Conversation with Mathias Döpfner — Protecting Democracy Through Trade

Support for PropG comes from Lumen. Lumen is a skincare brand for men with products that can help keep your face clean while reducing signs of aging and fatigue. Lumen is so confident that their product works, they're offering a 30-day free trial. Getting started is easy. Go to LumenSkin.com, take their two-minute online quiz and they will recommend the right products for your specific skin type and skin concerns. As soon as we'll get a free gift with code PropG. Support for the show comes from SOFI. Traditionally, access to IPOs has not been aimed at individual retail investors, but with SOFI invest, investors of all sizes can get in on IPO action at IPO prices. If you're interested, you can get started by seeing what IPOs are available now on SOFI.com slash IPO. Investing in IPOs comes with risk, including the risk of loss. Please visit SOFI.com slash IPO risk. Offer via SOFI Securities LLC member Finra SIPC. Episode 267. 267 is Erika belonging to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and its surrounding areas in 1967. The Green Bay Packers defeated the Kansas City Chiefs during a very first Super Bowl. What do you call a 300-pound Packers fan? Anorexic? That's just wrong at a lot of levels. Welcome to the 267th episode of the PropG Pod. We just had a conversation like was the joke too offensive and here's the issue. I don't especially care. I never wanted to diminish people, but I think that humor is a fantastic way to soften the beach and the thing I hate about progressives of which I would include myself is that we're fucking humorless. And then if you look back in history, the people who soften the beach for real political change, which humor does, were regressives. And I think my producers will always say, no, we can't have that. I think it's because I have money and they don't or I have enough because I'm fucking ancient and they're not. And I'm a baby boomer who's essentially hoarded all the capital that our society has produced. And we've given you carbon. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Anyways, there's going to be I think a lot of discussion over the next few years around the role that off-color humor presents. And I like to think that it has a role. It has a role. It's a star making the world a better place. Anyways, today's episode we speak with Matthias Dofner, the chairman and CEO of Axel Springer, the German media calomerate behind several brands, including political insider and morning brew. We discussed with Matthias his new book, the trade trap, how to stop doing business with dictators, the current geopolitical landscape and his take on the media ecosystem. I've known Matthias for a while. I think a lot of Matthias. He's someone I look up to, not only as a baller, but I think of him as a great example of masculinity, race for sons, very successful. A decent person takes his role in society and his citizenship really seriously. I think he's, you know, he's just always been kind and nice to me before he had any reason to be and he takes on big issues and is unafraid. And I think it probably costs him some credibility and absolutely some money in the business world. But I find he's not one of these CEOs who just wants to stay out of it and not say not get political for fear. He might lose shareholder value. I think he's one of a few CEOs of media company that's committed to non-partisanship, or as everybody else has figured out the known, just be partisan and entertain people don't inform them. I like Matthias a lot. All right. What's going on? Google and the DOJ have entered a 10-week trial to figure out whether the former has abused its monopoly power in the search market. This marks the most significant antitrust case since the government went after Microsoft in 1998. Google's total market cap, $1.7 trillion. It's total revenue, $283 billion. Search makes up more than half of that revenue, $162 billion. And I would bet, you know, even more in terms of its profits. It's estimated that Google pays Apple around 20 billion to remain the dominant search engine within its products. Google controls 80% of the search market on desktop and 94% on mobile in the US. It handles more than 90% of search queries globally. What is Google saying in their defense? Everything it does is perfectly legal. Users can easily switch their default browser. It's the market leader because people prefer it. Looking at searches, a general term is insufficient because competitors, including Amazon, capture nearly half of online shopping searches. And I think that's reasonable, except when you actually think about it. And let's compare Microsoft during their antitrust case to Google's here present day. A lot of similarities. Microsoft bundled products, Microsoft about about a 90% share of the operating system market. And essentially, if you wanted to get onto the internet or into a digital world, 90% of the time you had to go to Microsoft office or through, you know, internet explorer. Was that what it's called? Basically, they would use their mind. They would say, okay, Dell, if you want to have Microsoft office bundled onto your Dell laptops, which you have to, because we own the market. No one will take you seriously. You can't bundle in these other things. And you can't give, I mean, basically, they use monopoly power to put net scape of superior browser and first mover out of business and just suffocated them. And their bundling power was so strong. And their pockets so deep that over time, they basically starts in margin from the entire ecosystem. And while the breakup was overturned, the consent decree they had to sign prohibited them from squashing competition early in the crib. So, so if the DOJ had not gone after Microsoft, we'd all be saying, I don't know, bang it, because Google would have never emerged. And now we have Google with 90 plus percent. The argument they would make is, well, Scott, actually, in this instance, it makes sense to be that big to have that kind of control. Similar to it makes sense for Florida power and light to be able to establish a monopoly and have that size so it can deliver. You don't need to coal fire plants or however it is they generate their electricity. And one set of transmission lines and it makes sense to have a regulated monopoly. And that is called, that is called a utility. So, which is a Google? If you have 90 plus percent share of 150 billion dollar market or 170 billion dollar market, does that mean you've been squashing competition unfairly and abusing your monopoly power? Or are you just so big that it lends itself to a monopoly and you should be regulated as a monopoly? The more you kind of understand about Google, that they are essentially the market maker, the buyer and the seller of just so much of what happens in the internet, even getting to realize just how dominant their power is. In addition, the way I think you sell this into the public is not to position as they're big and bad and all this kind of billionaire identity populist bullshit that we hear from the far left, but to say to position it as if you were to break up Amazon, if you were to break up meta, if you were to break up alphabet, you would effectively be the largest corporate tax cut in history. What do I mean by that? The thing about in making investments across different mediums is that you hope to establish some sort of competitive differentiation. William Snowman decided we're going to get really good catalogs. We have beautiful photography, beautiful merchandising and then we have this database and we do all this lifetime value modeling and we know better than anyone how to send who and how many pottery barn catalogs to send to which household and how to calculate their lifetime value and then use sort of this one plus one plus one equals five across catalogs, e-commerce and stores, multi-channel marketing and we use kind of this database that we can then then funnel people into West Elm, which was their growth vehicle for a while, who's good, who should be getting William Sonoma catalogs, William Sonoma, Potty Barn and West Elm all owned by the same company. By the way, William Snowman has been a fantastic performer and Laura Albert, I think I'm saying her name correctly, has been one of the more impressive CEOs in the world of retail and has been there a while. I go way back with William Sonoma. They were one of my first clients. I have such affection for them. Howard Lester was just a baller and a great leader. Pat Connelly, the Sam O there was like this incredibly like he pushed them to go into e-commerce. That's how I got to know Pat and arguably I think one of the like brightest business people who's also like one of the most gentle men, you know, I've ever met. Anyways, they leveraged catalog. Nike leveraged broadcast television. You could just smell a Nike commercial and they were points of differentiation. They established a competence around those things that gave them differentiation, irrational margin, incredible returns of stakeholders. Now let's talk about Google. Well, can't you establish the same type of differentiation using search? Isn't it the same thing? No, you can't because the genius of Google is how egalitarian it is and that is nobody can ever establish competitive advantage using Google buying terms. I don't care how good at search you are as a brand or retailer, a small business. Everybody has access to the same analytics, the same information. So if one company, whether it's Burberry or Home Depot, gets good at it, someone else figures out what they're doing, numerous engineering. So slowly, but surely everyone, including Joe's taco truck to Home Depot, even individuals have to buy their own search term for fear that someone else will buy it. And what you end up with is because no one can establish differentiation, but everyone has to use it. It's no longer, it's no longer a tool. It's a tax. And how do we get to tax cut? If you were to break up the three biggest whole booths in the corporate world, Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon, here's a stat that'll blow your mind. If the venture capital community raises $100, 40 of it, 40% of all the money raised by venture capitalists that is then invested in the portfolio companies, ends up at one of three places. And you guessed it, it ends up at Alphabet, Amazon and Meta, because they are the tall booths to acquire consumers online. There's no way to avoid them. If you want to build an online business, and if you're going to build an online business, or you're going to add shareholder value, you have to show increasingly strong metrics relative to your competitive set around online sales, online customer acquisition, and it all leads to three mob bosses. So what would happen if you took those three companies and turned them into 11, which you could do? Google should be probably a digital marketing company. They have to spend what was double click, YouTube becomes its own. And I mean, there's just all kinds of ways to split the baby here. And what happens? Oh, no, we won't have the money to reinvest at AT&T. Now, when we cut you up into, I think it was nine baby bells, all of them were worth more than the original AT&T within 10 years. And what do you know? All of this innovation is unlocked. Why? Because they didn't want to eat their own young or kill their own business. And what do you know? Fiber optics, data, cell, all emerged. So who wins here? Shareholders win. Who wins corporate America? The tax on these corporations goes down because there's no longer just one search engine. There are several all bidding for your business, all lowering the prices on search terms, which would be the mother of all tax cuts. Let's go to a larger problem. Let's go meta with the problem that ails America right now. What is ground zero? A 30 year old man or woman isn't doing as well as his or her parents were at the age of 30. That is the first time that has happened in our 250 year history and results in shame and rage and a lack of confidence in our government in our system and our country. And people start blaming each other. And then there's meta right there waiting to feed you the misinformation that justifies your conspiracy theory or let's you hate government and hate each other became it results in polarization and a discourse becoming more course. And what's causing that? It's simple. Young people aren't doing as well. So what does that mean? They're not doing as well. They don't have as much purchasing power. Shit's got to get cheaper. And we can do that. You know how we make shit a lot cheaper? Federal legislation where anyone can sue a local housing board that keeps rejecting housing permits. We need millions more homes, millions and and what else can we do? We need an era of trust busting. We need to bring costs down. I'm not just talking about big tech. I'm talking about big chicken. I'm talking about big pharma. Where what do you know? Costs of skyrocketed because guess what? The biggest company has access to cheap capital goes and buys their number two, their number three, the number five, and then overnight, what do you know? There's a chicken company that controls 45% of all chicken, sometimes 70 or 80% in certain certain regions. What do you know? Chicken prices keep going up. They keep going up. The concentration of corporate America, their weaponization, their overrun of DC has resulted in a massive increase in prices across the sectors. The young people can't avoid food, education, energy, housing for God's sake. It's pretty fucking simple folks. Put more money in their pockets and make shit cheaper. Let's repeat, let's review more money in the pocket of young people. Make stuff cheaper as it was for us. And then the incumbents will say, no, it's all about network effects and a global economy. Oh, these weapons of mass distraction is head fake jazz hands from the incumbents and the baby rumors and corporate America who have increased their lobbying budget. Example one, Microsoft and Google, Microsoft decided we're not going to play that camera. Not going to give money to politicians. The politicians like fuck you. If you're not going to help me get reelected, I'm going to stick the DOJ on you. And that very unlikable bill gates. He's unlikable. Let's give him a consent decree. And then to their credit, Alphabet says, no, we're not going to let's learn from the sins of our father. One, let's give a lot of money to politicians. Let's fucking overrun DC. There are more lobbyists, full time lobbyists living in DC, then there are sitting US senators. And by the way, Senator Pachai and I have fallen for this shit. Now he's a great manager. You know what he is? He's really fucking likable. Oh, that nice guy. He wouldn't engage a monopoly abuse. And he'll say a conference is we need to have competitive ecosystem. And I think these concerns are really worthy of looking at. And just as he's saying that he is deploying an army of lawyers and PR spin bullshitters to overrun, overrun government such that any attempt to pass any trust of Senator Klobuchar will tell you is met with it as a staff of 12 or 15 people working in a senator's office up against hundreds, if not thousands of lawyers. They want to talk about communications. Jesus Christ, the number of journalists in the last 30 years have been cut in half. The number of PR comms people has gone up sixfold. So the ratio of bullshit to journalism has gone up 12 acts in the wrong direction. What does that result in? A concentration of power, monopoly pricing, increased prices on young people. We need leaders who start reinvesting in America again, start investing in young people. If your kids aren't doing as well as you were at their age, they're going to be pissed off. And whose fault of it? It's our fault. We have decided it's cocaine and champagne for us, except I'd like you. And when I say you, I mean, my kids and other people's kids, I'd like you to experience the hangover enough already. We need to start reinvesting back in the future of America. What a rant. What a rant speaking of champagne and cocaine. What is a dog on? He's on nothing. He's on nothing. He hasn't eaten. And that's why I'm so angry. We'll be right back for our conversation with Matthias Doepfner. Support for Provecie comes from Brooke Lynn. And I recently got back from my time off and they needed to and are missing those relaxing days. Well, just because summer's ending doesn't mean you need to let all the little luxuries of occasions go with it. Like for example, those nice hotel and bedsheets, luckily with Brooke Lynn in, you can get that hotel quality luxury feel in your own bedroom. But it's not just sheets. Brooke Lynn uses high quality materials and all the products or everything is built to last. They recently sent me something to try. So first off, just I have been using Brooke Lynn in for over a decade. I have some personal vested interests. The founder of Brooke Lynn in is a former student of mine, an alum of NYU Stern in brand strategy. He is a lovely young man and I started using his products. Still use them. Pay full price for them because simply put their great products, the cost less than the competition. The perfect time to upgrade your sleep routine is now. Shop in store or online at Brooklyn and dot com and use code Provecie for $20 off your online order of $100 or more. That's BR double O K L I N E N dot com promo code Provecie for $20 off. Support for our show comes from Fundrise. With Fundrise investors of all sizes can invest in promising private pre-IPO companies including those working on the next chapter of AI. According to Fundrise, the platform is already America's largest direct access alternative asset manager and they just launched a brand new venture capital product that's available for all investors. It's become clear that AI has the potential to create a major shift in our world from large language models to autonomous vehicles to disease research. AI is poised to radically alter day to day life. If you're an investor, you might be wondering how AI is going to impact your portfolio. With Fundrise, you can invest in some of the top private pre-IPO companies in the world. Before, it would have been personally impossible for the average investor to put their money into these kinds of companies before they went public. According to Fundrise, almost 2 million people have already used the service to invest. If you'd like to join them, you can visit Fundrise.com slash PropG to get started. That's F-U-N-D-R-I-S-E dot com slash PropG. All investments can lead to loss. Welcome back. Here's our conversation with Matthias Dofner, the chairman and CEO of the German media conglomerate Axel Springer. Matthias, what does this podcast find you? I'm in Berlin and our building and a beautiful sunny evening in Berlin. So let's bust right into it. In your new book, The Trade Trap, How to Stop Doing Business with Dictators, you explore a blueprint for reshaping global trade dynamics. Let's unpack that. What solutions would you recommend to try and, if you will, reshape global trade dynamics? Well, the solution that I'm suggesting is very concrete and its main purpose is to really kind of accelerate, concretize the discussion of an obvious topic. And my proposal is that centrist democracies, countries that comply to three criteria of atthesion, can become members of a new form of trade organization that should have the potential to replace the dysfunctional WTO. And the three criteria are the acceptance of the rule of law, the acceptance of human rights and the acceptance of mutual CO2 targets. I am convinced that this is the most efficient tool to safeguard democracy and freedom, which I think is seriously threatened. We have all been shocked by the warning call that the Russian war is still is. But we should also be realistic that is only the beginning. I think China is the way bigger issue. And what China may do with Taiwan and what they will do to world peace and what ongoing dominance of the world economy by China will do to democracy and freedom and values of the open society. I think that is really something that we have to discuss more thoroughly. And that's why I came to the conclusion, particularly under this impression of the annexation of Crimea many years ago that we got to do something and that waiting is not a good option. Yes, so let me just first acknowledge, it strikes me that there is a need for some sort of governing body or some sort of standards. Now, who gets to apply those standards and measure them and identify red lines or when someone qualifies or doesn't qualify across your three dimensions? That's obviously a very complex mandate. But the thing that convinced me or that I think was sort of a pivotal moment and I'm curious if you agree is that Germany decided and I would advocate for this, that the strategy to bring Russia into a better universe of behavior was to engage them commercially. And it ends up that that kind of backfired on Germany, didn't it, that when they integrated with Russia thinking it would, the trade creates better behavior, it actually came back and bit them, your thoughts on that? 100%. I mean, that is this old idea of change through trade. That is a phrase that has been basically invented in Germany in the 60s and since then used by politicians and business people all around the world and it is mainly to defend your business relationships and your stronger ties with regard to trade with non-democracies based on the hope that autocratic systems would change through trade and would become more democratic, more freedom oriented and with that trade would have a positive impact. What it did in many cases and most importantly and most obviously in the case of Russia, it made the autocratic system even more autocratic, even less democratic, but more powerful and it created in the case of Germany dependency. When Angela Merkel took office in Germany, it was roughly 33% of German energy consumption that came from Russia. When she left office, it was north of 60%. The whole idea of Nord Stream 2, this famous gas pipeline where US has always warned that this would create an even further dependency, has worsened the situation and you could say with the billions of daily payments of EU members and in particular Germany to the Russian energy industry, the EU and Germany has partly financed Putin's war. In any case, it has enabled him to do so because he as a kind of scientist, playing with the West, trying to predict what the West is going to do, he could always test and test and go further and what he did in Georgia remained without a consequence, what he did in Crimea basically remained without a consequence and then of course he saw that as an encouragement. Energy dependency has been stronger, it became stronger than ever, so let's go further and try to go for the whole Ukraine. I think that is a very concrete and telling lesson it is. For me, in a way you could say the final warning call, that is the reason why in the end I said, I have to write that book because I'm really, really worried what the next chapter could do to us and that is, as I said, China and also some Islamist autocracies where more and more dependencies are created. So let's use a couple other examples, so and I'll put forth a thesis and you respond. So obviously the kind of the elephant in the room is China and I would argue that until she what there's even the term is a German term. What's the term for incorporating trying to get closer to them with trade? Germany has a term for it, don't they? They call it now the derisking so that is their alternative to decoupling because there is the idea that Europe could somehow continue to deal with both sides with China and America and you also have to acknowledge that the German car industry is to large parts completely dependent on China. The thing that is underestimated in Europe is very often that it is not only the question if and when and how we de-risk or we decouple together with the US or alone from China, the real question is when is China decoupling and the big deal when BYD, this Chinese car company, sold 100,000 units to the biggest German car rental company, of course based on a state subsidized offering that in a way was quite a shock to many people who thought we can continue to do business with China and there will be no consequences or take the other example when Daimler, another big German car company used a quote from the Dalai Lama, one of the most hated people in China, used a very harmless quote of the Dalai Lama for an advertisement and then the CEO of Daimler had to apologize twice publicly to the Chinese government for having heard their feelings. I mean, this shows that business dependency and business relationships will come with political influence. So looking at China, my sense is that this, you know, call it hopes of less autocracy in exchange for engagement that if we incorporate capitalism and become sort of mutually dependent that both sides start behaving better. I think that's ideally the kind of the aspiration of capitalism and I would argue that in China was working, that pre-Shi, that China was a reformer and brought half a billion people out of poverty and then things dramatically changed with Xi. Is this evidence that it can work or evidence that when you're hopeful and kind of delusional little work, you just end up emboldening them and giving them more power and more exit wounds when they start kind of returning to their autocratic ways? How would you describe China as an example of where this has worked or not worked? So first of all, I would agree with your observation, China under Deng Xiaoping was a different China, different policy approach than under Xi and also Xi has changed and in a way radicalized to himself during his time in office. I think partly it is driven by the growing self-confidence of China. I asked once a Chinese woman why China is treating an artist like IYY so badly, although he is obviously not a serious threat for China's security, but quite a risk with regard to reputation. And she said, because we can and I found that answer very telling, why do you do that because we can? So that would be also an answer to your question. They act in that manner, in that kind of way more authoritarian and dominant manner because they can and just take the numbers. I think one of the biggest mistakes of the West was the exception of China as a full member of the WTO in December 2001. And China benefited because of the double standards that also the WTO allowed China being meanwhile the second biggest economy in the world is still considered as a developing state, which comes with a lot of privileges and exceptions and that leads to asymmetry. We are far away from reciprocity. We are in the mid of a growing asymmetry. And if we continue to allow that, that will lead in a kind of intrinsically still authoritarian system and political leadership style to the conclusion, okay, we do it because we can. And based on what you feel the standards would be across these three dimensions, would China qualify for this, would they, but they would have to improve on certain metrics, would they be immediately, would there be a call? I mean, only in the way this works is if there's some teeth and we all hold hands in the West across democracies and in, you know, I'll hold our nose and say, okay, this country is violated. None of us are trading with this country across these categories. Where would China do you think fall here? Would there, because there's just not getting around. We're still inextricably linked to China. How would it play out here? In vision that you get a magic wand, this body is created, what do you think would happen in the short term with our trading relationship with China? Well, I think if we look at the China of today and the recent developments and actions of the present government, China would not qualify to become a member. And one of the very obvious reasons is the climate policy in China. I mean, China is the biggest CO2 producer in the world, more than a third or roughly a third of world CO2 emission is coming from China. China has quadrupled its cold plants capacity within one year and is now contributing more than the rest of the world. That shows that China is so far from any acceptance of mutual standards that it could not be a member in that idea of an alliance. But I think that the powerful establishment of that alliance could be a reason for China to rethink its policy. It's interesting because I have no moral glory around this issue because I look at China and I see an asymmetry economically. And I think that one of the few things in my view that Trump got right was pointing out the asymmetry and the relationship that they basically create what is the ultimate propaganda tool here in the form of TikTok. And they would, you know, they let our media companies over there just so long enough to steal our IP and then prop up a local entrepreneur and kick the media company out and capture all the value. And yet we seem to be ringing our hands over whether or not we should have TikTok or not. But anyways, the harder question I have. Although it's an important thing, Scott, if I may just briefly say, I mean, we had the discussion at the CodeCon about TikTok and shortly thereafter, there was this hearing. And before that hearing, suddenly the Chinese government declared publicly that a sale of TikTok is inconceivable and would not be accepted and so on, which is in a way, a clear proof, it was a clear proof that TikTok is closely linked to the Chinese government and the Communist Party. So let's not be naive about it. Incorporated in every Chinese company's bylaws is that they will support the CCP. I mean, it's just there is no such thing as an independent Chinese company. And so where I have more of the term is conflict. As I look at, I see the US election is similar to the geopolitical chess board across the world. And that is the presidential election here in the US will be decided by a small number of people and a small number of swing states that are moderate. It's 45 of our 50 states. The election is already over. It comes down to a small number of people who are moderates and a small number of states that could go either way. And I see the same, I think the analogy is apt and holds for the world. And I see the swing vote, if you will, in a new global economy are going to be one first, first and foremost, probably India and number two would be the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia simply because they just have so much money. And when I have dealt with the Kingdom and I get a lot of pushback on this, the human rights violations are just frightening. But at the same time, I think you can make an argument that MBS is actually a reformer and is pivoted from funding terrorism to embracing capitalism. And when you just look at the adult realities of how much capital is there, that you could advocate for an engagement strategy and say, all right, come with us on this ride. You need to pivot away from a fossil fuel economy. You need to pivot to education, tourism, infrastructure, which I, you know, technology, which I think they buy into. And then my priority is to create as much tax revenue and social programs for European and US citizens and that the way we're going to get there is engaging India and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. But at the same time, I see your point and that is, do we just embolden them and empower them to continue with these human rights violations? What are your thoughts on India and the Kingdom being the swing votes in an engagement strategy? So first of all, I think we should be in touch and in dialogue with every country and every system and we can buy that kind of empower positive change. Saudi Arabia is clearly a very, very special and complicated case because the strategic logic also with regard to the old situation in Middle East and particularly the situation in Israel is a very strong argument for a special relationship with Saudi Arabia, which is also given not only on a business level but also on a security level. At the same time, if we look back to the experience of America that this rule, the enemy of our enemy is our friend. I'm not so sure if the bottom line of these examples where we basically lived up to that were very encouraging. Look what happened in Iran, in Iraq, in Egypt, in Afghanistan, in Syria, even to a certain degree with regard to Turkey. So very often, if the system is intrinsically not democratic, is intrinsically not based on at least partly mutual values, there will be at a certain point of time an opportunistic move where this player can really absolutely turn against us, can turn against the West. That's why I will be really careful, but this is an area where the discussion gets really complicated. I'm not stubbornly kind of driven by this is the only solution. If it is about the American election and policy, I will be even more reluctant because that is particularly for somebody from Europe, from Germany, not something where we should give any advice. There is only one thing where I'm absolutely certain. I think the most dangerous thing of US politics is isolationism. I think it is absolutely not this time to say under the kind of idea of America first in the end, America only. I think we are living in times where the big challenges can only be solved together based on at least a basic set of mutual values and mutual interests and business goals. If one player tries to achieve that alone that goes even more extremely for Europe, if Europe thinks that we can have our own way, our third way in dealing with China, we are lost. We are absolutely lost. Maybe that the US and the EU is not enough together. We need more. We need India. We need other continents and countries and other democracies, Japan and others. But if we think that one of the two can do it alone, we are lost for sure. So a comment on media and I think about Tristan's point of time at geopolitics and that is it strikes me that when you think about media, there is now a bigger and bigger business in capturing your attention, not for 20 minutes a day on the local news or even an hour a day, but to just capture it every 10 or 20 seconds with news alerts. In order to keep people's attention, it tends towards the negative and the catastrophizing. And what I don't think it's enough positive coverage is that to your point, the power of an alliance between the EU and America is exceptionally powerful. And I think the Putin absolutely underestimated how powerful that alliance could be and underestimated our ability to actually form that alliance. My sense is Ukraine is an enormous so far, an enormous victory for the West and speaks to the power of the type of alliance that you envision. What are your thoughts on Ukraine, how it's playing out and the alliance thus far? So I fully agree. Putin has miscalculated the ability of America and Europe to stick together if it really matters and to reestablish the transatlantic alliance and to particularly strengthen NATO. He thought that he can easily disentangle Europe from America, particularly Germany from America. Out of these business interests that we spoke about, that didn't work out. So you could say the international institutions are stronger than ever, and particularly NATO is probably in its best shape for decades. So Putin has achieved so far pretty much the opposite of what he wanted to achieve and he achieved that because in that very moment we were doing the right things and acted together based on that kind of mutual interest because everybody understood what happens there in Ukraine is not about the country only and its sovereignty. It is really about the sovereignty of democracy. It is about our freedom. And fortunately America took a very strong stance. Fortunately, even Germany, always in this kind of old pacifist mindset that was based on it. But you should see that I'm really defending the German government but we have to see where they come from. They came from a policy never get involved in any war, never delivered weapons to any country that is at war. The wrong lesson from our own war history instead of saying never ever genocide, never ever racism, the German learning was never ever war, never ever get involved. And that was all turned upside around. By the way, by a green foreign minister on Alina Behrbock, I was totally surprised by that. This party has been founded on the myth of pacifism that was the founding myth and anti-nato. And particularly this party and this secretary of state foreign minister on Alina Behrbock was basically advocating great peace with more heavy weapons. That it didn't go fast enough and it's not bold enough. Okay, but we should take into account where Germany comes from. And that is all together, I think, encouraging. You could say it is an important moment, a historic moment of the West and its reestablished alliance. Take that also as an encouragement for what we could achieve together in the context of these imbalances in global trade. Just hearing you talk, I think that, okay, the bottom line is if you're one of the 10 largest economies in the world, which both Germany and Japan are, isolationism just isn't an option. Exactly. It is not an option. I could not agree more. Isolationism will weaken us and will strengthen the impact of autocratic systems, which will undermine our system. And we will end up in Europe as a Eurasian annex of China, America will end up as a former superpower and the kind of idea of an authoritarian surveying state will prevail. That should not happen. We'll be right back. Support for the show comes from SoFi. Traditionally access to IPOs has been aimed at institutional and high net worth investors, not new more. With SoFi Invest investors of all sizes can get in on IPO action at IPO prices before they're listed on an exchange. If you're interested, you might want to check out SoFi.com slash IPO to see what IPOs are available now. Plus SoFi offers an easy to use intuitive platform that allows investors of all sizes to trade stocks, ETFs, and options. Here's to making investing more accessible for the rest of us. Investing in IPOs comes with risk, including the risk of loss. Please visit SoFi.com slash IPO risk offered via SoFi securities LLC member Fenra SIPC. Support for this show comes from American Express Business. Running a business is no easy feat. American Express business cards are here to help. Whether you are a small business owner ready to expand into new markets or your business is just taking off. American Express business cards are built for businesses like yours. Let's talk about investing in your business. American Express understands that every penny earned is another penny that can go towards taking your business further. With a host of select benefits and features available like a flexible spending limit, they're more than just a business card. They're a partner who works with you to help your business thrive. And if there's ever an emergency, their 24-7 support is ready to help no matter the time of day. American Express business cards are built for your business. With features and benefits like the ability to earn membership rewards points on select cards, the power to pay for big business purchases, and more. Built for your business, AMX business. Terms apply, learn more at americanexpress.com slash business cards. So you have one of the things I've always kind of, I don't know, felt a certain sympathico with you because I describe you as a raging moderate. I don't know if that's fair. But you've stated that back in 2022, you set an interview with Washington Post that you wanted to open quote, prove that being nonpartisan is actually the more successful positioning close quote. I would like to believe that. In US media, I don't see any evidence that works. I was hoping I was involved with CNN. I had a show on CNN and their positioning, they decided that they were going to try and position themselves more as centrist. And so far, it just hasn't worked. And so far, most of the evidence in the United States in terms of profitability seems to enforce or reinforce the notion that consumers and, you know, and the advertisers they chase just want to feel good. They don't necessarily want to be informed or see both sides that partisanship in our media still reigns supreme. What are your thoughts? First of all, I cannot imagine that in the long run, people want to be manipulated and just want to amplify their own prejudice. It may be seductive and may feel nice at the beginning, but in the long run, I cannot imagine that that is something that remains attractive. A second observation is don't underestimate certain swings back and forth. And also media history is full of these kind of cyclical developments when the golden era of newspapers started. Newspapers were basically launched as party political projects. There was a conservative party that launched a newspaper and there was a progressive party that launched a newspaper. So newspapers had a clear party political agenda. Then in the next phase, it turned out that that can be actually very dangerous on two levels. First, it can get boring for the readers because they know exactly what they get. And that is in the long run, not so exciting, they're getting surprised and getting inspired. And secondly, it also created power imbalance. Suddenly, media became political players. And you could say particularly from European perspective, that played a huge role in the rise of Otto Fittler and the Nazi party in Germany. So the conclusion after that was in Europe and in America, you could say long before and independent from that, there should be a separation of news and opinion. Editorial pages are in a different hierarchical structure than the news section. And there should be a balance of power. There should be plurality and there should be more kind of independence and unregulability and no party political agenda. That is my contrary in bed. That is at least what we why we bought political because we think that is one of the most credible nonpartisan, unpredictable media brands in the United States. Let us follow our strategy and then time will tell who is right. Perhaps both is possible, but I cannot imagine that this predictability of media and that this kind of confusion between journalism and activism can prevail. So you run one of the, if not the biggest media company in Germany, but you're also you're on the board of Netflix, Warner Music. So you're sort of an outsider looking in but you're an informed outsider. But curious what you think about the kind of the US media ecosystem as it relates to, you know, ad supported cables having a moment here. There's kind of a standoff with the writer's strike. And there's a feeling that the traditional media ecosystem, especially in television and cable, it's just collapsing on itself. And the Netflix has run away with the game, if you will. And there's questions about whether they should be on the same side of the table negotiating with the unions as a time Warner or a Disney who have quite from just a different business model than Netflix. Do you have any thoughts on the current state of play in US media, specifically the cable bundle and Netflix and where you think this all shakes out? Well, the first rule is you should never extrapolate. You should not extrapolate current developments and certain crises and that the kind of broadcasting model is under attack and that a lot of things have changed over the last years. I think it's all together more a healthy effect to question old models and establish new ones. If it is now about the strikes that you have mentioned of writers and actors and media people in general, we also have seen it even at insider. I think to a large part it is the concern or the fear around the changes that artificial intelligence, large language models will mean. And it is a big unknown. I think as so often with regard to technological progress, it's both. It's a tremendous opportunity and it is a big threat and what it really does depends on us, the human beings, what we do with this technology. If it is about AI, I think if we do it right, it can even recreate the original idea of great journalism and that is to come up with news, to come up with results of investigative reporting to find out something that was not supposed to be found out. And I think that is the thing that AI, that large language models, at least in the imaginable future, cannot replace. For that reason, we need to make sure that if we do so, that there is a fair system of remuneration and that everybody who creates IP, being a musician, being a movie maker, being a journalist gets rewarded for that. And then it is wonderful if AI helps to make it more efficient, to make it better, to bring it into audiences that did not consume that kind of content and so on and so on. So I see a lot of advantages and no reason for fundamental cultural pessimism. I don't think that the world is going to go under. Neither the world that we live in nor the media world. But yes, it is changing and let's make sure that we shape that change proactively. So I want to switch gears here in our remaining time. We have a lot of young listeners who are doing well, starting out their career, trying to manage balance, trying to manage family. You're an understatement, severe understatement, you're a successful business professional. What are your thoughts about managing the balance in the sacrifice in terms of being a good partner, being a good dad? What advice do you have for younger people starting out who are ambitious and look at a guy like you and think, yeah, I would like to have that kind of influence, that kind of success. But at the same time, it's always been hard. But it feels like it's getting increasingly difficult to get this type of balance to not have the path to success involve a pretty serious trade-off with your relationships. Any best practices around managing your role as a spouse and a father while pursuing this kind of level of influence and success? So first of all, I should also be careful in giving lectures because I don't know if I'm the ideal role model, but I've always tried and for me, family first is the most important rule the rule in life. The rule in business and for a career is for me, follow your passion. If you follow your passion, the likelihood that you are unsuccessful and I mean unsuccessful in the broader sense, not only unsuccessful in your career, but being unsuccessful in your life also in managing a family and the private life and the career is much, much higher. And you should not listen to any kind of analysis and statistics, which jobs, which behavior, which convictions, which industries are promising do what you really love to do. And we should find now also the right balance between the opportunities that mobile work, remote work offered us. I was convinced 15 years ago that people should not be measured by their presence. They should be measured by their performance. But I also think now that just being isolated at home with your family can also create some damage because we are social beings. We want to interact and creativity needs personal interaction, not only in a family, but also in a company, also at the workplace. So I think we are in the middle of that process to find that balance. I don't have the perfect recipe for that, but I'm convinced that these changes and also hear the empowerment of technology can help us to simply lead better lives. So I have two sons, my understanding is you have three sons, is that correct? Four. Four sons, excuse me. What looking back, you're advising a a dad or a mother who has numerous sons? What did you get right? What did you get wrong about raising boys? I think the most important thing is you can make a lot of mistakes as long as you provide unconditional love. I think if your kids feel that they are more loved if they perform better, that is a very strange feeling. If they feel unconditional love, whatever I do, whatever I do wrong, I'm loved because I am what I am, then I think that is the most important thing. That's what I always did. I was a very kind of anti-authoritarian father in many respects. I could have been stricter with regard to education. I remember very well when one of my sons explained me that he's never going to read a book in his life. Everything he wants to know he knows about through YouTube and reading books is outdated and he's not going to do it. I was very kind of taller and said, oh, I think it's not so smart, but if you really think that's the way, go for it. Now he's reading three or five books a day. So sometimes just let them go their way and provide unconditional love. Then things will just go the easy way, the better way in the right direction. Yeah, and also I'm not sure we have much choice. I like the term that we're not engineers, we're shepherds. We decide where they graze and we can point them in the right direction, but they kind of come to you. We don't engineer them. Last question. Advice to your 25-year-old self. If you could go back and just have five minutes with a 25-year-old Matthias Doepfner, what would you tell him? It may sound strange, but je ne regretrieu, the French would say, so I don't regret much, so I'm very, very happy with the decisions that I made in dedicating my life to journalism media and in a very creative life. Perhaps sometimes if I look back particularly at that age of 25, I was so naive, would I know what my kids know at that age and would I have the education? I could have done some things simply faster and enjoy them earlier, but I don't know if I really regret that or if I would therefore really do things differently. Sometimes I think things that may seem totally unnecessary for a career. I mean imagine that I originally wanted to become a musician. I studied bass guitar in Berkeley. I studied musicology in Frankfurt. My parents thought this is going to be a complete drop out, but it told me something that was very important. It told me the language of creative people, which is a big help running a media company, a creative company, perhaps also I developed certain sensitivities for subtones that I wouldn't have had if I had just went straight to a business school and studied business or law or whatever. So sometimes it's the detour that is helpful. Matthias Doepner is the chairman and CEO of the German media conglomerate actual springer. Axel owns US media brands including Politico, Morning Brew and my favorite media brand in business and that is insider. I love Henry Blodgett and I've been reading business insider for 10, 12 years. It's literally my first read in the morning. Matthias is also the author of the new book The Trade Trap. How to stop doing business with dictators, which presents a roadmap redefining global trade and protecting our fundamental freedoms. On the board of a bunch of brands is sort of an icon of German media. He joins us from his office in Sonny Berlin. Matthias appreciate your time and I really love your voice on these big picture issues. I think you're an important voice and as my region moderates, we got to stick together. Appreciate your time Matthias. It was a pleasure Scott. Thank you. Algebra of Happiness. I am freaked out about the number of successful people that are using, taking, enjoying, abusing ketamine. I know very little about ketamine. I've never done it. My drug use is pretty limited and that is I didn't drink until I was in college. Then I drank a lot and then I stopped drinking when I got serious about my career and then I've slowly kind of waddled back and as Winston Churchill says, I've gotten more out of alcohol than it's gone out of me. I'm starting to ramp it down again because I realized my 58-year-old liver probably can't process alcohol the way my 28-year-old liver can and it is five or seven thousand-year-old technology and I enjoy edibles. But even then, there's no free lunch. I'm trying to do that not more than once or twice a week. I am shocked by how many people I know who are incredibly successful are increasingly talking about ketamine. I don't know anything about the drug, but this is what I know about all drugs and all substances and all external stimuli. There is no free lunch and I'm not going into a rant on ketamine. What I'm going to suggest to you is the following that you do and audit around your addictions. I believe everyone has a certain level of addiction in their life. Everyone, I don't care if it's sugar, I don't care if it's porn, I don't care if it's online shopping, I don't care if it's talking or codependent relationship or you're addicted to stock market trading. Everyone, video games, everyone has a certain level of addiction is what I found. I'm addicted to other people's affirmation and it results in me spending way too much time on social media platforms and taking the shit that strangers say or don't say way too seriously. But I recognize my addiction and I can modulate. I want you to do an audit of your addictions. The majority of people handle their addictions productively. There's this cartoon of anyone that does drugs that they're living under a bridge and don't have a job. Guess what? 90% of people who abuse substances are professionally competent, but that's not the litmus test. The litmus test is the following. Would your relationships, would your health, would your success and a variety of different areas just be a little bit better or perhaps a lot better if you modulated. So the first thing we're going to do is we're going to do an audit. What am I addicted to? What have I become too dependent upon? What am I doing too often such that it is getting in the way of other parts of my life? It happens so incrementally, so easily. I have someone in my life that has said just over time, this person comes home and with their spouse, they'd have a glass of wine and then it ended up being a bottle of wine every night. She found herself just really looking forward to that bottle of wine every night and wasn't sleeping as well, becoming too into it, not going out with friends as much because she'd rather just stay at home and have a bottle of wine with her spouse. This happens incrementally. It happens slowly and then suddenly. Guess what? Does that mean you cut out wine? Maybe, maybe not, but would your life feel a little bit better if you say limited wine consumption to two or three times a week? Whatever it might be. Let's do an audit of our addictions recognizing everyone has addictions and let's say, okay, okay, would I be a little less shitty? Would I be a little bit better? Could I reallocate that capital? Could I reallocate that energy to something better? Because when the full story comes out about the tech community and really successful people, I think you are going to hear about how their world got increasingly small and increasingly unproductive and increasingly unhealthy through this bullshit notion that there is a free lunch out there. There isn't. There may be a free air lunch. I have found honestly that edibles don't take the same toll on my body that alcohol does. So I have substituted edibles for alcohol and I find that that works for me. But in general, I'm trying to decide maybe I just kind of modulate and take it all down, take it all down a little bit. What could you take down a little bit? What could you modulate? This episode was produced by Caroline Shagrin. Jennifer Sanchez is our associate producer and Drew Burrows is our technical director. Thank you for listening to the Prof. Cheap Pog from The Box Media Podcast Network. We will catch you on Saturday for No Mercy No Malice as read by George Han and on Monday with our weekly market show. Daddy brought home the chicken. Daddy brought home the chicken. I just need enough camera. Support for this episode comes from Zell. You'd never fall for an online scam, right? You use two-factor authentication. Ignore calls from everyone named Spam Risk and never use the password. Password. But scammers are getting more sophisticated and more active, which means they're finding millions of new victims every single year. The good news is that there's a lot you can do to protect yourself on the wild, wild web. For starters, Zell wants to remind you, only send money to people you know and trust. Zell is available to United States Bank account holders only, terms and conditions apply.