Google’s Manipulated Ad Auctions, Microsoft Buys Activision Blizzard, and the Danger of Billionaires

Kara Swisher: AI agents are getting pretty impressive. You might not even realize you're listening to one right now. We work 24-7 to resolve customer inquiries. No hold music, no canned answers, no frustration. Visit sierra.ai to learn more.

Scott Galloway: Not all journalism is the same. Take The Guardian. Our coverage has something unique. Fierce independence. Nobody owns us or tells us what we can and can't say. So we're free to report the whole picture. We connect what's happening in Washington to the rest of the globe, expose corruption wherever we find it, and give fresh perspective on everything from wellness and soccer to culture, the climate, and more. Read, watch, and listen to The Guardian for free at theguardian.com.

Kara Swisher: Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.

Scott Galloway: And I'm Scott Galloway.

Kara Swisher: How are you doing, Scott?

Scott Galloway: I'm doing well. It's a beautiful, dry yet cool day in the 60s here in Delaware Beach. It's an absolutely gorgeous day.

Kara Swisher: It's beautiful. Had freezing rain the other day. But I'm more interested in the feud between DeSantis and Trump. I was reading about it in the New York Times. I hear they're beefing down your way.

Scott Galloway: Well, we knew that was coming. Every morning, every senator wakes up, goes into the bathroom, looks into the mirror and says, "Hello, Mr. President." They all want to be president. No one's going against him but DeSantis. DeSantis is making a mean play from the right, which is interesting. The moment Ted Cruz or Rand Paul or anyone sees an opportunity that might get him additional straw in Iowa, they will start accusing him of assault, insurrection. It really is true. The GOP and the senators there are all about – they're not about principles. Their only principle is political power.

Kara Swisher: This is a governor. This isn't a senator. This is Governor DeSantis of Florida. But go ahead.

Scott Galloway: Same, same. They're all – he is basically running for president. And everything he does is about – not about the health or the well-being of the commonwealth or its citizens down here in Florida. It's about how do I cater to the evangelical right in Iowa such that I can get momentum in Iowa. And something that goes back to the larger macro problem here is the states that determine the momentum for president are much older and much whiter than the rest of the nation. If the first elections were – or if the first primaries were held in Oregon and Mississippi, you'd have probably a different country.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. Because everybody's looking at Iowa. They'll all start taking trips there and they all start catering. I think Trump is an interesting ploy. We'll see. I don't know. Ann Coulter is sort of the tip of the spear. I think people are weary of Trump, I have to say. They like some of the messages, but they're tired of him. I think that is 100% true among people who like him. Anyway, today, it's an interesting story that's developing. They love to eat each other, but eventually they'll get together because that's what the Republicans do. They eventually coalesce. The one that we'll have on our side, the interesting warfare we'll have on our side will be between Vice President Harris and Secretary Buttigieg. That's the one that'll start. They'll start going on background, badmouthing each other in about 18 months.

Scott Galloway: Okay. All right.

Kara Swisher: Okay. Today, we'll talk about an alleged secret deal between Facebook and Google to deceive the ad industry and look at the new biggest deal in gaming history. And we'll talk to Peter S. Goodman about how billionaires are taking over the world, something we talk about a lot. But first, Peloton is turning up its price knob to the right. The company is tacking on new delivery fees for some of its products. It says price increases are a result of inflation and supply chain issues and also employment issues. This is probably not good. They reported weak sales last November and lowered its full year outlook. Obviously, everyone who wanted to buy one got one during the pandemic. And now they're facing how to keep it going. This is a company both of us like quite a lot. So what do you think about that?

Scott Galloway: I've just been shocked how inelastic price increases have been across the consumer board, whether it's Netflix or the companies I work with.

Kara Swisher: Which raised its prices recently.

Scott Galloway: Yeah. There really hasn't been much of an impact. There is so much money chasing. It's a perfect storm. People have more money in their pockets than they've had in decades because of stimulus, because of a strong economy, because they aren't going out. They aren't going to Disney World or the Red Onion. So you have – at the end of the day, inflation is a function of how much cash is chasing how many products. And you have a lot more cash and then you have supply chain interruption. So it's the perfect storm for inflation. The reason why inflation might abate sooner or faster than it did in the 70s is in the 70s, we had about double the union membership. In almost every union contract, there were COLA increases, where they got increases in their wages because of the cost of living increases. So it was an upward spiral. As inflation went up, their salaries went up, more cash, chasing fewer products. But if you look at Europe, which has the same supply chain problems, but isn't incurring or registering the same level of inflation, it's because their stimulus hasn't been quite as generous. So I actually think this will come back down. But just to pivot for a moment, I don't know if you saw the PPP program, which – and I'm patting myself on the back – but I called it a hate crime against future generations about 18 months ago. $800 billion to, quote unquote, save the owner of the cupcake bakery. It ended up costing around $200,000 per job saved. And two thirds of it went to the wealthiest 20% households. This was nothing but the most regressive giveaway probably in history. It was just such cloud cover to absolutely line the pockets of rich people. And all of that is coming to light now. Anyways, a bit of a digression.

Kara Swisher: All right. Peloton raising price. I think it won't affect it. I think this company's got to get bought. These numbers. We've been saying that.

Scott Galloway: I know. But look, Activision just got bought. We'll talk about that later. But everyone's going to get bought. Everyone's going to get bought at this point. And then the FTC and the Justice Department will have a lot on its hands.

Kara Swisher: People who are doing the buying – the world's 10 richest men doubled their wealth since the onset of the pandemic, according to a report from Oxfam, which I may say I predicted at the beginning of the pandemic. The report also found the inequality between nations will rise for the first time in 20 years due to the unequal access to vaccines. Oxfam says the wealthy group could pay to vaccinate the entire world and more with just a 99% windfall tax on their pandemic gains. This is incredible, this amount of money compared to 99% of the world's population who are worse off because of COVID. I mean, we've talked about this over and over. And we're going to talk about it later today with Peter.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, it's simple economics. The fastest way for the Southern Hemisphere to double their income would be to figure out a way to take the wealth away of the eighth wealthiest families in the world. And at some point, they figure it out. They elect nationalist leaders. They do what happened in Central America over and over. They show up and say, "You and your family have 24 hours to get out of here and you can't take your money or your brewery or your factory with you." So at this point, I think it's become self-preservation. They really need to start thinking about it. The other thing I just think is so ridiculous is when Bernie or Senator Sanders go after billionaires and say pay their taxes. It's like the NFL complaining about Tom Brady's behavior on the field. It's like, well, you make the rules. I never understood Senators Warren and Sanders going after billionaires and saying they need to pay their taxes. They are paying the taxes as written by them.

Kara Swisher: Right. So it's like, okay, you don't want regressive taxes. You don't want – we've made a conscious decision. They've been trying to change it. Be fair. They've been trying to put legislation in.

Scott Galloway: Well, okay. They're ineffective.

Kara Swisher: Well, yeah, that is correct. They control all three houses and they've been unable – they just bark at the moon.

Scott Galloway: Well, nobody wants that tax. They want it. And they show up with their flaccid dicks and then complain about not having good sex. I mean, for God's sake, do something. They control three houses.

Kara Swisher: Well, in some cases, they can't. They can't get it passed. There's not enough support for it.

Scott Galloway: Okay, I'm ineffective.

Kara Swisher: Come on. It's legislation. These taxes are so regressive.

Scott Galloway: Yeah. And we have the Senate. We have the House. We have the White House. But we can't figure out a way to do away with these enormous tax deductions and complexity that are nothing but – and it's interesting. We've talked about this before. You know who gets really hurt here? There's a bit of a trope or a bit of a myth that the poor pay a lot of taxes and usage and consumption taxes. But the people who get really screwed here and people don't talk about it is the upper middle class.

Kara Swisher: You have talked about this, but go ahead.

Scott Galloway: A lawyer and a chiropractor who make half a million or 600 grand in California, work their asses off, smart, successful, lucky, got good educations, making a fantastic living, make 600 grand in California or New York, they're paying 51% of taxes.

Kara Swisher: I'm aware of this.

Scott Galloway: It's not until it's the workhorses, a lot of whom are our friends, quite frankly, who are successful, but make just enough to get taxed in the absolute highest tax rates, but don't make enough money to have millions of dollars to invest in real estate or stocks, where the tax rates plummet. Anyways, tax reform is – I'd like to think in the next presidential election, you're going to hear the Herman Cain, Ross Perot flat tax idea again, because it would be very – it just makes a lot of sense.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, they definitely have to change it. I think it's much more difficult than you'd imagine. In any case, they're richer than ever, and they're going to continue to be richer than ever until we get the correct tax system. In a lot of ways, I just recently talked to Elizabeth Warren, and she was complaining about Elon. I said, "Well, change the tax code." He's following what he can follow. And when he has to pay taxes, he does. When he doesn't, he doesn't. If you're waiting for him to become a good citizen, well, good luck. Here, hand over the money. I said he's following the laws as have been written, not that you wrote, but as have been written. Anyway, fans of the One America News Network may have to find a new way to watch the far-right pro-Trump channel. DirecTV is dropping Rand Paul's favorite channel when its contract expires in April, which is a big deal. Lethal, in fact. 90% of OAN's funding comes from deals with DirecTV and other AT&T stations, according to testimony from an OAN executive in 2020. This is a big deal. They're being deplatformed, so to speak, cable-wise. So what do you think about this?

Scott Galloway: They do this all the time, by the way. Cable stations and different distributors do this all the time. They deplatform people, companies.

Kara Swisher: Yeah.

Scott Galloway: Well, it's interesting. I don't know if you saw, but Comcast just announced a deal to distribute CNN Plus because of all the new announcements around talent.

Kara Swisher: Yes. It's just you. It's not Chris Wallace.

Scott Galloway: No, no. It's not Chris Wallace. No. Let's be honest. He's a little bit intimidated.

Kara Swisher: I feel for him. I feel for him.

Scott Galloway: He's not at all. He doesn't know you. A little scared.

Kara Swisher: Again, he doesn't know who you are.

Scott Galloway: I will mentor him. I will coach him. If I texted him now, I'd say, "Do you know Scott Galloway?" He'd be like, "Who? Who?" This is what would come back.

Kara Swisher: I'm going to get his cell number. I'm going to do that. They'd be like, "Oh, yeah, that's the guy that owns the Toyota franchises in Texas, right?" People always think I'm someone else.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, you are. I always think you're someone else.

Kara Swisher: But what do we think of this?

Scott Galloway: No, that's not true. Rand Paul is pissed.

Kara Swisher: You're like every woman in my life. You're hoping I'm going to become something else.

Scott Galloway: No, I don't really care what you become. I'm not one of those ladies.

Kara Swisher: Anyways, what were we talking about? Oh, the network, AT&T. Whatever. You know, who cares? I don't know.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, AT&T wanted to divest themselves from this because they were getting a ton of shit for supporting a far-right network. My guess is this had more to do with ratings and money than any ideology.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, it probably wasn't. Yeah, they'll make way for some whatever next cable network is coming that does better. That's all. Too bad. Nobody's watching you, OAN. That's what happened to you. I didn't even know it. Did you know it? I'm like, what's OAN?

Scott Galloway: Yeah, yeah, they're screaming.

Kara Swisher: My mother has it on sometimes.

Scott Galloway: Really?

Kara Swisher: We'll see what the – what do you watch with it? Oh, she watches mostly Fox, but every now and then you'll see OAN on there or the other one, Newsmax. That's one she watches more. Whatever. In any case, they should have sold to the Trump Media and Technology Group. So maybe that's what's going to happen. Maybe they'll buy that.

Scott Galloway: Maybe they will. Maybe they will.

Kara Swisher: We'll see what's going to happen. We're waiting for that, supposedly, President's Day, but I don't think that's happening. But we'll see. We'll see if Trump puts up his social network so he can yell at Ron DeSantis. Anyway, time for our first big story. Google manipulated ad auctions to mislead advertisers and publishers, according to a newly unsealed lawsuit. Google allegedly pocketed the difference between what advertisers paid and what publishers received and used it to rig ad auctions in favor of its customers. States Attorneys General say that shell game cut publishers' revenue by as much as 40%. The lawsuit also claims that Alphabet, Sundar Pichai, and Mark Zuckerberg personally agreed to a deal that would let Facebook win auctions. Google and Meta both claimed that everything was above board. This is not an area I know a lot about. I mean, I do, but not the technicalities of it. So can you go into it? This is obviously the digital advertising industry. It's worth around $350 billion, which 80% to 90% is dominated by Alphabet, Meta, or Amazon. Pretty much Alphabet and Meta. Amazon's sort of a comer. So talk about this.

Scott Galloway: Yeah. So I don't understand the plumbing of ad tech either, and neither do 99% of the population, including our elected representatives, which plays to Facebook and Google's advantage and leads to Google being able to present to a Condé Nast or a Toyota, "Oh, this is the cost on the other side. This is what someone is willing to give you an ad for." And it ends up that that's not true, that the people on the other end were actually selling it for a lot less money.

Kara Swisher: Or it wasn't even there. Or the network wasn't even there. Uber got caught in something like that. But go ahead.

Scott Galloway: I mean, at the end of the day, because Google controls the supply, the demand, and the exchange in between, none of it is transparent. And essentially, as charged, this is just blatant fraud. And then the second suit or the second part of this, which I actually think is more relevant, is they're accusing Google and Meta, or as I like to call them, Facebook, have said, "All right, there's two of us, two players, and we're going to coordinate and cooperate in order to increase prices on the rest of the ecosystem." And just last week, we said the biggest tax cut in history would be if you had more than two players because it's much more difficult for 1,000 or 5 million players, i.e. Facebook advertisers, to bind together to do anything, including saying stop putting out content that results in self-harm among teens. But if you look at OPEC, the definition of a cartel is a group of players that bind together, cooperate, and coordinate to increase prices on everybody else. And that's illegal. And the reason why this is significant is one of the players involved. It says Facebook CEO and COO and Google CEO. The fact that they're even in the same document as evidencing that they are cooperating. I remember when I used to get big brands together to talk about how to push back on Amazon. And big brands and big categories were always very reticent to even be in the same room together because of antitrust concerns. They didn't even want to have record that they were in the same room. And then you have the CEOs of these two companies not only together but sending emails saying, "We need to cooperate on this and we need your sign-off." And the reason why this is significant is not only because it's clearly colluding in cartel pricing, but the remedies for cartel pricing, Kara, are criminal. And there's nothing like an SVP to start saying, "I will provide you with really damning information with a lot of veracity and supporting evidence." There's nothing to get someone providing that kind of evidence under the threat of jail because the threats right now so far have been civil and have been financial. And Facebook's like, "Everybody, don't worry about it. Just refuse to talk to them. We'll lawyer you up and we'll cover the one, five, $20 billion that might happen in three to five years. Don't worry about it. Get back to work. We're good. Continue to delay and obfuscate." But when someone shows up and says, "Hey Bob, I think we can put you in prison," their loyalty to Meta and to Mark and Cheryl go right out the door. And so this Texas attorney general who is supposedly a bit crazy, so to speak, this cartel pricing case in Texas could end up being the reason why Al Capone was put in prison.

Kara Swisher: I think this is a big deal. Granted, I've said this is a big deal about 20 times over the last five years. The problem is it's such a complex process. Now, this is a really great sentence from the Wall Street Journal. "The way ads are bought and sold on the internet is a complex process in which Google plays an outsized role as both the participant in and manager of the auctions that determine sales." Which should give you, like, oh, this is a problem. "Google owns the dominant tool at every link in the chain between online publishers and advertisers, giving it a unique power over the monetization of digital content. It also owns key platforms for reaching consumers, such as YouTube." So they've got everything. As a result, rivals have complained that the tech giant tilted the market in their own favor, allowing it to win more bids and foreclose competition. The amended complaint in its unredacted details aims to illuminate how it works in practice. You're right. Crazy Ken Paxton might be onto something, in other words, is what you're saying. He's the attorney general in Texas.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, I think – look, I got to think that for the first time in a while, a lot of people who are senior at Meta and Google are getting their own personal counsel. Because, again, criminal remedies are an entirely different ballgame. And these organizations so far have created this environment of, keep it fast and loose. It's all about shareholder value. And don't worry, we can stare down and run over and pay anything that ends up being a little bit on the wrong side of the law. This is an entirely different ballgame. So we'll see.

Kara Swisher: Have you talked to anybody?

Scott Galloway: Yeah. I mean, I think they're worried about this.

Kara Swisher: What's interesting is I was talking to – there's a bill advancing in the Senate that would treat Google's search engine like a utility, essentially. So it couldn't advantage its own products and services on its own platform. So they may be forced to spin off DoubleClick, which is where this is from. I do think the more interesting part is these deals between Mark and Sundar and Cheryl and Phil Schindler, who is the chief business officer at Google. And of course, Cheryl used to work at Google. So there's a very close relationship there. So essentially, they're calling it illegal price fixing. That's what they're talking about for people who – even though this seems super complex. But it's a question of – the other part is not just how this system works, which feels very corrupt from the way it's set up or has potential for problems. It's also how easily Google can manipulate prices and nobody knows. It doesn't say they're doing it. It's that it creates that situation. And the other part is that they own so much of it between them, Facebook and Google, that they control the entire thing. So if you're a publisher, this has got to be fantastic for you to start to unravel or at least get paid more. And by the way, Google and Facebook are also taking your content and using it to advantage themselves too. So the whole thing is this fight between publishers and Google and then advertisers and Google and Facebook essentially. Because they also were – Uber wasted $100 million on advertising that wasn't going anywhere. And that's another thing, the over-promising and under-delivering of where things go or not being aware of where things go. Anyway, Google is saying that they don't manipulate auctions and they are trying to help publishers maximize ad sales. But I would say I'd be really interested in this case. I'll tell you that. And what follows in Congress.

Scott Galloway: The problem is the damage has been done. In 2008, I remember advocating to turn off Google. And I think if we could go back in time – or at the New York Times, I think if we go back in time, we'd do it. But meanwhile, so much money has been taken out of the ecosystem. So much money has leaked. They have been able to develop such incredible barriers, such IP, hire so many people. Journalism – the number of journalists has been cut in half. Okay, in 10 years, you might get a check. It just doesn't matter. The enforcement mechanisms – the damage in my view has been done.

Kara Swisher: Price fixing is easier to prove if it's like a drugstore or something. You know what I mean? But what's interesting here is some of the employees who came forward were talking about that this was like insider trading. And that's what's interesting. If they can get to some of these employees' documents, internal correspondence in which Google employees said some of these practices amounted to growing its business through, quote, "insider information." So that's where I'm sort of like, who are they talking to? And there's so many people to talk to. It would seem that they need to simplify it and not make it this weird black box thing. But there was one employee that said the program, quote, "makes the auction untruthful as we determine the ad ex rev share after seeing the buyer's bids," wrote a Google employee in a newly unredacted section of the complaint. The way it's set up already feels like it could – it's sort of like when Jeff Bezos was talking about that, "Oh, maybe we started doing business on batteries because we saw some information from the sales, from the retail side. Maybe we start –" You know what I mean? Like something must have bled over. Because if you own the marketplace and have a marketplace, you're going to have corruption. I just don't see how it's unavoidable, it seems like. But I don't know. I just hope something comes of it.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, something comes of it.

Kara Swisher: All right. Let's go on a quick break. When we come back, we'll talk about Microsoft's biggest deal ever. And then we'll speak with a friend of Pivot, Peter S. Goodman, about what billionaires have done to the world.

[Ad break]

Kara Swisher: Scott, we're back for our second big story. A correction. Last week, we talked about Take-Two's Zynga acquisition as the biggest deal in games history. Well, that's no longer right, but it wasn't our mistake. Microsoft said it is trying to buy – or buying – Activision Blizzard for more than $68 billion. That's not just gaming's biggest deal. That's Microsoft's biggest acquisition ever. I recently interviewed the guy who runs his company, who had been very tough on Activision Blizzard, and then sort of walked it back during the interview, which now I see why. He had been pretty aggressive when all these allegations first came out. But there was also news that Kotick had fired or sidelined or disciplined a bunch of people involved in the sexual harassment stuff. But it's quite complex. Nonetheless, this is a big deal. The shares are down 30% over the last 12 months. It's a very valuable company. I'm sure Microsoft saw an opportunity. So what do you think about this?

Scott Galloway: There's a lot here. The first is the metaverse. The anchor of the metaverse is gaming. And we've been saying that for a long time.

Kara Swisher: Which the CEO of Microsoft noted. But go ahead.

Scott Galloway: No one understands better how to take you into it. If you just want proof of this, try and get your 11-year-old out of the metaverse that he or she is in before dinner. And you see that their brain is rewired. They have their friends there. They're constantly – the only reason they're nice to you is they want your credit card to buy a super laser cannon or something. And you just see the power of these, and they're constantly reinvesting in these things. They're great at it. It is the metaverse. And Microsoft overnight becomes one of the most credible players in, quote unquote, the metaverse. They're taking advantage of the other interesting dynamic here: when a company hits the rocks and comes off of what I'll call mutual hallucinogenic valuations and comes way down, someone steps in and says, "We should talk." I am sure Microsoft had approached Activision before. And even with a 40% premium they're paying, they're paying the same price where the stock was 12 months ago. And you predicted – and you're right – Pinterest will go because it's been hammered. And Peloton is now 80% off. So these things are all in play because they're way off. But it'll be interesting. The suit with Google and Facebook or Meta is a gift to Microsoft because it'll probably divert the DOJ and the FTC from greater scrutiny. We'll see if this goes through. I don't know. They're announcing today, I think, DOJ and FTC merger guidelines, more merger guidelines, Jonathan Kanter and Lina Khan. It'll be very interesting.

Kara Swisher: And I happen to be talking to Lina Khan live, so I'm going to be asking her about this. So, who's the head of the FTC? So I think they are worried about all these mergers and so many of them happening and their inability to keep up. So they're going to outline new merger guidelines and things like that. So I don't know. I think it's – we'll see if this gets through. This is pretty big. They're going to have, I think, a rough – I think they're going to pick one and this could be it of the many mergers that are going through. This is pretty big, and it gives Microsoft, obviously, first-party data, which was the rationale between Zynga and Take-Two. The ability to do mobile, to – Microsoft's also a platform, right?

Kara Swisher: It has the Xbox platform, and now it's owning the games. It's sort of like, you know, Facebook owning Oculus and then owning the games. It doesn't leave a lot of room for other players and this and that. So there'll be all kinds of issues because they have Call of Duty, Candy Crush, Warcraft, World of Warcraft, Diablo, Overwatch, Hearthstone, none of which I've ever played. And it would make Microsoft only the third largest gaming company by revenue behind China's Tencent and Sony. Nonetheless, I'm sure small game developers will have problems with this, I'm guessing.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, they also have major league gaming. But just to give you a sense of how powerful these titles are, let's just look at Call of Duty. If you have a hit movie, a really big movie, like a tentpole iconic, the whole world goes crazy over it, it might do $5 million a day in box office. $150 million in its first month, $300 million in its first 60 days, which sounds like a lot, but it's not. Call of Duty does $5 million a day. And it doesn't go perishable and then go to Netflix and then go to ABC late at night. It makes that money every day. These video game companies, when they have these franchises, it's like having Avengers every goddamn day. These things are such incredible money machines and powerful franchises.

Kara Swisher: And then when you talk about the curse of bigness, which is the title of Tim Wu's book, Microsoft comes in and pays $70 billion to just take these incredible franchises that are the gift they keep on giving. And they're at $70 billion and I think they're going to take a 3% or 4% dilution. I mean, these companies are so big that they can acquire this company. And if it works great, they wrap up. They start to consolidate.

Scott Galloway: And the other thing is Satya Nadella is just hoping that the good people at Meta continue to focus on the Oculus and he'll just go vertical with content and games. And I'm going to pat ourselves on the back. What did we say just literally a week ago? We said that the gaming sector was ground zero for the metaverse and was going to heat up. And what do you know? Here you go. This one I wasn't expecting. You know his valuation went up 40% today. And disclosure, I'm an investor. It's Epic. Epic is bigger. Fortnite is bigger than Call of Duty or Warcraft.

Kara Swisher: Yep. Yep. Sure, Epic's a target. When Facebook and Google and Amazon all realize, okay, we need to buy some insurance against the metaverse and the most powerful part in media, the only thing that's growing outside of streaming. There's no way Meta could buy Epic. Never happening.

Scott Galloway: I agree. Never happening.

Kara Swisher: I agree. At least I hope so. Although they'd love to because they're an enemy of Apple, which is blah, blah, blah. Anyway, this is a big deal. The biggest IPO of 2022, if it goes out, will be Epic. I mean, the gaming, there are so few players left now. Yeah, this is really, I don't know. I think, I'm going to add, this is my first question for Lina Khan. You don't think it's going to go through? They've got to put their foot down somewhere. I'm eager to see what the guidelines they announced today are, between the Justice Department and them. But mergers are out of freaking control, from what I understand, from regulators. They just don't have, it's just over the transom, the money is everywhere. And they have to put their foot down somewhere. And I don't know if it's here or not. It would certainly solve all of Activision's problems around sexual harassment. Microsoft has, by the way, as you remember a couple of years ago and Phil Spencer, who runs Xbox, who is going to be Bobby Kotick's boss. He talked about it a little bit about the issues they had at their company, including if you remember at CES, some strippers or this and that. They had their own sexual issues.

Scott Galloway: Sorry, CS and strippers, that happens in Vegas?

Kara Swisher: I know, but you can't do it at a – it's a long story. They shouldn't have been doing it at a party. Anyway, it was a business party. Anyhow, nonetheless, they have had their own issues. It'll solve a lot of problems for everybody, but I think the government's going to get in the way of this. That's my feeling. But I'm going to ask. I'll ask Lina Khan. She's not going to be able to say, but still. Nonetheless, but so consolidation, rich. So much richness, so much money, so many people, so rich is what we've been talking about. Not that we don't love capitalism, but it's an interesting issue.

Scott Galloway: I was just going to say perception. Perception is so important here because people freaked out and we're talking about Amazon's acquisition of MGM. That was $5 billion, but everyone talks about it because it's James Bond. This is $75 billion. This is nothing. If they're focused on that and not this, they're crazy.

Kara Swisher: That's exactly right. Anyway, let's bring in our friend of Pivot to talk about all this bigness. Peter S. Goodman. Peter is a global economics correspondent for The New York Times and author of a perfectly named book, *Davos Man: How Billionaires Devoured the World*. Welcome, Peter.

Peter S. Goodman: Hey, guys. Great to see you. Thanks for having me.

Kara Swisher: Good to see you. So I guess the first question is, define, I know what Davos Man is, and I cannot stand Davos Man, but talk about who he is and why he's eating everything. Like, why he's such a greedy, horrible person. But go ahead.

Peter S. Goodman: Well, the term was coined back in 2004 by the political scientist Samuel Huntington, and he used it to refer to people who go to the World Economic Forum in Davos. But it quickly became this kind of catch-all for billionaires who write the rules for the rest of us, whose finances are so complicated that they stretch across jurisdictions, which limits their sense of identity by nation. They're really just devoted to the bottom line. But what's most important to understand about Davos Man, and what I argue in the book, is that he's not like the robber barons. He's not content to just own everything and have his name on buildings. He wants us to actually laud him for saving us all. If you look at somebody like Mark Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce, who literally said at Davos last year, "CEOs are the heroes of the pandemic. Without us, we wouldn't have vaccines. We wouldn't have loans. We wouldn't have rescue programs. We wouldn't have anything. Government didn't do the job. We saved you." Which was an incredible thing to hear from someone who, first of all, was riding out the pandemic at his oceanfront mansion in Hawaii or maybe his $28 million residence in San Francisco. Somebody who's paid zero in taxes on billions of dollars in income, which is part of why we all need saving from somebody, because the government has essentially been pillaged by Davos Man.

Kara Swisher: Okay, I'm going to push back a little bit on Mark because I do think he's done a lot more stuff. But I agree, he shouldn't be taking credit all over the place, which he tends to do in some places. But let me just ask you this idea of, we had just talked about, and something I had written about quite a lot, is that the richest people in the world have doubled their wealth since the onset of the pandemic, and the richest companies have tripled, I think, in value or something like that. Talk about why this is a dangerous thing. Because I think one of the things billionaires and other wealthy people push back on is, "We made this money, we created these companies," whether it's Mark or the other Mark or any of them or the Jeffs, etc. What is wrong with them doing that? Explain the danger, other than they have nice yachts. I don't care if they have a nice yacht.

Peter S. Goodman: Look, there's nothing terrible about people making money. In fact, we should praise people who make money on the strength of good ideas and hard work. We live in a capitalist society, and some people are going to make out handsomely, and some people are going to do less well. That's fine. The question is, first of all, how do people do who need some help? Are there resources for people who need some help? Do we have ways to ensure that the bounty of capitalism is spread evenly enough that we have a system that can function when there's something like a pandemic, when people lose jobs, when we're adjusting to changes in geopolitical events, to trade patterns? What's astonishing about this statement from Benioff, and he's not alone, the people who go to Davos are full of their sense of being committed to improving the state of the world. You have all these panel discussions about inequality.

Kara Swisher: Yes, I've been there.

Peter S. Goodman: Anybody who's been there comes away with the sense that you're participating in this incredible charade where we pretend that it's some sort of mystery that there's all this inequality. We talk about automation, we talk about globalization as if these are forces that are bigger than we can control. And we almost never talk about things like taxation. A few years ago, you probably remember Rutger Bregman.

Kara Swisher: Yes, I interviewed him.

Peter S. Goodman: We should not be dependent upon a software guy in Silicon Valley to outfit our frontline medical workers with safety gear in the middle of a pandemic.

Kara Swisher: That would be the government's problem, not Mark's, right? I would presumably correct it.

Peter S. Goodman: Yeah, but the government's problem is connected to how Mark operates because the biggest differentiator between the U.S. economy and every other wealthy economy is that wealthy people don't pay taxes. Where does Mark, where does the rest of Silicon Valley get their engineers? They come from higher education institutions that depend upon tax revenues for financing. They use roads. They use the electrical grid. They use the Internet. All of these pieces of infrastructure get paid for by taxes. If we don't tax wealthy people, then the government just simply doesn't have the wherewithal to take care of our needs. Mark and other Davos Men will tell you that they're giving back through philanthropy. But that's just a fraction of what's required to finance the needs of our nation.

Scott Galloway: First off, Peter, you have a great voice. You should do a podcast. You have a really good voice.

Peter S. Goodman: Thank you. Delighted.

Scott Galloway: Uh-oh, be careful what's coming. But go ahead. So I think you're being heavy-handed with the wrong guys. I agree with every problem. We shouldn't have a regressive tax system that allows, once people get into the outer orbit of wealth, to just pull away from everybody and aggregate hundreds of billions of dollars with lower tax rates. But I think it's your fault, and I think it's my fault, and I think it's Kara's fault. We elect senators who've been ineffective at taxing these individuals. I would argue that we would be doing the same thing. The question is, isn't it our fault that we don't elect people that have the backbone to implement what was at one point a progressive tax policy? I've been to Davos three times. And this is the second thing. I think it's easy to be cynical about it. They make an effort to reach out to nonprofits. They make an effort to reach out to younger people to come talk about technology. That's why I was there. They invited that economist back who got in their face. It's important that people speak to each other. I think it's easy to be very cynical about it, but net-net, I actually think getting people together to discuss these issues is a good thing. So I'll start with, okay, what do you want to change here, and whose fault is it? What are you asking Mark to do? I think Mark is up for change. I think he's concerned about the same issues you are.

Peter S. Goodman: Yeah, Mark is up for change, but one of the changes Mark's up for is, through his participation in the Business Roundtable, which played a central role in delivering the Trump tax cuts, $1.5 trillion worth of tax cuts that were mostly lavished on people like Mark Benioff and other billionaires. It's not like some sort of accident that the people who are in Washington are doing the bidding of people like Mark Benioff. These issues are, I mean, I don't know how many lobbyists you employ, Scott. I employ zero. Amazon's got 100 in Washington, D.C.

Kara Swisher: Kara's sons are my lobbyists. You're taking my lines.

Scott Galloway: But isn't that Citizens United? Isn't that, again, voters, don't we have an obligation to fix the problem? In other words, I think you're hating the players, not the game. You got to say, all right, has Washington been overrun by rich people or is it our idolatry of rich people that lets them get away with this? Haven't we decided that they're better than us and we should tax them at a lower rate?

Peter S. Goodman: Well, it's not us deciding, though. It's the people who are actually running the system. We love our billionaire porn. We like *Succession*. We love to watch *Silicon Valley*. This is all very entertaining. But the artifice of Davos, we can all see through the PR. We can all see through the irony that these people are going to the mountaintop who own all the money and can pull all the strings in government. But the important thing to understand is that their worldview has saturated the popular imagination. Your point underscores that. This idea that it's the public's fault. The public has to elect the people as if the public isn't just a bunch of small incoherent players on a field that is dominated by the very players that you're saying we should give a pass to. These are the people who actually have the money and have the tools to pull the levers in our democracy. The other thing is I think we've accepted very passively these ideas that have not come by accident, that we can either live in a world where people like Benioff and Jamie Dimon and Jeff Bezos harvest all the winnings of capitalism, and then we get Uber and Google and COVID vaccines, or we can be Venezuela. Those are the two binary choices. There's no reason why we can't have innovation and incredible developments like COVID vaccines and also have some rules that ensure that people are paying their fair share.

Kara Swisher: Or just return to the 80s with a radical idea that there was no capital gains tax deduction, that it was just all income. So talk about that. Talk about the solutions. I went to Davos once and I felt like it was rich people licking each other up and down all day. But talk about what could actually happen. I just recently interviewed Elizabeth Warren about the wealth tax, which is going nowhere, which was her idea. So what could happen? What has to happen to make this change? Obviously, our government regulators have got to move in and deal with large consolidation, which we just were talking about with the Activision deal. That's one area. The other area is taxation. And Warren can't get this passed, neither can Sanders. They just can't. And they get attacked by Elon or whoever calling them Karens or whatever they say on Twitter. I think they could care less. But what has to happen? Does there have to be a wealth tax? What occurs to make a change?

Peter S. Goodman: The solutions are pretty simple. It's the execution that you quite rightly point out is really difficult because we're trying to reform a system that is controlled by the people who benefit from not reforming it. That's a pretty big problem when you think about it.

Kara Swisher: We've done that before.

Peter S. Goodman: We have done that before. The robber barons were taken care of by the construction of a whole series of reforms. We had antitrust enforcement. We broke up companies that were clearly monopolies that were behaving in predatory fashion. We did get progressive taxation. We did get a social safety net. The Nordic economies are largely structured this way. Yes, I think we do need a wealth tax for the simple reason that that's where the money is. Jeff Bezos makes about what an elementary school teacher in California makes. If you go by income, Jeff Bezos is going to pay a much smaller portion of his wealth than that elementary school teacher. We're talking about people who have legions of accountants, legions of lawyers who write the loopholes into the tax code and then exploit them. The wealth tax is the neatest, cleanest way to come up with a big chunk of money that we can use for all sorts of social needs, from infrastructure to education. We do need to enforce antitrust.

Kara Swisher: What would that look like? And what about their argument that why would we give more money to the government, which just messes it up when we're so efficient? That's one of their other arguments. We're better at allocating capital than they are.

Peter S. Goodman: Well, that's the standard playbook for how you protect yourself from redistribution. You sabotage the thing that you don't want to finance by withholding your finance. And then when it doesn't work, you say, "Look, it doesn't work. We shouldn't pay anything at all." This is the story of America going back to the 1980s and the Reagan tax revolt. Government is far from perfect. Government can be inefficient. Government can be full of corruption. That's just part of life. But our basic needs, we can't depend upon the beneficence of people like Mark Benioff and Larry Fink to fix all of our problems through things like stakeholder capitalism, which they talk about incessantly in places like Davos. Klaus Schwab, who runs Davos, who founded it, has literally written books about stakeholder capitalism, meanwhile runs the World Economic Forum like a Chinese state-owned enterprise. He's using the forum's funds as a venture capital artery for his own private venture.

Scott Galloway: You should see the headquarters. It feels like a Bond lair. They must have spent – they're a nonprofit and it feels like a spaceship in the sky.

Kara Swisher: Doesn't his name sound like a Bond villain too?

Peter S. Goodman: And he walks around telling people that he's going to win a Nobel Peace Prize. He demands to be –

Kara Swisher: So what would you have them do? Rich people like to gather. I run a conference where rich people like to gather, although I'm meaner to them than Klaus Schwab is for sure. I don't sort of lick them up and down. But nonetheless –

Scott Galloway: His next book, *Code Man*.

Kara Swisher: *Code Woman*.

Scott Galloway: *Code Woman*.

Kara Swisher: How do you create a dialogue to get something done? Why would they in any way not want to strafe Elizabeth Warren, calling her Senator Karen or the mother who screams at friends, or attack Bernie Sanders or attack anybody who is actually – Amy Klobuchar has written an entire giant book you could kill a poodle with about antitrust. It just doesn't stick in the American imagination at all compared to any of these characters.

Peter S. Goodman: Sure. You could say the same thing about climate change, but what do we do then? Do we just give up? Do we just accept that we're going to live in a world run by Davos Man?

Kara Swisher: If you had to pick the three things that have to happen, what would they be?

Peter S. Goodman: Progressive taxation led by a wealth tax, antitrust enforcement, and significant scrutiny of foreign tax shelters, and that has to work in conjunction with other countries. And I would add, we need to reorient international trade. We need to embrace trade. Trade is wealth-enhancing. It's progressive, ultimately. But it's been dominated by people like Jeff Bezos, who makes enough money to blast himself into space while he's depriving his own warehouse workers of protective gear in the middle of a pandemic.

Kara Swisher: Well, he did thank them. He did thank them. "You guys paid for all of this."

Peter S. Goodman: Yes, he did. That was very moving. And we need to boost the power of labor. Larry Fink is out with his latest stakeholder capitalism letter, all these scribes breathlessly dissecting it as like words from the Oracle. The stakeholder that always gets left out is labor. Labor needs to be able to actually bargain and not just depend upon the largesse of people like Benioff. Benioff is a guy who got ink early in the pandemic for this 90-day no layoff pledge, goes on Kramer's Mad Money. Kramer almost has a seizure thanking him for his visionary commitment to humanity. "Oh, my goodness. This just proves that the stakeholders are ruling now." And the next day, Benioff quietly lets it known that 1,000 people are losing their jobs at Salesforce after the 90-day pledge expires. We just have to get over counting on these guys to save us. These guys work for themselves. They work for shareholders. They're very good at it. There's no shame in that. They've produced a lot of incredible creations. We should be grateful for that. I'm not here to demonize tech CEOs or any CEOs. And actually, Scott, I'll take your point. The public has to do its job by getting over the propaganda that Davos Man is putting out there for us, inviting us to invest in their goodness as the solution to life's problems. Life's problems are going to be solved by people exercising democracy. And that happens through taxation and good government and boosting the power of labor.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. All right, Scott, last question.

Scott Galloway: Well, we've already – the notion that the top 1% have captured all of the gains the last 30 years, there's just something wrong with that. I think there's a lot of common ground here. I think most people would agree with a lot of what you're saying. It goes to the remedies. So let's talk about that. My sense is, looking at economic history, wealth taxes don't work because France implements a wealth tax and the wealthiest man in Europe moves to Belgium. Wealth is the most mobile. Wealthy people are the most mobile people in the world. Why wouldn't we just go back to, and I think you're saying this, a system that Reagan proposed where there's just income. There isn't "righteous income," capital gains that gets taxed at a lower rate. For some reason we decided the money that sweat makes is less noble than the money that money makes. And doesn't all of this, in your good arguments, reverse engineer to getting money out of politics? Citizens United. I read somewhere that on average, every billionaire speaks to their respective senator once every 30 days. And they're not calling for their advice, they're calling for their money. Until we get, and we're really the only advanced nation that's led, money overrun. Doesn't it all kind of reverse engineer to that one place, money and politics?

Peter S. Goodman: I don't think it all comes down to that. But yeah, for sure. That's the lever that they're able to pull. But I want to push back on this idea that wealth taxes haven't worked in Europe. Wealth taxes have been eliminated in Europe. In France, Macron, who I call a Davos Man enabler, having spent millions of dollars to upgrade the pool at his residence to increase the quality of the China, spent tens of thousands of euros on haircuts, then slashed wealth taxes.

Scott Galloway: He's a handsome man. He needs the haircut. The guy has to look good. You two are jealous of his hair. It can't look like the governor's mansion in Tennessee. It just has to look stylish.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead, Peter.

Peter S. Goodman: Sorry. Yeah, every American has a crush on Macron. But look, Macron has actually done a lot of good. But one thing he did that was not good was he eliminated wealth taxes just as he increased gas taxes on every working person who happens to live outside Paris. This made people irate and it reinforced the idea that the system just doesn't work. That's one that goes in the other direction. But it's a question of the mechanics. In some countries, like Spain, I think, the wealth tax was set so low that you could be the widow of a butcher with no income at all, living in the same apartment you've lived in in Barcelona for 50 years, and it's suddenly worth more than the wealth tax, and now you have to sell it to pay the wealth tax. That's crazy. If we have wealth taxes at some level like $500 million, I don't think Steve Schwarzman, who's worth more than $18 billion, is going to have to sell much of his modern art collection in order to afford to be able to pay the wealth tax. And if we want to indulge the propaganda of the Davos Men trying to kill this, like, "Oh, it's impossible to value, how do you value a Picasso? How do you value cases of aged Bordeaux?" First of all, they do value those things. They're sold at auctions all the time. Secondly, Nick Hanauer, who's a billionaire who actually favors wealth taxes, came up with a wonderful idea. You want to value your Maserati at five bucks? Okay, then the government has the right to call BS on that and take your Maserati and auction it up. That's a simple way to put this to the test. It's a simple matter of fairness. If people don't believe in the system, then it's impossible to govern. Right now, people don't believe in the system because they can see that it's rigged.

Kara Swisher: It's really interesting. When I talk to any of the billionaires, they get crazy about this. They're like, "This would take all my money." They're convinced of it. They don't understand math and this will push down innovation. And even though I know you say it's PR, they believe it. They really, truly believe they made their money. They deserve it. And that they're the better allocators of capital. Even though it sounds like PR, they actually, in their heart of hearts, believe it.

Peter S. Goodman: Oh, I couldn't agree with that more. And are terrified of someone like Elizabeth Warren. When Mark Zuckerberg called her an existential threat over everything else, that was a tell. I don't think that was PR. I think he actually believes it.

Kara Swisher: Oh, I think you're right about that, Kara. And I actually think, one of the things people don't understand about Davos, I think the public that gets exposed to it a little bit says, "Come on, we can all see through this. This is ridiculous." That's not the point. It's not that we're all supposed to see these guys sitting on the mountaintop promising to solve gender inequality and racism and climate change and knowing that then they're going to go back and cater to the shareholders. It's that they believe it. They leave fired up that, "Oh, I read Mark Benioff's book. I can do well and do good at the same time." It gives them the power. These are the stories that they tell themselves. So then they can go about their lives and say absurd things like Benioff said sometime last year, "We're all one. We're united by this virus that cuts across. It tells us that there's illusion to our borders. Borders are in our minds." Come on, you're sitting in Hawaii looking at the ocean. There are people in slaughterhouses who can't do their jobs by Zoom. There are people who are stuck at very real borders, by the way, with ICE using Salesforce software to enforce those very real borders, putting more money in Benioff's pocket. I think you're right. I think this narrative that we're the good guys and it's not fair. Jamie Dimon said it really hurt his feelings when people attacked him for not paying enough in taxes to the government. Steve Schwarzman at one point likened taxation to Hitler invading Poland and then had to walk that back when that didn't go over so well. I think this is a very real part of their identity, and it's what strengthens them for the fight that they're very good at waging to prevent democracy from realizing the aspirations of the mass of the people.

Kara Swisher: Well, this is certainly going to cause a lot of talk, Peter. I'm sure of it. How many times have you been to Davos?

Peter S. Goodman: I've just been once as a wife of.

Kara Swisher: I've been nine times.

Scott Galloway: Nine? Oh, my God.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, I always have to take a shower at the end of every day.

Scott Galloway: Oh, man.

Kara Swisher: There's a moment where you just need for humanity. You need a better boogeyman than Mark Benioff. Have you looked at these crypto guys?

Peter S. Goodman: Yeah, get to the crypto guys.

Kara Swisher: I think you need a better boogeyman than Benioff. Actually, I walked into an NFT conference in the city the other day, and that kind of blew my mind.

Scott Galloway: By the way, brother, you're a Davos Man. You've been there nine times. Nine times. Jesus. You're the D-Man.

Peter S. Goodman: Peter Goodman with the dreamy voice, D-Man.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, yeah. Did you go to Davos, Scott? Have you been to Davos?

Scott Galloway: I've been there three times, yeah.

Peter S. Goodman: Oh, wow.

Scott Galloway: I got invited when I was 34. I got invited back twice, and then they haven't invited me back.

Kara Swisher: Oh, you were a Global Leader of Tomorrow's yesterday or whatever? Did you get one of those things?

Scott Galloway: Global Leader, the Global Leaders of Tomorrow, as I refer to us, douchebags.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, yeah. My ex-wife was one of those. And I went as a wife of, so I didn't have to go as a press person. And I got to go to all the good stuff because I was like plus one, essentially. And the only way I could get in, basically. And so I was in the coffee break room. I'll never forget this. And there was a woman getting coffee. And I was like, "What do you do?"

Kara Swisher: And she's like, "I'm the prime minister of Latvia." And I'm like, "That's a good job." I literally went, "That's a good job. That's a good job. Wow, cool. I have a similar job." They have shitty hotels because, you know, Bill Gates and George Soros are the only ones with nice hotels. So it's all these bad chalets. I went downstairs to grab a drink. I was so jet lagged. I sat down and the guy next to me was Yasser Arafat. And the guy on the right of me was Warren Beatty. I'm like, "Fuck, I'm hallucinating." That's amazing.

Scott Galloway: The first time I was there, I stayed in some kind of chalet where you had to share a bathroom with like 25 other people. You're spending like $400 a night. I stupidly drove a car there and had to back it up this steep icy hill. Then it didn't move for the entire time I was there. You spend your whole time just being confused, slipping on the ice. You realize that's kind of the experience for just about everyone, except maybe for the prime minister of Latvia and Warren Beatty.

Kara Swisher: She was very nice. Let me just say, she's a very nice lady. Anyhow, I think it was the premier or the prime minister. I don't really know. Riga is a great party town. Whatever. Anyway, this is going to cause a lot of—we do—we think you should focus on—we have a list of others you might want to focus on compared to. Serve them up. Serve them up. All right. This is *Davos Man* by Peter Goodman from *The New York Times*. How billionaires devoured the world, and they're still doing it every day. Anyway, thank you so much, Peter. Thanks, Peter. Nice to meet you. Thank you guys for your great questions. Well, that was fascinating. Of course, let's just be clear, Salesforce is a sponsor of ours. But that's okay. Mark can take it. All right, Scott, one more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails.

[Ad break]

Kara Swisher: Okay, Scott, wins and fails. Go ahead.

Scott Galloway: Go ahead. Do you have any?

Kara Swisher: This weekend, I do. I have a win. Let me just say, *Encanto*, which is now streaming, if you saw the very good *New York Times* piece about Bruno—no, no, no, we don't talk about Bruno. What an amazing song. It's topping the charts, all the songs on. It's wonderful. It is a wonderful—the Golden Child watched it with us this weekend. It's delightful. It is not *Frozen*, which is great. It's delightful. It's beautiful. It's heartfelt. Lin-Manuel Miranda, of course, wrote the original music. The songs are catchy. They're earworms. It's beautifully done. It's all just wonderful. I can't say enough about the movie. It's fantastic, everything about it. It's getting a lot of coverage because it didn't do well at the box office, and they say that Spotify and TikTok have kind of breathed life into it. And streaming, it's really killing it in streaming, apparently, and across the music thing.

Scott Galloway: That's right. People are doing TikToks of, especially "We Don't Talk About Bruno," but some of the other songs. There's one called "Surface Pressure." The depiction—it's just so beautiful. It's such a beautiful movie. I couldn't recommend it enough. And you will get that one song. Again, the *Times* did a great piece about how they created it and did the dancing around it. A lot of technology involved, obviously, in how they depicted the dancing and then translated it to animation. Just fantastic. Fantastic on every front.

Kara Swisher: Okay. That's it. Nice. So I have a couple wins. I don't have a fail.

Scott Galloway: Well, my first win is it's almost the one-year anniversary of Biden's inauguration. I think that actually 12 months in, we have two-thirds of America vaccinated. I don't think we do a good job. I think President Biden's team has done a really terrible job of messaging. And it might be just a function of the environment that you're in—you can't ever message well if you're the president. But if you look at the state of America where it was a year ago, I think the world is a better place. I think America is a better place. I think we've started to reattach to some of our allies. Two-thirds of America is vaccinated. For the first time in 40 years, labor appears to have some of the leverage and pricing power that Peter was talking about. The economy is absolutely on fire. I think the temperature has come down a little bit. I wouldn't say a lot, but I think he's surrounded himself with competent people. The free leader of the world isn't in the business of gaslighting anymore. So, look, record vaccinations. I'd like to think that at some point for the vaccinated, the virus is going endemic. The economy is on fire. We've had the greatest reduction in childhood poverty that we've ever seen. People don't talk enough about that. So, look, my win is the first year of the Biden administration. I don't think it gets the credit it deserves.

Kara Swisher: Wow, that's against everybody else's sort of—as you know, I'm just saying.

Scott Galloway: Don't let the narrative define your viewpoint.

Kara Swisher: Fair point, fair point. And my other win is, and this is just so up my alley, is Ricky Gervais' final season three of *Afterlife*. I mean, it's about a depressed guy with a dog. So I kind of relate to this. It's like looking in a mirror watching the program. But it's really about relationships and everybody's got to have a code. I think Ricky Gervais' code is obviously atheism, but I think it's very empowering and liberating. It talks a lot about relationships and the finite nature of life. I thought it was a very powerful piece of work. I literally binged the whole thing last night and I'm kind of just waylaid by it emotionally. I think it's a very powerful piece if you think a lot about if you've lost somebody or you think about what it means to be here. I think it was really powerful. I have a lot of—I find comedians play such an iconic role in our society in terms of creating the narrative. And his view of afterlife, or specifically not believing in afterlife. Some of it is just so fucking cringeworthy and funny. I mean, he literally takes the most sensitive, gross topics and just says, "I'm going to triple click on that." Anyways, I thought it was a wonderful piece of media. Ricky Gervais' *Afterlife* Season 3. I thought it was wonderful. I'd actually like—I don't know if he—I doubt he listens to this. But if he listens to this, I would love to have him on my CNN Plus show to talk about a variety of things. Anyways, my wins are the first year of the Biden administration and Ricky Gervais' Season 3 of *Afterlife*.

Kara Swisher: What about fails?

Scott Galloway: I don't have any fails today. I'm depressed, so I don't want to go further down. I don't want to go down that rabbit hole.

Kara Swisher: All right. Okay. It's totally waylaid by that show. All right. Well, then that's good. Let's not have a negative then. Let's not have a fail. All right. I actually have a fail. I think I'm watching the political stuff starting to get coverage. As much as I read all those stories like the Trump versus DeSantis, I think it's so distracting from what's actually happening. That political coverage has got to get a lot more nuanced going forward instead of this us versus them mentality. It's so complicated. Meanwhile, they're doing all kinds of hijinks together in violent agreement with each other. So I think one of the things we have to pay attention to is not doing the typical entertainment coverage of politics. It's very critical this year not to do so. I was like, "I can't believe I'm reading this." And then I was reading it. So I'd like it to be much more complicated than who's up and who's down. I really would. It just doesn't change. It doesn't seem to change. So maybe I should stop reading. Anyhow, that would be my negative.

Scott Galloway: All right, Scott, on Friday, we'll take a listener question. So send us a good one. Go to nymag.com slash pivot and ask away. That is the show. We'll be back on Friday for more. We did this special show, even despite the holiday, we're releasing a day late. But we'll be back on Friday as usual for more. Scott, read us out.

Scott Galloway: Today's show was produced by Lara Nehman, Evan Engel, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Nidratat engineered this episode. Make sure you subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts. If you're an Android user, check us out on Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. If you like the show, please recommend it to a friend. Thanks for listening to *Pivot* from New York Magazine and Vox Media. We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. MLK said something along the lines of, "There's a special place in hell for people who are indifferent." Don't sit on the sidelines. If you're upset about some of the stuff you hear about here or elsewhere, do something. Your time, your treasure, your talent.