. I want to be very clear. And that's why can we come back Humans though, there is a balance that needs to happen.

And if you go to just right wing policies or republican or even just representative democracy without the democracy, which is what I think you were arguing, what ends up happening is absolute power corrupts absolutely. And so your point that. You know what, I don't think that populism is about inequality, it's about how people are represented.

But that's like divorcing two parts of the same coin. Power, right, populism, inequality by definition drives absolute power. That means people don't get represented. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There are two sides of the same coin. So my point to you is, in a theoretical world, is it the feeling of disenfranchisement or is it the inequality itself that matters?

The truth is both.

I don't disagree with your point. I just think it's also part of the problem people do. We are relative value machines.

We look around at where we are relative to others and we size our status and self worth and feeling. That's just, you know, we are kings relative to people 10 million years ago. Or I started a thousand years 100 years ago.

Sorry, but we still have 10,000 years ago. We're definitely kings relative to 10,000 years. But, but, but 100 years ago.

But the big idea here is that we look at each other relatively and judge our status and our feeling of self worth. That's true, but at the same time, I agree with you, it is also feeling disenfranchised. That is a major driver.

They're both true, both can be true, but they are also intrinsically connected. So I think to say one is exactly, is.

No, no, no, but we were sort of belaboring this point on the definition of populism. And that's why I was saying there is this difference here.

But what you just said is exactly the point is that whether it's to a socialist society, we have very socialist countries in Europe that are undergoing populism. We have very right wings countries that have populist movements.

Even within Switzerland, which has had much less, you do actually have a populist movement there.

The point is in both cases the elites are always going to shape things to benefit themselves and that is going to drive a difference between median and average outcomes. And but my final point have different solutions.

My final point here and then we can kind of take it from here on.

This point is that right wing populism is simply not populism in the sense that it's helping the poor or inequality or even making people feel more seen because those two things are intrinsically connected. Right wing populism is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

It is simply telling people, you want X, we are going to give you X, we're going to give you less inflation, we're going to give you, you know, a feeling of more representation. But at the end of the day they're not. Their lot is not better. It's still going to go to the free market channel.

And we are at a point in history now where all we have done is right based supply side economics, which is just the free market system. It is driving money to capital. And why? Because the incentive, not because they're evil, not because they're corrupt. You know, that happens as well.

But the main reason is because the incentives are met.

Messed up the Federal Reserve and the whole system is driven to smooth the business cycle and to not have a crisis in a system that naturally natural selection drives free market economics, drive better GDP outcomes and absolute power crips.

Absolutely.

So we end up in a loop and inequality grows and grows and grows and grows until and by the way creates a sclerotic system because we never get a crisis that drives more equal treatment. Under congressional rules, the Federal Reserve was created to smooth the business cycle. Great idea. Sounds wonderful in theory it's great.

But the problem is the US system was built to necessitate crisis in order to drive change. Right. Like by definition, like they, they created a system that they could not pass laws because they didn't want absolute power.

They didn't want tyranny, absolute power to corrupt the system.

So they said, well guess what, if we get a, when things get bad there'll be a shock absorber, there's a crisis, then we'll come together and pass laws to change things. We've just stopped clearing the underbrush because we've created a solution that is non democratic.

So and in the, in the process we get right policy, rate policy, right policy, right policy, right policy. And then when populace comes the rights policies they put on their their sheep's clothing and say we're right wing populace.

Now I, I really hate to break this up because we could go on a long time now since Marvin is officially the guest here, I will give you.

No, no, I will give mirror.

I will give Marvin a chance.

I will give Marvin a chance to a small comment, but I do want to pivot to one other point where I'll be very interested to see what you come up with here. I think there may be a little bit more alignment on that one, but this is fantastic.

But Marvin, by all means, final thoughts on this before we move on.

I will just say that I think we disagree on definitions. That's most of what's going, going on there. And what you think is right wing populism?

I don't think really is because I would highlight that, you know, Donald Trump has been in talking about and you know, there's lots of things he talks about and people say he doesn't keep his promises. But I do actually think this is one of those things that represents exactly his voters.

It is exactly what you're talking about in terms of that redistribution. He's talked about removing income taxes for the bottom 90% and raising taxes on the top. This is right wing populism. It is exactly what you're saying.

It's just, it's not about the government being the sole focus. So I'll just leave that there. I would say to a market focus where the problem with inflation goes.

To our earlier conversation, Jim, it's really about expectations. So this is what I really strongly disagree with most of my colleagues in economics about.

And the odd thing is that in theory none of them disagree with me, but in practice they all seem to do, which is that the critical driver of inflation is expectations, nothing else.

Like, yes, you can create inflation, otherwise yes, there will be short term shocks to inflation, but if inflation's expectations are stable, inflation will come back to where it was.

The problem is the Fed allowed inflation expectations to get out of control and that's why we're not going to get inflation expectations back down until the Fed does something about that.

Okay.

I would just argue last thing here that they're not, not, they don't actually want to tame inflation. That, that I think the assumption that they are trying to tame inflation is, is the whole problem.

I think the only way out of this mess at this point to kind of your point, you got to hit bottom. You got to kind of clear the slate one way or another. You said through austerity.

I'm actually Saying through, through monetization of the debt, which is another side of that coin. And by doing that and then come.

Out, you don't solve the problem though, because you still have to borrow. You, you can never solve the problem through monetization until you get primary deficit to zero. That's the only possible path.

UK or if we were Zimbabwe, I would agree with you. The difference is the US has the exorbitant privilege of the US dollar.

How Japan worked its way out of this, if it can, if its currency is not going to fail. At the end of the day, you can monetize the debt. And, and the US has done it before.

Nobody's going to hold the debt. Nobody's, nobody's going to hold your currency abroad if you do that. This is my point.

That would be true for most countries.

It will be true for the US as well.

Well, potentially so There, there.

I think we have a clear, a clear difference in the, in Japan example is not a good one because Japan is a net saver. They actually fund themselves. They don't need anybody else to fund them.

That's why they actually had a worse outcome. Candidly, I think the US would have a better outcome.

Well, the good news is we already found the topic for our next conversation. So that's the. So that makes my life so much easier. Thank you for that.

No, I, I want to say a couple of things and then I want to bring home to the last topic and that is it is great to hear year that both of you are planning to come and live in Switzerland so you can experience the wonderful virtue of direct democracy.

But anyway, I have lived in Switzerland. I lived in Basel for a year. It's a great area, great country.

Okay, good stuff.

Wonderful country.

I mean having these disagreements is wonderful.

But I want to, I actually wanted to go to the point of inflation as my last point, but in a slightly different way so there will be more time to talk about these things.

Things.

Because Marvin, you brought up something just before we hit record which I think is critically important, not talked about much so far. I know you're going to do some research on it. So we're not going to kind of go maybe completely overboard on this topic, but I think it's important.

And that is, you told me that. And I think people, some people know we're heading into perhaps the largest El Nino ever recorded. That's going to have some massive implications.

Inflation could be one of them. Tell me kind of broadly speaking where you sit on that.

I'd love to hear your Thoughts of course as well, Jim, but let's kind of take us into the inflation debate via El Nino.

Yeah, so what I think is really interesting about this El Nino phenomenon, this so called Southern Oslo, is Southern Oscillation, which is basically a random weather pattern to happen throughout history. Happens once every several years where in the tropical waters of the Pacific.

Instead of as they naturally do drifting towards Asia, don't and like pile up along the west coast of the Americas. That totally changes the weather patterns global, globally.

And it creates severe droughts in places like Australia, in Brazil, in the Mediterranean, it creates excess rain monsoons in India, in Southeast Asia. Interestingly, it doesn't affect agriculture in the United States that much. In fact, actually you get more rain in California is the big upshot.

And that actually helps agriculture, agriculture there. So it's not so much that you get, you know, a net effect of less grain output or less power output as we're seeing in Europe.

You know, water tables are really, really important to not just hydroelectric but to nuclear power generation. All of these things. It's that it changes the distribution of those things.

So you may get that the net effect on wheat prices or soy prices or whatever is not particularly great, but it's going to be really good for US farmers, really bad for Australia, really bad for Brazil.

And you go around the world and who's going to pay the price at a time when we already have a significant disruption in the hydrocarbons market from two different wars that have raised product prices around the world. It's always going to be the emerging markets that are going to get hurt more by this.

So I don't think it's a big inflation story for the US Although it could be. You know what, basically what we're doing is we're expanding the volatility of commodity prices here.

But it is almost certain to be a problem for a lot of emerging markets. And so you're going to have more inflation in those markets markets and worse economic outcomes, I think.

And so I think the, the, the bigger trade around this is, is a macro currency and debt trade, not so much a commodity trade.

Yeah, that's very interesting.

I one thought here that may be interesting as you pursue this down the road, Marvin, and something I'd love to put out there is most people don't realize like people look at the inflation from the 60s and 70s and if you go kind of read what drove it, right, there's like three general things that you'll find on, on your favorite AI or Internet and that'll Be one, fiscal spending, Great Society program. Right. Two, you know, a global conflict, so funding for the Vietnam War and all the disruptions that happen through that process.

And three, you know, OPEC crisis or commodity crises. Most people think these are all independent. I've been very vocal about how they're all incredibly connected.

There's a reason we're experiencing them all the same time here. One, fun it all is populism. Like you and I go back to populism, right? If you have populism, you get protectionism.

I'm not, I'm not, I'm not taking the bait, Jim.

We're not going back there. Don't worry. But, but if you have populism, we're not going back. Don't worry.

But if you have populism, at the end of the day you need protectionism to protect your people, right? It's not about the people of the world, it's about your poor people. And that protectionism, we're seeing it with China now.

We went from corporate, you know, expansion to now protectionism leads to global conflict. And the reason this is back to your commodity point, that commodity, where the commodities are matters.

We have more enough commodities in the world if we have open borders to have for everyone. But when you go to protectionist world, you get sequestered commodities and an inefficiency of the move of commodities A and B.

Because we're at global conflict. People are a la OPEC crisis.

Right.

In the 70s. What we're seeing now in Iran too, people are holding their commodities up, bludgeons and leverage over one another.

Your point about El Nino ties into that in a different way. In that yes, you can get get it maybe equal production. But if you get halves and have nots across the world that can achieve which you are.

I believe I agree with you. That's interesting.

That would likely increase prices because what the net problem is there is the halves aren't going to just give away their have not the to the have nots for nothing. They're going to use it as, as a bludgeon. And that is important to the net supply of commodity. So that's an interesting point you make. And I. Right.

I just wanted to add that little wrinkle.

So for the last 200 years, you've either had Pax Britannica or Pax Americana that have given you freedom of navigation Around. Around the seas for the most part, with the exception of the two world wars. And even then, you still had a fair amount of free navigation.

We don't have that anymore. And it's going to get worse. And so you add that on. I would also say that have, not, have. You're going to get differential price effects.

That's the whole point is.

And it's one of the things that part of it's simply been because China has decreased import so much that you haven't had a big effect on the US consumer.

But I fully expected when this war in Iran started that if the price of gasoline rose too much, America first doesn't mean anything if it doesn't mean Americans get cheap gasoline and the US can produce all the gasoline it needs. I know there's all these things about. Well, it imports some in California and whatever.

The fact of the matter is, for most of the United States, you are going to get cheap gasoline if they. If they want to. Right. And it's a measure of. It's an interesting measure of how benign this, this war has been that you haven't had that happen.

But I do think that is something that you should worry about, and it's certainly something you should worry about when it gets to a critical issue like feeding people.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Oh, and I'll just throw in one other. Just a little factoid there. What have been the two largest grain price disruptions in world history as far as we have data going back?

Coinciding or 75 actually coinciding with the OPEC crisis when the Ukrainian Soviet state had a bad harvest and the Soviet Union hid that from everyone and went out and bought up all the grain around the rest of the world.

Interesting, Interesting. Okay, gentlemen. I mean, we could go on for much longer, and I think we will take around 2 in the not too distant future because this is.

This is great, this is important. And you really do know your stuff. So I'm sure the audience is getting a lot from this. Now, Marvin, we could have brought up.

We could have gone in many directions. We only really managed to mention one. And then, you know, the fire was lit.

Is there anything before we finish up that you maybe want to just mention as another thing, maybe something you're working on or something you find important that we didn't cover?

Well, I do think one of the things that's been troubling me over this month that I've taken off has been that after calling the Trump administration pretty well for the last 18 months and the Fed and the choice of Kevin Warsh and how he was going to present things and all his rhetoric and all that, I somehow completely missed the July meeting. I, I was fairly convinced they were going to hike at that meeting and not only did they not hike, but Kevin Warsh actually voted with the doves.

And that's been a real challenge to my thesis. And so I'm doing some retail thinking of that. What does that mean? And that'll probably be the next thing that I focus on. I just.

If you wanted a brief answer on what my pre thoughts on that are at this point, I think it probably has to do with managing small P politics within the committee that, you know, he has some bigger fish to fry and he wants to deal with those things and felt that if he voted against the majority that wanted to keep rates stable that he would end up jeopardizing his ability to do some of the bigger picture things he does. I think there's also an issue of he's still waiting on these task forces to come in and he's got a very accelerated schedule schedule for them.

And I think part of the frustration of the July press conference is that he doesn't want to in any way prejudge their work and force them into a corner by saying things that pushes them to certain outcomes. I think he wants to leave the door open.

So I think we're in for a period of a couple of months here, maybe three to six months, where we're going to have a lot less guidance from the Fed, even given the abandonment and afford guidance.

But we will come to a point where there will be a definitive set of recommendations and then I think he's going to speak a little bit more clearly and I think the direction of policy is going to be a bit clear.

I think this is a great. I'm glad you brought it up because I think this is the most important thing right now.

Right.

And I've been on the other side of that coin. I've been very skeptical, as we already talked about.

Right.

About who worship is and what he represents. I 100% agree. The narrative of war or who Warsh represents, which is, I think what most people truly believe him to be, like yourself is the point.

I do think that his role though, is as a foil to besent and not the determinant of the outcome. And I think it's not just that he in my opinion. It's not just, just the politics that he's bending to.

There's clearly more to it than that, in my view, because he's also changing the inflation measure very conveniently to something that fits that policy view. He's also changing communication explicitly to allow, not to not force his hand, to allow markets to just adjust and not to be hemmed in.

There is a concerted effort, if you look at the whole picture, of stepping away, allowing less communication, allowing less intense inflation measures to hold him at bay, to avoid some level of accountability at this point, so he doesn't have to act, in my opinion.

And so that paired with the, as you said, they move from a less hawkish to a more dovid kind of stance, I think speaks volumes and reiterates my general view. We will see. But I do, I do believe that that's what's happening.

And I think Jackson Hole, which is coming up, is going to be interesting because I think he will actually reassert this drunken Miller view to get people, because people are starting to wake up to this. They're having this conversation, is he, is he really hawkish? Is he not with people losing faith, faith that he is. So his.

He will need to come in and reassert that vocally. Watch for that. I don't know if this will come out before Jackson Hole, but we'll see.

But the, but the point is, I could see him rhetorically doing it, but then go watch his actions and I think his actions will continue to be the other way.

I really do believe it's a bit of a good cop, bad cop routine, because I do think there's a general plan and I do believe that Warsh is not over there on his own, not having talked to. I, I think to do that, to say that is very naive. There's a reason that they're both coming from the same sphere.

There's a reason that, that they are kind of both hedge fund managers, the one in charge of the Fed one. These are not coincidences at this moment, by the way. Both, they're chosen by the same entities. Remember that this is not a coincidence.

They are there to navigate. And I don't think this is like, like if I, if you put me in charge, I want some level of, of coordination and teamwork.

I don't want two people that are not going to agree and work together on, for, on behalf of America right now.

But you do want people with rhetorically different views so that you could do gas and brakes, manage what is otherwise a difficult situation that's my view. We'll see how it plays out. But I expect a reassertion of and I think that's what the drunken Miller Wall Street Journal op ed was.

It's to help us now step back into that narrative view to have people like yourself come out and be like see he's hawkish, I told you fiscal discipline. And then watch what he does. Which will not be that.

Over to you Marvin for the final, final comment here.

Well, obviously I disagree.

Yeah.

Which is we, we, we'll, we'll see how, we shall see how things work out.

And by, by the way, look there is this really important thing coming along that is going to be very determinant of many of the debates that we've had on here, Jim, which is the midterm elections. And you know if I am right that right wing populaces populism is actually the new labor policy.

I mean I think this, this is actually the critical thing to remember about right wing population populism. They are all representing labor. They no longer represent capital.

That's the battle within the Republican Party between MAGA and the never Trump Republicans.

If Trump actually does okay somehow holds the House and Senate, especially given that so far his endorsements have had a 100% successful rate in all those primaries and in by elections he's going to be way more powerful and he is going to push a more labor agenda in that one and that will help all of these problems. If he doesn't then we're not going to see this and then you're right. I think the plan doesn't work very well.

I think at that point point Kevin Warsh, you know, Kevin Warsh is a, is a young, rich, good looking guy who doesn't need anybody else.

He's not playing politics for anybody but himself and he's going to be concerned about his reputation and his reputation is going to be made by how he manages inflation.

We're going to end this with an agreement which is I do and a bit of a conceding on my end that there is a such a thing as right wing populism but works in one way and one way only. And I think this is what they will ultimately do.

So I think this is where we can find agreement which is buy the people into the means of production, meaning yes into stocks.

The long term view here and the way this works and the way they are going to shift to the left ultimate ultimately it really behooves the right and the rich even more than the left.

But the least rhetorically and to some extent in reality a policy where you have a massive sovereign wealth fund on behalf of the people and you have Trump accounts on behalf of the people, short circuits the inequality by having everybody be owners of the actual equity. And I think that is the one way that this is likely going. It's the only way out.

And I do think the sovereign wealth fund will be eventually, at least in a decade, more than $10 trillion here in the U.S. if you have a $3 trillion Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, you know, don't think the U.S. is going to, you know, going to do much more.

And I do think that is the right wing populism ultimate destination and where they're going and that will be popular on both sides because it is populace.

Can I just say one quick thing, Jim and Niels on that.

There is an excellent op ed in today's Times of London by my good friend James Kanagasoriam and I'm not just recommending it because he quotes me in the article, but he actually addresses this right wing versus left wing and how they're fighting over exactly the same voters for populism. He talks specifically about a lot of the proposals that J.D.

Vance has that are specifically along the lines of what you're talking about, union representative on boards, things like that. It is exactly what you're talking about, Jim.

Yeah, this is where we're going. I actually call it, you know, China did capitalism with Chinese characteristics.

We were actually heading towards socialism with American free market, American characteristics.

We're meeting them in the middle because it's clearly, as you mentioned, the greatest threat to, to kind of democracy and the capitalist democracy, democratic system. So they see it working. There are lots of reasons to move in that direction.

I don't think we could have a better way of teeing up the next conversation. And, and frankly, I've never seen so much energy, you know, going on in, in an episode. It's been absolutely fantastic.

So thank you both really for, for, for doing this. I'm sure all the listeners will, will highly appreciate this. Now I'm going to make it short. We've gone long, so I'm going to make it short.

First of all, everyone should go and follow both Jim and Marvin's work over at Thematic Market and obviously Jim is very prolific on Twitter, so please do that. I think that's pretty much it. I'm just going to say thank you so much to both of you. You, thanks to all of you listening.

We look forward to being back with another episode as we take on the global macro issues. And in the meantime, as usual, take care of yourself and take care of each other.

Thanks for listening to Top Traders Unplugged.

If you feel you learned something of value from today's episode, the best way to stay updated is to go on over to your favorite podcast platform and follow the show so that you'll be sure to get all the new episodes as they're released. We have some amazing guests lined up for you, and to ensure our show continues to grow, please leave us an honest rating and review.

It only takes a minute and it's the best way to show us you love the podcast. We'll see you next time on Top Traders Unplugged.

This podcast expresses the views of its hosts and the guests appearing on the podcast as of the date of its recording, and such views are subject to change without notice. Top Traders Unplugged do not have any duty or obligation to update the information contained herein.

Furthermore, Top Traders Unplugged make no representation to its accuracy and it shall not be assumed that past investment performance is an indication of future results. Moreover, wherever there is a potential for profit, there is also the possibility of loss.

This content is made available for educational purposes only and should not be used for any other purpose.

The information contained in this podcast does not constitute and should not be construed as investment advice or an an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy any securities or related financial instruments in any jurisdiction.

Certain information contained herein concerning economic trends and performance is based on or derived from information provided by independent third party sources. Top Traders Unplugged may believe that the sources from which such information are obtained are reliable.

However, Top Traders Unplugged cannot guarantee the accuracy of such information and has not independently verified the accuracy or completeness of such information or the assumptions on which such information is based.

This podcast, including the information contained herein, may not be reproduced, copied, republished, or posted in whole or in part in any form, without the prior written consent of Top Traders Unplugged.