Prof G Markets: Alibaba and Mercado Libre, Share Buybacks vs. Dividends, and National Credit Ratings

This podcast is brought to you by Polestar. Designing an SUV for the electric age means redesigning what an SUV can be. Introducing the Polestar 3. Designed to go farther with up to 300 miles of range. Designed to protect with advanced safety systems. And designed to look and sound like nothing else on the road. Polestar 3. The SUV for the electric age. Visit Polestar.com to learn more and design yours today. This week's number 31. The world's oldest dog, Bobby, just turned 31. More than 100 people attended his birthday party in Portugal. True story, when my girlfriend's dog died, I got her an identical one. And she said, what am I going to do with two dead dogs? Welcome to PropG Markets. Today we're discussing Mercado Libre and Alibaba, share buybacks, and the market impacts of an aging population. Here with the news is non-pet owner and PropG Media analyst Ed Elson. You don't have any pets, right? No, I used to have a dog, but he died. Well, I'll get you an identical one. What kind of dog did you have? I had a board of terrier. Nice. A Scottish dog. But he wasn't the best dog because he would attack other dogs and he would not play fetch. He was kind of like a pretty bad dog, to be honest. Well, that's just a charming experience, Ed. That's a great story. I love how you should post your dead dog. That's really touching. I appreciate that. Anyways, break down the headlines for us, Ed. Let's start with our weekly review of Market Vitals. The S&P 500 was up and gold sank as the dollar gained, shifting to the headlines. The European Union approved Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard just weeks after the UK blocked the deal. Qatar has thrown its hat in the ring to host the 2025 Rugby League World Cup, its latest bid to attract global business through sports. Vice officially filed for bankruptcy as we anticipated a couple of weeks ago. What's curious is that it was one of seven companies that filed for Chapter 11 in just two days. Montana is banning TikTok. The law will go into effect January 1st and will block the app from operating within state lines. It also penalizes app stores if they make it available for download. And finally, OpenAI founder and CEO Sam Altman testified before Congress on the state of AI. He urged members of the Senate to regulate the technology to avoid causing, quote, significant harm to the world. Also on the panel was Gary Marcus, Scott's colleague at NYU and the host of the Humans vs Machines podcast. Marcus is one of the most vocal critics of AI and has raised the alarm about the threats he believes it poses. Mia spoke with him after his testimony and he believes that when Altman called for regulation, he meant it. I think he was very sincere and I could just like see that because I was next to him from the side, you know, three feet away, see things that you can't in the camera. And I actually said as much towards the end of the testimony. I said, I'm sitting next to this man. I think he's speaking sincerely. For more of Mia's interview with Gary Marcus, check out our special report on YouTube. Scott, any thoughts? I just feel as if we've been to this movie before and I don't, I don't doubt he was sincere. I don't doubt that Shel Samberg was sincere when she said, we're open to regulation. We work with lawmakers all over the world. I don't think Zuckerberg was insincere maybe, but said, I think the real question as the internet becomes more important in people's lives is what is the right regulation, not whether there should be. But you as a company welcome regulation. I think if it's the right regulation, then you think? I think Twitter CEO Dorsey probably meant it in April of 19 when he said, generally, I think regulation is a good thing. It's a not positive and I think our role as a company should be that of an educator, helping regulators and legislators understand what's happening with technology. I think it goes to something much deeper and I'm cynical around this. Everyone I know that no Sam Altman says is a good guy. I think it's sincere now, but I think to be a billionaire in the United States is to be loved. And I think slowly but surely the incremental road to hell is, okay, we're good people, we'll figure this out. And also we have the opportunity to make tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. So I'll incrementally start making a series of decisions that maybe ignore or delay an obfuscate an attempt to push back on our firm's profit making ability because they're worried about it. But don't be worried because at the end of the day, I'm a good guy. And I've just seen this happen over and over and over. I don't think these people went into these companies as bad people. I think slowly but surely they figured out reasons why I embrace regulation just not this regulation. I'm not sure if I'm wrong. There's some evidence here that maybe we're taking a different tact with AI. But there are now three different types of regulation that have been proposed recently. And I mean, there's Amy Klobuchar as antitrust regulation. There's Senator Bennett's proposed regulation around a new digital czar. There's Senator Warren's restrict act. Nothing ever fucking happened. So the other weapon of mass distraction being deployed here is open AI referring to themselves or constantly saying that they're governed by a nonprofit body. They really shouldn't say that because it's really not true. The first, I think the money goes back to the nonprofit after the original investors get, I think it's 100 times original investments. I think we did this calculation that the first 80 or 90 billion in profits go to investors and management and Microsoft, meaning that until this company is one of the five most profitable companies in the world or in history, it effectively is a for profit. So I don't look, I hope I'm wrong. I hope that Congress acts and it's not his fault. I'm sure he's earnest. The onus is on Congress to actually create some sort of regulatory body. I think there should be one under NATO because I do think there's a need for multilateral cooperation. But I'm sort of like in the show me phase. What are your thoughts? Well, I was really interested in his interaction with Senator Kennedy, where Kennedy asked him, you make a lot of money, do you? I make no, I paid enough for health insurance. I have no equity in open AI. Really? That's interesting. You need a lawyer. I need a what? You need a lawyer or an agent. I'm doing this because I love it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What do you think of that? Do you think that is also a distraction? I mean, he's very rich, that's for sure, but he's not rich from open AI. I think that's a great counter argument. And I hope that Congress acts on this quickly. I think that they feel like we won't be fooled again, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I think they've been fooled about 7 million times by these people. But our ecosystem just sets it up, sets it up ultimately over time. They find really good reasons to delay and obfuscate around regulation, and we end up with technology that has externalities that has absolutely no guardrails. Anyways, we'll see. So on Montana, that's not a state's job. I want TikTok banned. It's not a governor's job to ban media companies. You're the CEO of the state, and you're meant to make sure that the trains run on time and the police force in the fire department show up when you call 911. And he's kind of making it probably more difficult for federal legislation because it'll probably be overturned in court. It's grandstanding. Every governor wakes up, looks in the mirror and says, hello, Mr. President, and then tries to inflame the crazies around the nation to raise money and get a call that you're a principled weirdo and you should run for president. It's just total posturing. It's what Governor DeSantis is doing, telling passing legislation, telling principals and teachers what pronouns they can or can't use in schools. That's not what a governor is supposed to be doing. Qatar throwing its hat in the ring for the 2025 Rugby League World Cup. You're going to see more and more of this because if you want to burnish your image as a nation, you can run those ads on CNN saying, come to Malaysia, do business in Malaysia. Have you seen those ads on CNN International that promote Taiwan as a great place to do business? That is probably effective. It makes you feel better about the country, right? But it costs money. Well, what if you could do something, run an ad 80 times a year that reached hundreds of millions of people and in 10 years, you could sell all of those ads for more money than you paid for them. That's called a football team. You're going to see the term of sports watching, but you're going to see this everywhere. You're going to see it in enormous acceleration in the value of these companies. I'm already seeing it. Then probably the bigger news in business, they won't get a lot of attention because of the boring, is the EU approving Microsoft's acquisition of Activision after the UK block the deal. I think basically the EU said, hey, you Brexit loving bitches, we're on top. They basically said, we're approving a deal. This probably means the deal goes through. We'll be right back after the break with a look at two titans of e-commerce. Stay with us. Support for PropG comes from LinkedIn ads. You don't need more ads selling you how tough B2B marketing can be, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that having a tool or maybe a platform to get the right eyes and ears on your business is what you need. Thankfully, LinkedIn ads can help you find the right people looking to spend money on your company. LinkedIn ads platform is an essential tool for countless B2B specialists looking to build the right relationships, reach the right audiences and drive results because when you market on LinkedIn, you'll have direct access to more than 900 million members, 180 million senior level executives and more than 10 million sea level executives. The platform also features a number of easy to use targeting and measurement tools to track conversions and engagement. Make B2B marketing everything it can be and get a $100 credit on your next campaign. Go to linkedin.com slash Scott to claim your credit. That's linkedin.com slash Scott terms and conditions apply. Support for this podcast comes from Notion. LinkedIn can be tough. We all know that. Why do you think we have a staff of writers that help us get through these ads? But as helpful as our team of producers are, I can't have them add my beck and call whenever I experience writer's block, which is a lot. That's where Notion AI comes in. It's a powerful writing assistant that helps writers work faster, think bigger and channel that ever-flowing creativity. I tried Notion AI and it's basically like a co-pilot in the writing process. You can actually tell it to keep writing based on what you've already written and it will immediately put down something thoughtful. Not interesting. Our team has a lot of editorial meanings where we come up with our agenda for each short product and Notion helps to still and summarize all those ideas down to meaningful notes. Notion AI lets you skip to the good part of writing by helping you turn your messy notes into something polished. You can use Notion AI to improve your writing, summarize pages, find action items, translate into any language and more. For a limited time, try Notion AI for free when you go to Notion.com slash prof g. That's Notion.com slash prof g all over case. We're back with Prof G markets. Two e-commerce giants recently reported earnings. Argentina's Macado Libre and China's Alibaba. Macado Libre, known as the Amazon of Latin America, saw significant growth in gross merchandise volume up 43% year over year. Meanwhile earnings per share came in at $3.97. That was 30% higher than analyst estimates. Alibaba missed expectations on revenue and EPS, but it announced it will spin off its cloud division as a separate publicly traded company. Scott, that's something you've suggested Amazon should do with AWS for a while now. Now we spend a lot of time focusing on Amazon, but we rarely look at its international competitors. Scott, what are your thoughts on these earnings? So Macado Libre is probably the most impressive company, probably in Latin America. It's really well run. The revenue grew 78% in 2021, 50% in 2022, and 58% in Q1 2023. This is off a big base. This company is a little Amazon that could. They're operating margins increased from 3% in 2020 to 10% in 2022 on the integration of their ad network. This is several times higher than Amazon's operating margins. It's profitable. Again, see above 58% growth in Q1. That's just striking. Macado Libre, you would argue, is a teenager not a mature adult like Amazon right now? Amazon went public in 1997. Macado Libre, 10 years later in 2007. The one that's probably the value here is there was so much overhang, even with their recent run up, there's so much overhang on Chinese stocks because of the CCP's involvement and willingness to just shut companies down overnight. Alibaba only trades it 12 times. So that's probably if you were looking for a value play, but we'd spend so much time talking about Amazon. We don't talk about the other guys. I think Alibaba spending its cloud unit is exactly what Amazon should do. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point that cloud unit is worth more than Alibaba itself. Yeah, you mentioned the government risk discount that you're seeing with Alibaba at 12 times even a couple of things. One, I assume the reason that the 12 times even in multiple is there is because they're pricing in that government risk because the Chinese government disappeared Jack Ma among other things. Then the other side of this is with Macado Libre. There's also government risk there. The Argentinian government has defaulted nine times on its debt most recently in 2020. There's this really long history of government corruption. I saw that just a few months ago, the country's vice president was sentenced to six years in prison for fraud. Do you not think that government risk, lack of ability to trust these governments is something that investors should be thinking about when they look at these stocks? It's absolutely something they should be thinking about. In the US, we basically err on the side of the private sector. We have a ton of respect for companies and we let our horses run so to speak. In China, they were doing that. China's a much different place than it was 10 years ago. Then she came in and said, yeah, fuck that. You want to shitpost me, I'll disappear your ass and you can show up painting in Tokyo. We think you're bad for middle of class in terms of this huge tutoring industrial complex. We're just going to show you that. You don't want to share your data, Diddy? Fuck you. We're going to put you out of business. We have laws and senators who like to claim their pro business and want to protect the private sector and say, this is the engine of growth. This is what makes America great. The call we made and we actually picked Chinese Internet stocks in our prediction stack in November of 2022 as being the best performing sector. We got that right was because I don't think he's going to cut off the fingers, but I don't think he's going to cut off limbs of his thoroughbred, so to speak. I think that the private sector got the message and said, okay, let's be honest, he's in charge and the CCP is in charge. Now these companies have had huge run-ups and even though it's at 12 times, it was at 8 times. The question is, do you think they're going to come in and pull another heavy-handed move? But absolutely, government, one of the reasons that the S&P trades or typically trades at a higher price earnings multiple than other markets is people do have a lot. When I say people, investors globally do have a lot of respect for rule of law. Think that you can't have an event where all of a sudden one guy, she moves in and kills a company that we have due process. And as a result, capital flows into our market like no other market in the world. But to return to Alibaba, I think it was an unbelievable buying opportunity because the CCP still wants to bring tens of millions of people out of poverty, otherwise they have a revolution on their hand. As we discussed on an episode last September, there are two main ways a company can return money to shareholders. The first is a dividend. A share of the company's profits are distributed to shareholders on a regular basis, usually every quarter. And the second is a share buyback. That's when a company buys its own outstanding shares, which reduces the supply of shares on the open market and thus increases the share price. Historically, dividends have been more popular. But recently that started to change. Over the past decade, share buybacks among the world's 1,200 largest companies tripled. And last year, share buybacks hit a record of $1.3 trillion. That's almost the same amount companies paid in dividends last year. Meanwhile, over the past 10 years, dividend payments have only increased 54%. So Scott, the obvious question here is why a company is choosing share buybacks over dividends. But before we get to that, can you refresh our memory on why a company would buyback shares or pay dividends in the first place? So a dividend pair, there are a lot of investors who are willing to put $100 into a stock and then wait till they sell it, hoping to get some appreciation. There are other investors usually a little bit older that want dividends, that want cash flow. I'm like, okay, I've got $100,000 and I want to get $4,000 a year. I want to get some type of cashflow. I need some money to live. They like dividends. One of the reasons that stock buybacks have been so popular is that, I mean, essentially a stock buyback is a following. You have $100 in earnings. You have 10 shares. That's $10 per share in earnings. If you buyback 20% of your shares, you have eight shares, $100 in earnings. Now you have $12.50 per share in earnings and the stock should go up. And what that does is for the shareholder, you get taxed on dividends, but effectively if you're not selling your shares, it's a way of increasing or distributing capital back to the shareholder, at least capital appreciation without an immediate tax hit. But also it appears the market, at least in the short term, likes the share buybacks and it's a means of a CEO who makes most of these decisions with his or her CFO of moving the stock up and kind of a medium term. In one in four years, the vesting period of the COS or here she can get their golf stream and their home in the Hamptons. So the controversy is whether or not, I think I read that Apple has bought back $600 billion worth of shares, which means that if Apple had decided to try and grow through acquisitions, it could have bought any but maybe the three or four most valuable companies in the world with that money. But instead of buys back shares, the fear is that rather than growing the economy, rather than investing in new plans, property equipment, new hiring, you're just trying to push up the share price, which largely benefits a small group of people. I think about 90% of all shareholder equity is owned by the top 1%. And the question is, well, okay, do we have sort of a perverse incentives here where share buybacks are great in the short run for the CEO, but maybe not for the economy. So there's been additional taxation placed on share buybacks. We're talking about increasing it, but it is a very efficient way to return capital for all the shareholders. Yeah, there's also some arguments against, which I was found interesting. One is that kind of like you say, there's this self-serving bias for the company's executives, but there's a very specific bias here, which is that if you take shares off of the market, you essentially inflate the earnings per share because the profits are being divided up among less outstanding shares. And typically executives get bonuses that are tied to increases in earnings per share. That's been one of the big criticisms, but something that I was thinking in pushback to that criticism, isn't it on the board and the shareholders to create the right incentive structures for the CEO? In other words, shouldn't they be the ones that are taking buybacks and any manipulation that you could do to earnings per share and any bonuses that you get as a result of that? Isn't it on the board to figure out how to accurately compensate the CEO such that they incentivize what's best for the company? 100%, but how does the board get compensated? They get some cash and they get options. Right. So they too are incentivized around the same thing. I've always said compensation is the hardest part about being on a board. Whenever you see really strange behavior to company, you can usually reverse engineer it to compensation. So linking compensation of behavior is incredibly difficult, but what you have with boards, they approve share buybacks because at the end of the day, the board's not going to come up with a vision for the company. That's just not their job. What's really interesting is companies like Restoration Hardware have actually taken out debt. They've actually borrowed money and bought back shares. That seemed really irresponsible. I mean, I don't have any basis in that. It just feels irresponsible. It's aggressive, but you could make an argument if you feel your stock is deeply undervalued and you can access the debt markets at incredibly low interest rates, which you could do three years ago. If you could borrow money at two or 3%, you might say to see them, you know what, I'm going to be able to grow this company faster than two or 3% a year. So it can go very wrong, very fast. And generally, I think you're right at it. I think you're a gag reflex is probably the reflex that most it kind of it's like desperate in a way. You're borrowing money just to inspire confidence versus invest in real assets, it feels like. It's an interesting and valid take, but what you're probably going to see might see an increase in the tax on share buybacks because it does look as if we've entered into this kind of circular mechanism for creating more income inequality, the existing shareholders get wealthier, but the engine of capitalism corporations aren't investing back in quote unquote the real economy. They're not buying more land. They're not putting up new factory. They're not making new hires because they're like, yeah, at the end of the day, which is buyback shares. I just want to end with a case for share buybacks versus dividends, which is that the historical advantage of dividends is that you can earn some cash without having to sell the stock. And in the past, selling stock was kind of a pain. There were trading fees. The fees were especially high when you were selling less than 100 shares at a time. But now that we have all these trading platforms that have zero commission trading and they even allow fractional share trading, it's not really a problem to sell anymore. So you can take what's called synthetic dividends where basically you just sell your stock in increments and you get to choose when to sell. As you said, you can also defer your tax payments. So it feels like share buybacks might be a marginally better deal if you're paying attention to the stock and if you're paying attention to when to sell and if you want to actively be selling your stock, would you agree that that's a fair case? Yeah, I think that's accurate. I also wonder if it's just a psychological, it just seems like dividends feel boring in this age of crypto and stocks going up 50% sometimes in a year that investors are just a little hornier and not as excited. Yeah, it's just a vibe thing. They don't want to marry a nice guy. They want something fun. They want something I want to get rich. Yeah, I'll bet you're right. It's just a vibe shift in what feels sexier as a management executive. Do you own any dividend paying stocks? No, I don't. It sort of outs the company is no longer growing a little bit. It reminds me of Nike, which does pay a dividend, but one of the first things that you see on their investor relations page is Nike is a growth company. It's like the main message they're trying to get across to investors is we are future forward. Yeah, we pay dividend. They look old, but we're looking at the future. There you go. We'll be right back after a quick break with a look at what happens to the markets of an aging country. Support for this episode of Prodigy comes from AMBLA, a premier financial platform for consumer brands providing growth capital banking and bill pay services to omni-channel businesses. Brands need capital to grow. You've got to spend money to make money, right? We all learned that the first time we sold lemonade to neighbors. Well, with AMBLA, growing brands can access the cash they need to thrive. With AMBLA, you can access non-deluded growth capital to fund inventory, advertising campaigns, and other vendor expenses in as little as 24 hours with a five-minute application. They're all in one platform. It includes a bunch of other financial tools covering banking, bill pay, and so much more. If you're ready to open the door to growth, you might want to check out AMBLA. Apply for AMBLA's growth line of credit today at getampla.com slash profg and get 4.5% APY on deposits to your complimentary AMBLA banking business checking account. That's up to 12 times the national average. That's getampla.com slash profg to fill out your five-minute application today. Always spend time trying to reduce the interest you're paying on your stuff and get as much interest as possible from the places you're putting your money. AMBLA is a financial technology company and not a bank. Banking services are provided by AMBLA's partner banks who are member FDIC. Visa cards are issued by AMBLA's partner banks pursuant to a license from VisaUSA Inc. and may be used everywhere Visa is accepted. International transaction fees may still apply. We're back with profg markets. One of our biggest recent focuses here at profg media has been population decline or more specifically population degradation. As birth rates continue to plummet, the age demographics of our society are becoming increasingly imbalanced. In 1960, people 65 and over made up 9% of the US population. Today, that number is 17% and growing. This is a global shift and it has major implications for the economy from social security costs to overall work productivity. And we've discussed much of this before on No Mercy No Malice. Researchers project the global population will peak in 2064 and then begin its retreat. More than 20 nations will see their populations shrink by 50%. The greatest threat to humanity isn't climate change or thermonuclear war, but nothingness. Specifically, that our species will decide it should slowly and steadily fade to black. New data suggests there's another aspect we ought to be worried about. Credit worthiness. Ratings agency S&P projects that by 2060, half the world's national credit ratings will be downgraded to junk status if measures aren't taken to address aging populations. But another way, extending credit to half the world's countries will be like loaning money to rent the runway, highly risky, low guarantee of getting your money back. Meanwhile the share of countries with double or triple A credit ratings, that is low risk, will fall from 25% to less than 5%. This is all assuming current population and policy trends stay the same, but the question remains, what are we going to do about all these old people? Scott, I'm sure you have lots of answers to that question. But first, can you explain to us how demographics impact a country's credit worthiness? Essentially, young populations are just more productive because old people want to stop working and relax and they require more government assistance because they get sick and they want pensions. So the ratio of young to old people is an indicator of the productivity and the economic vibrance or potential of a country. Italy and Japan have gone into population decline and neither of their economies have really registered any growth for the last 20 or 30 years. So it is a big, big issue and Peter Jucker, my role model or if I have a role model as an economist, that every major business shift of the last 100 years can be reverse engineered into a demographic shift. So I think it's a really big issue and we're either going to have to extend the working age and figure out a way to make seniors more productive or we're going to have to have more kids or we're just going to see Western nations going to decline. And it means that when an economy is less productive, it becomes less economically viable. When it becomes less economically robust, it becomes less of a player on the world stage. It's military isn't as big. It doesn't have as many diplomats. It's not as attractive to foreign investment. And unfortunately, the economies that look like they're going into population, i.e. economic decline, are the democratic ones. Yeah. I mean, the trouble is that we need to find more money to spend on the old people, just a crazy statistic. The US spends 40% of our tax dollars on people 65 and older, 19% on Social Security, 13% on Medicare and 7% on other senior benefit programs. And what this credit rating data is basically telling us is we might not be able to borrow money in order to support those people. So it feels like there are three options that we have now if we're not able to borrow. One is we just somehow become massively more economically productive and create more prosperity so we can take care of them. Two massively increase the tax rate and then just spend more on old people as a percentage of our own individual income or three spend less on old people. So right now some suggestions are that we increase the age of eligibility for Social Security or maybe we just flat out cut back on senior benefit programs. Aside from having more kids, where do you stand on those issues? The real culprit here in my view is the tax code. And that is people immediately have a gag reflex around what you're going to take my taxes from 50% to 60. Now if you live in New York or California and you make good money and it has to go all go on your W-2, you are paying a lot of taxes. I would argue it's not tax rates, it's tax code. There are five of the, you know, four to 100 that don't pay any taxes, including Nike, Amazon, FedEx. Wealthy people manage to find ways or their representatives in Washington have found a way for them not to pay taxes. Now something like half of corporate profits from American corporations are taxed overseas, i.e. taxed at a lower rate through inversions. It takes about 23% of GDP to operate our government. And as you referenced, about 40% of that is going to seniors, it's going to go to over 50%, which will crowd investment in technology, investment in young people, education. They quite frankly just have a higher ROI than making sure pop up and NANAC can continue to take a cruise every year. So if we want to grow the economy, we just need a certain level of investment in these things. And if we want to support a navy that scares the shit out of everybody such that we can continue to have dominance around the world or influence, I should say, we're going to have to grow our economy. We need more investment in young people. We're just going to need more and more sustainable revenue sources, i.e. taxes. So I don't think you raise tax rates. I just think you have to get rid of these loopholes. Corporations have seen their tax rates plummet. Wealthy people, at the end of World War II, the top tax rate was 92%. And every year it's gone down. And I would bet that the majority of very wealthy people pay less than 20% now. Some pay less than 10%. Once you get above 98% or 99% tells a wealthy person, once you get on the gold medal stand, the government takes the bronze and the silver away from everybody else. Because it's the workhorse that people that make between, say, 200,000 and a million a year in ordinary income that really get fucked. But there's just no getting around it. We're going to need to make seniors more productive. Maybe we do that through technology. We as a nation are probably going to need to get more productive. We probably should do technology. And we need corporations and wealthy people to quote Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to pay their fair share. And we need to stop this bullshit where companies can offshore the revenue and merge with the company in Norway and avoid American taxes. Okay. So before we go to the week ahead, let's take a listener question. We get a lot of listener comments and emails. And we actually do read most of them. We got this one after you brought up one of your favorite topics last week, Scott, private jets. I'm trying to figure out ways to be part of the solution with my capital in addition to buying much bigger plane. Because when Daddy owns a golf stream, he goes from being interesting and quirky to fucking fascinating. This question is from another Scott in Virginia. He says, fan of all your podcasts, I can understand how owning and flying in a private jet or a PJ can be very aspirational. My question, would you be in favor of a private jet tax to offset the carbon emissions of private jet travel, say a tax of $1,000 per flight taken or more depending on miles traveled? And the money would go towards combating climate change. Oh, yeah. I mean, in order to try and find some moral clarity. So I sold my plane about nine months ago because it went up in value, moving to Europe, wrong plane from my mission profile. Mission profile means the trip you want to take. It's very sophisticated aviation talk that me and my douchebag friends speak to each other. I'm serious. One of the reasons I sold the plane is I'm becoming a little bit more thoughtful about my carbon footprint. And I thought, okay, do I really need to be spewing that much shit into the air? And six months later, after having dealing with TSA again, I'm like, fuck that, I'm going to buy another plane. I'm sick of pretending that I give a shit about the environment. But what I did all the time was I bought those carbon offsets. I'm all for it. If you have the money to fly private, you should be paying taxes everywhere. There should be taxes on Jeff's shield. There should be taxes, landing fees. There's landing fees on the size of the aircraft. And what's interesting is in the UK, their attitude is, and I think it's probably the right attitude is look boss, you're really rich. You're going to pay taxes. Whereas in the US, the landing fees and the hangar fees and the taxes are actually quite low because in America, we love rich people. But if the answer is should people who are putting a lot of shit into the environment pay for some sort of offset or pay for not only a replacement, but a pretty serious penalty for making that decision because it's wonderful for me. It's fun for me. It improves my lifestyle now. But these types of actions are going to have impact on future generations. So I'm all about tax me and my big fucking golf stream. Hello. Thanks Scott. Let's take a look at the week ahead. We'll see the personal consumption expenditures index for April. We'll also see earnings from Nvidia, Zoom and a slew of retail, including Lowe's Best Buy and Urban Outfitters. Do you have any predictions for us? A couple of predictions unrelated. This Montana ban gets overturned right away, pure posturing. And also I do think Senator Feinstein is going to retire. I think this has become, Senator Feinstein is a lion of the Senate and assault weapons ban, releasing data on torture that was really important in terms of the US facing up to what it engaged in. She's just been incredible and this is unfortunately ruining her legacy. Our ability to get Democratic judges put in seats is being held up. It's getting really bad. Anyways, so in Montana, we're going to see the TikTok ban overturned immediately while I still am hoping for federal legislation, specifically the strict act goes into place and then it gets spun into I do think Senator Feinstein is going to retire in the next 30 or 60 days. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and engineer by Benjamin Spencer, our executive producers are Jason Stavors and Katherine Dillon. Mia Silverio is our research lead and Drew Burrows is our technical director. Thank you for listening to PropG Markets from the Vox Media Park S Network. Join us on Wednesday for office hours and we'll be back with a fresh take on markets every Monday. Live time. You have it. In kind. Reunion. As the world turns. In the dark. ♪ ♪