The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway
00:04:59 · George Hahn
[00:04:59] S3: These midterms are now the most expensive political advertising cycle on record. Ad spending has topped $11,200,000,000, according to The New York Times, more than the entire twenty twenty four presidential election. On Monday, Scott and Jessica Tarlov taped raging moderates live from the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Scott was watching the money.
00:05:26 · Scott Galloway
[00:05:26] S6: If you look at what's happening in Texas, first off, we're spending more money. We're spending, I think, 11,000,000,000 versus 10,000,000,000 in this midterm. This is a midterm after a presidential election and spending has gone up. This is the full local television station employment act, The amount of money that's being poured into this election. And I this is have, I think this is gonna be the biggest knock on effect coming out of this election. And what do I mean by that? They're gonna spend $850,000,000 on a Texas Senate race. I believe they're spending almost a billion dollars to tell people in Waco what they already know. I think this is gonna be the election where the ROI on money drops off the face of a cliff. Where you just for the first time, and we all talk about, and I agree Citizens United is terrible, we need to do away with it. But if you can't buy a senator in deep red Texas for $850,000,000 And I think this is a wonderful thing. I think the ROI on money is about to hit an absolute record low in this race. And the broader picture is, I think we've spent the last forty years trying to determine, talking a lot about how to build wealth. I think we're gonna spend the next ten years or the next few election cycles talking about what are the responsibilities of wealth. And when you have one person, I think it's he said 300,000,000 so far at the midterms, these numbers are hard to wrap your head around. So let me help wrap our heads around that. Say you're worth a million dollars, and you're worried about potentially having your business go away, getting hauled in front of Congress. I mean, you have a real vested interest in keeping one party in power. If you had a million dollars, what would you think of putting, and you had a real interest in getting Republicans elected, would you put $300 into a campaign? That is the equivalent of what it means for Elon Musk to put $300,000,000 into politics when he's worth a trillion dollars. And whereas before, why I've become much more progressive on tax structure, I generally think that the biggest threat, we talk about Citizens United, the biggest threat to democracy is that power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts.
00:07:48 · Scott Galloway, S1, George Hahn
And in a capitalist society with no campaign spending limits, a trillionaire can basically decide I'm going to spend $300 to swing an election, and that we need progressive tax rates to quite frankly protect us from the tyranny of power. Because when someone can take a small amount of money and pour hundreds of millions of dollars into an election, [00:08:12] S1: and you realize just how this means nothing to him. It literally means nothing [00:08:17] S6: to him. That's a millionaire going out for a nice dinner, is what $300,000,000 from Elon Musk spends. So one, I think the biggest outcome or the most navel gazing as a society we're going to do is, one, the election experts are going to go, wow, the ROI on money has just fallen off a cliff here, which I think is a wonderful thing. But also, what does it mean when you have individuals who for the price of a nice dinner of a millionaire can pour a 0.25 or a $500,000,000 into a campaign? [00:08:51] S3: Back in his conversation with historian Heather Cox Richardson, Scott asked about the eighteen fifties and whether there's a modern equivalent to the question that defined that era.
00:08:51 · George Hahn, Scott Galloway
[00:08:51] S3: Back in his conversation with historian Heather Cox Richardson, Scott asked about the eighteen fifties and whether there's a modern equivalent to the question that defined that era. [00:09:03] S4: The eighteen fifties sort of ended in a war that settled one question. And today it feels as if we don't have one defining issue. We have immigration, trade, AI, bodily autonomy. But I'll put forward a thesis to you. I do think there is one central question that is being asked and potentially answered across the West. And I think that France is sort of the canary in the coal mine. And that is in France, a third of the spending on education is going to teachers who are no longer teaching. Retirees are of greater incomes on average than working Frenchmen and Frenchwomen. And it feels as if young people have been served a bill for a party or a dinner they never got to attend. And it is bubbling up everywhere in terms of a lack of trust in institution, a propensity to riot over whether the match is Me Too or Black Lives Matter or George Floyd, which were all righteous movements, the kerosene we're knee deep in is the fact that the entrants feel like the incumbents continue to vote themselves more money. I see that as the central issue. If there was one issue to be answered or fought over in the... Similar to what the one question that was answered in the eighteen fifties, that it would be entrants versus incumbents, young versus old. React to that thesis.
00:10:32 · Heather Cox Richardson
[00:10:32] S5: I'm gonna react by starting with the eighteen fifties. The question that was answered was not human enslavement. The question that was answered was whether or not the government should protect property that privileged a very few people or whether it protected the good of the community, whether it protected everybody else. And that's where we get and why it becomes such a big deal that the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 talks about a new birth of freedom and the protection of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Because remember, before that, the elite enslavers who controlled the White House, the Supreme Court, and the Senate were very clear that no matter what people wanted... There's a very famous speech. This no matter... It doesn't matter if 99% of American voters want something, they can't have it because the constitution very explicitly prevents the government from doing anything but protecting property. So what Lincoln is really doing is he's bringing white voters, the white male voters in those days, of course, on board, not by saying we're going to get rid of human enslavement on any moral issues, but rather we're going to get rid of the power of that small group of elite southern enslavers to control the American political system and make you end up working for them. And then if you if you redefine that, then I think you look at this moment and you see a very similar question. And I won't speak to France because I am not a specialist in France, and it has its own history, of course, including a very public displays of disaffection with the the government. But I think you are seeing in any number of issues in The United States today, And I think the fight against data centers is the symbol of that, this idea that we do not want a government that reacts only to a very few people in power, because what we're seeing is more pushing back against billionaires than pushing back against retirees, for example, who in fact... Many of whom, in fact, aren't really hurting with the potential cuts to Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and so on. So I think I... If you switch that lens a little bit, it's just always the the same story. A few people want everything, and the rest of us would like a government that actually serves our needs as well.
00:12:43 · George Hahn, S0, S2
[00:12:43] S3: We'll be right back. [00:12:51] S0: Support for the show comes from USA Facts. I've interviewed countless politicians, and if there's one thing we all find disconcerting is when they butcher the facts with some biased half truth. Give us a break already. So when I had the chance to debate conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro, our natural response was bring it on. Why? Because it was sponsored by USA Facts, and each debate segment started with a presentation of government data and facts, employment, government spending, income data, housing, and more. The topic, the American dream. Is it still within reach? We argued. We found some common ground. We actually debated, and there were no personal attacks. Watch the full debate on The USA Facts YouTube channel. We think you'll find it unlike any other debate. That is entertaining and informative. We hope you check it out. [00:13:42] S2: This episode is brought to you by Indeed. You're ready to level up your business, but the pressure to find the right person to make that happen is intense. Indeed sponsored jobs can help carry the load. It boosts your job post to help it reach quality talent fast. Cut through the chaos with Indeed sponsored jobs. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring now? Then this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs.