Prof G Markets
00:33:18 · S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
Ad[00:33:18] S1: 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. Ad[00:33:47] S2: Your sausage McMuffin with egg didn't change. Your receipt did. The sausage McMuffin with egg extra value meal includes a hash brown and a small coffee for just $5. Only at McDonald's Ad[00:33:58] S3: for a limited time. Ad[00:33:59] S4: Price and participation may vary. Promotion pricing may Ad[00:34:01] S5: be lower than meal pricing.
00:34:01 · S5, Ed Elson, Anthony Scaramucci
Ad[00:34:01] S5: be lower than meal pricing. [00:34:06] S8: We're back with Prof G Markets. It does seem that there is a fear that specifically on AI and specifically on data centers, a fear from Wall Street specifically, not from the rest of America, that we will see extreme crackdowns on AI, like, extra... Like an extreme abolitionist movement. From what I sense based on some of these candidates who have, in my view, just done a good job of politically navigating the AI data center thing, which is a new thing, they hadn't... They didn't know what the scripts were. They they figured out how to navigate this thing. It seems to me that I would bet that it's gonna be a lot more moderate and a lot more reasonable than people think. It'll make a lot of headlines. They're abolishing data centers throughout America. But instead, I would imagine that maybe what we'll see instead is I wanna put a pause here until we have a regulatory framework in place, and then we're gonna we're gonna let it go through. [00:35:13] S6: Which actually would be good policy, and I think the Americans would be relieved by that. It would actually probably turn out more positively. [00:35:20] S8: Just in terms of democratic strategy going forward, one of the big questions is what they're going to focus on over the next two years. And I think there is a question as to whether they will and also whether they should prosecute and go after what seems to be unprecedented corruption by the Trump administration. Do you think that that will happen, do you think they should?
00:35:20 · Ed Elson, Anthony Scaramucci
[00:35:20] S8: Just in terms of democratic strategy going forward, one of the big questions is what they're going to focus on over the next two years. And I think there is a question as to whether they will and also whether they should prosecute and go after what seems to be unprecedented corruption by the Trump administration. Do you think that that will happen, do you think they should? [00:35:51] S6: I don't think going after the president is gonna help. That's just my honest opinion. Because I think the president has got immunity, he's got pardoning power, he's got all that other stuff. I think they would be better served, and this would be really contrarian, is to say, you know, we're not gonna go after the president, but you know what we're gonna go after is ethics. And we're gonna have an omnibus evaluation of the ethics in Washington, because you know this, Ed, there's a lot of what aboutism. Maybe Trump's taking 500,000,000,000, but Nancy Pelosi trades, other members of the Congress trade. You see what I mean? Yeah. And so maybe the approach is, hey, we're not gonna go after Trump specifically because this is gonna be tit for tat, but we're gonna go after everybody, including some of the misnomers that we ourselves have perpetrated. I think that message would really help them, and that would, in general, a lot of popularity.
00:35:51 · Anthony Scaramucci, Ed Elson
[00:35:51] S6: I don't think going after the president is gonna help. That's just my honest opinion. Because I think the president has got immunity, he's got pardoning power, he's got all that other stuff. I think they would be better served, and this would be really contrarian, is to say, you know, we're not gonna go after the president, but you know what we're gonna go after is ethics. And we're gonna have an omnibus evaluation of the ethics in Washington, because you know this, Ed, there's a lot of what aboutism. Maybe Trump's taking 500,000,000,000, but Nancy Pelosi trades, other members of the Congress trade. You see what I mean? Yeah. And so maybe the approach is, hey, we're not gonna go after Trump specifically because this is gonna be tit for tat, but we're gonna go after everybody, including some of the misnomers that we ourselves have perpetrated. I think that message would really help them, and that would, in general, a lot of popularity. [00:36:46] S8: Do you feel more optimistic about that? Because this is something that I know that you have been very pessimistic and very cynical about for a long time, which is that the corruption is rife on both sides. Yeah. I I remember an example that maybe you'd have to remind me of of when this was actually supposed to be litigated out in congress, and then they switched to phones or something to try to make sure that there's no out.
00:37:11 · Anthony Scaramucci
[00:37:11] S6: Yeah. No. I'll tell the story again. I think it's important for everybody to hear this. So Peter Schweizer wrote a book about the insider trading way back in 2011 '12, and it got to be a sixty minute special. And again, this is sort of the early stages of the smartphone. We're not with this massive proliferation of news coming through the Instagram feed. And the Congress was very sensitized to the notion that they were doing loads of insider trading and they were showing the bills and they were showing, okay, you can go, the bill's gonna get passed tomorrow. Let me get along this pursuant to what's going on in the commodity, etcetera. And this was very corrosive. It was very damaging. And so the outcry was very palpable. And so they passed a law, and you can look this up on AI, they passed a law that denied them all the right to do the trade. They let three months go by and they didn't go on C SPAN, they didn't do a camera shot. They did a voice vote by telephone to reinstate their ability to trade with inside information based on what goes on in the Congress. And you know, that's Washington. That's the cynical nature of Washington. That's exactly how these guys operate. That's exactly how they think. And they're laughing themselves to the bank. You know that.
00:38:32 · Ed Elson, Anthony Scaramucci
[00:38:32] S8: Is this gonna be a different moment? Because when I heard... When when you told me that story for the first time, I was like, oh, this is just... It's just rotten from the top down, always has been. Nothing will really change. I wonder though if this was so brazen, so bad that maybe now things will change. [00:38:50] S6: There's degrees of acceptable wantedness. Not from me, you'd be fired immediately if you did it in my office, but I'm talking about generally, people know that they get some pretty low life figures to run for high office. So you're matching a low life with a high office and you're gonna get problems. [00:39:10] S8: Just looking at the White House itself right now over the next couple of years, it sounds like you believe that there is real opportunity or or a real possibility that Trump might reverse course on a few of these issues? [00:39:26] S6: Not impossible. It would be naive to think that he's just gonna stay the course and bludgeon, bludgeon, bludgeon. You can't see what he did with Mamdani or others and suggest that. I'm not saying that he's not gonna potentially go rogue. I'm saying there could be fragments of this as what you and I witnessed this morning during what seemed like a rambling conference call that had a concession speech laced into it. [00:39:56] S8: Yeah, he did. He did seem like unusually reflective or at least almost somber in a way that that that feels rare, that he's at least questioning something in the back of his