r/ScottGalloway

He's had enough time to settle in and make his first impressions so it's fair to ask who he really is. I figure there are 3 general categories:

Genuine Warsh: He's what he says he is, a traditional inflation and balance sheet hawk. What ever he said to get the nomination, he will talk up the market, shrink the balance sheet [aka quantitative tightening aka shrinking the money supply] and raise rates... eventually. The argument could be made that his 'hold' vote was simply an acknowledgment that the 'raise' votes wouldn't win regardless and he needed to build consensus before moving rates higher. And to be fair knowing when it's time to make interest rate moves to avoid an overreaction is as much art as science.

Political Warsh: Like Nixon's Fed Chair he will do what is asked for political reasons to an extent. He wont accede to Trump's every demand as he knows would be suicidal for the economy but will try to thread the needle between being less hawkish and slavishly following Trump's orders for the good of the Republican Party.

Machiavellian Warsh: His longer term plan to remake their data analytics is really subterfuge to manipulate the data, so that it confirms his own conclusions and then he uses it to manipulate the rest of the board to vote as he wants.

I have no idea which or which part reflects the true Warsh.... not quite accurate. I lean towards Political Warsh and worry about his 'Task Forces' to remake the Fed. What I also wonder about is how Trump was manipulated into selecting him and still defending him after his "hold" vote, blaming it on the rest of the FOMC. I can imagine that some members of his administration who are aware how insane his policies would be finally convinced him that 0% interest rates are not a good idea if you have an inflation problem.

In any case, Fed watching hasn't been this interesting since Greenspan.

Scott is a joke. He’s trying to imply Mamdami is an anti semite.

Reminder that this guy is not on the left’s side. He is a corporate shill who has a personal vendetta.

While Ed and Scott are on vacation I’m looking to listen to some of their guests’ podcasts. Here is the list I’ve compiled. Who am I missing and what are you listening to?

Optimist Economy — Kathryn Anne Edwards (co-host: Robin Rauzi)
Weekly. Tackles one U.S. economic problem (wages, healthcare, housing, retirement) and a practical solution each episode — an “anti-doomscroll” take on economics.

Unhedged — Katie Martin (co-host: Robert Armstrong)
Twice-weekly, FT/Pushkin. Breaks down what’s moving markets — Fed policy, bank earnings, tech stocks — with a “Long and Short” segment for personal market calls.

Keeping It Simple with Simplify Asset Management — Michael Green (co-host: Harley Bassman)
Monthly. Conversations with industry strategists on options-based investing, passive vs. active investing, and portfolio construction.

The Compound and Friends — Josh Brown (co-host: Michael Batnick)
Twice-weekly (Tue/Fri). Guest-driven interviews with strategists, founders, and analysts on markets and investing themes.

What Are Your Thoughts — Josh Brown (co-host: Michael Batnick)
Frequent companion show — just the two of them breaking down market-moving news and earnings.

Better Offline — Ed Zitron
Weekly, iHeart/Cool Zone Media. Skeptical, narrative-driven takes on tech industry hype — AI infrastructure spending, “the Rot Economy,” and Big Tech’s growth-at-all-costs culture, mixing solo monologues with guest interviews.

The Real Eisman Playbook — Steve Eisman
Regular (~weekly), with a premium Substack tier. Markets and macro commentary from the investor known for calling the 2008 housing crash, often with Wall Street analyst guests.

Compound Interest from Semafor Business — Rohan Goswami (co-host: Liz Hoffman)
Weekly (Tuesdays), Semafor. In-depth interviews with operators and executives (Uber’s Dara Khosrowshahi, Klarna’s Sebastian Siemiatkowski, etc.) on how business and finance are being reshaped by tech and capital.

I was listening to Raging moderates and doing something else. Was Scott making a joke or did he really say the 70 year old running JP Morgan or the CEO of Walmart would be good people for the Democrats to nominate?

I think there are faster ways to destroy the Democratic party and assure that DSA is the other party but not many.

Later in that same episode he said something along the lines of you had to allow the existence of billionaires for capitalism to work. So even if I missed something about devils advocate for Dimon or he was joking, I think I might be done giving attention to Scott. We do not need to suffer the existence of billionaires, they're destroying the country.

>Without standardized tests, admissions officers are flying blind, especially as grade inflation has made transcripts a weaker indicator of readiness, and artificial intelligence has made admissions essays a weaker signal of students’ work. 

How does the mostly-blind-admissions align with Scotts college philosophy?

Hi,

I was listening to the latest Q&A during which Prof G made a case that capitalism has reduced poverty, historically speaking.

I'm no expert; just a guy who has read about this. Here's my own interpretation:

• Between antiquity and the mid-1800s, a commoner's life has remained largely unchanged.
• The early industrial revolution has made poverty migrate from the countryside to the cities. But squalor and lack of opportunity remained the same.
• A sign of this: Until the late 1800s, about a third of all people in the richest countries on earth, preferred moving to the faraway colonies and/or the wilderness, over staying home. If capitalism was so great, why did so many people prefer a life of defecating in icy rivers, wrestling with bears, and possible attacks by natives?
• The quality of life began to improve in the mid-1800s, after revolutionary movements rocked western and central Europe, and North-America to a lesser extent.
• The middle class only started growing after WWI and really took off after WWII. The fear of popular uprisings after major cataclysms, stoked by communism, really made the powers that be believe in serving the common folks.

It's my opinion that capitalism has been wonderful at increasing the amount of wealth. However, the vast majority of people never saw any of this wealth until they started pushing back against capitalism itself. Anti-capitalist movements, for all of their faults, brought us the middle class. Now that it's no longer a threat, the middle class is disappearing.

I have one last argument to bring. We are often shown a hockey stick graph to illustrate how the economy has accelerated under capitalism. Thing is, any exponential curve looks like a hockey stick if shown at the right scale. We can approximate the same graph by simply plotting a 2% increase of GDP, from the renaissance until now. So, mathematically speaking, it looks like whatever system was in place at the point of inflection in the graph, it's appropriating a betterment that was then before, and largely unchanged after.

Why is Michael Burry able to charge $50/month for his substack to manipulate price action and valuation while Roaring Kitty was banned from posting memes? Where is the logic from the SEC?

Please have Nick Colas of DataTrek Research on. His lens on AI accounting verses Burry’s I is different and his background in automotive company analysis may refresh or change some minds on the hellscape of circular financing.

I've seen this tossed around a good bit here and there, but how actually accurate is it?

I assumed part of it was that he had vested interests in reelection, so it wasn't the right time for him to go quite full throttle.