원문 보기
If you are a billionaire, first of all, you probably became one because you believe that money is the only thing that truly matters. So, you will pay excessive attention to them. However, his money will not change the fact that the House of Representatives will change control. The other thing is that for him there is value in the perception itself, right?
So as long as politicians consider fundraising to be really important, if they are seen as the biggest funder , it creates a certain level of fear and deterrence, which is in their favor anyway. And for ordinary people, that kind of money is, of course, incredible, but if you're literally worth a trillion dollars, and it's just a statistical error, it might be worth it purely for the image.
Welcome to "Real Estate Markets". I'm Ed Elson. Today is October 14th. Let's check yesterday's market performance. The S&P 500 index was unchanged after the New York Fed president eased concerns about an aggressive rate hike cycle. Meanwhile, the Dow and Nasdaq declined. The yield on 10-year bonds has fallen from last week's highs.
Brent crude oil held above $106 per barrel. And finally, the reporting season has begun with banks. JP Morgan Chase shares fell after a rare earnings miss due to a decline in bond trading and deals. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs shares rose as a strong quarter in equity trading led them to better-than-expected results.
By the way, we were nominated for three Signal Awards. So if you like our show, please go to vote.signalaward.com and vote for us in each of the three categories: Best Video Podcast, Best Daily Podcast, and Best Money & Finance Podcast. We will also leave a link in the description to make it easier for you.
Thank you very much. OK. What else is happening? The richest man in the world is quietly redrawing the political map of America again. In the last 3 months, Elon Musk has spent $276 million on his political action supercommittee and other Republican groups. That brings his total spending for the 2025-2026 election cycle to about $366 million, well above the $290 million he spent in 2024 to help Trump and Republicans return to power.
But Musk is not alone. According to the New York Times, 20 major donors spent a combined $1.2 billion on this year's election. All but two supported the Republicans. Meanwhile, AI and cryptocurrency groups spent $127 million on 100 primaries this year, and they won about 90% of them. So, we're joined by Bradley Tusk, venture capitalist , political strategist, and author, to discuss the money that influences midterm elections.
Bradley, welcome back to the air. I would like to start with that amount of $366 million . Your reaction . This is obviously a large sum, isn't it? You can't say it's not true. And I'm not going to sit here and say it won't have an impact, because it will. That said, let me express a somewhat harsh opinion about all of this: I believe the role and perceived importance of money in campaigns is overrated.
I think most of the money in a political campaign goes to television commercials. So the reason why terrestrial TV is so expensive is because the number of frequencies is limited, and therefore, there are limited times per day ; So there is a market value for a 30-second or 60-second commercial, and it can be very high.
Yes, in a place like New York, it could easily cost a million dollars for a few days of running 60- second spots. However, not many people watch broadcast television these days, right? I see it when I watch sports, some people watch news, but in general people watch TV through streaming, and there are ads, but most of the time people don't see them or can ignore them.
Huge amounts of money are spent on direct mail. It's the same thing when you open your mailbox and there are annoying big postcards saying someone is a pedophile or something like that. They go to the trash, and I think they get there without even drawing people's attention in most cases. And if you look at a lot of recent political phenomena, whether it's Donald Trump on the right or Zephyr Teachout Mondane on the left, they did n't win because they had the most money.
They won because they had the most energy and were in tune with the spirit of the times. So, Mondane won because accessibility was the issue that most concerned people voting in the New York primary, and he was a charismatic candidate who did incredibly well on social media. Thanks to social media and grassroots movements, he was able to win, and in the general election he competed against Andrew Cuomo.
Cuomo spent 70 million, Mondane - 17. Mondane defeated him. And the reason is that Cuomo's ad was just very ordinary, you know, like at 6 p.m. on NBC News, and I don't think it had any impact on anyone . Trump was outspent by both Harris and Hillary Clinton, but he defeated both. And so I think that while money is certainly an issue in politics, it's less significant than people think.
He said in May 2025, this is Elon Musk, he said, quote, " In terms of political spending, I'm going to spend significantly less in the future." And then suddenly he showed up and spent more money on this election than he ever had before, which suggests that he must be feeling some desperation. Perhaps, first of all, what is the return on investment here ?
How does he think this investment in the midterm elections will pay off for him? And secondly, wouldn't it be a waste of money ? Because it looks like the Republicans' ratings aren't that high. I think it will be a waste to a large extent, but I think the payback for him is in two things. The first is the reality that the people he helped elect now owe him money, and whether it's SpaceX, or Tesla, or the Boring Company, or something else, he can turn to them for help.
He is also likely trying to prevent a change of control in the House of Representatives , because when the oversight committee starts questioning everyone, private individuals, unlike government officials, don't have the same ability to fight subpoenas. So Musk and Jared Kushner will be very frequent guests in Congress over the next year or two.
However, despite this, his money will not change the fact that the House of Representatives will change control. Another thing is that for him there is value in the perception itself, right? So as long as politicians consider fundraising to be very important, if they are seen as the biggest funder , it creates a certain amount of fear and deterrence that is beneficial to them anyway.
And for ordinary people, such amounts of money are, of course, unthinkable. If your fortune is literally a trillion dollars and it's just a statistical margin of error, it might be worth it purely for the sake of perception. Yes. Looking at the amount of billionaire spending now, $300 billion was a fifth of all federal campaign contributions in the 2024 election .
These numbers continue to grow with each election cycle. You say they probably have less influence than we think, but is there a point where they do start to influence our democracy? In fact, it's the opposite. I think the impact is there up to a certain point, and then the returns become very rapidly diminishing.
There is a limit to how many ads you can see before you start ignoring them completely . And when everyone keeps saying the same thing, just throwing words around, you stop paying attention. Therefore, I believe that the first money invested can be effective, but over time its impact weakens. But keep in mind: if you are a billionaire, first of all, you probably became one because you believe that money is the only thing that really matters.
Therefore, you will give them excessive importance. And secondly, it's the only thing you have, right? Your support— supporting Elon Musk—would hurt most candidates , wouldn't it? So, you can't really influence in any other way, because that's just your only real resource. And I think there are still ways to use money.
For example, my consulting firm runs the Invest in Tomorrow political action supercommittee, which is a clean energy supercommittee, and they removed some members of the Freedom Caucus who were very anti-clean energy. But they did it by trying to act very inventively. For example, Chip Roy, a congressman from Dallas, ran for attorney general of Texas.
He was way ahead of the rest when we entered the race, and we started running ads that weren't on television and weren't even about clean energy. Our first ad was called " Not MAGA Enough," and its main message was that Chip Roy was n't loyal enough to Donald Trump and was n't conservative enough. And we only ran this ad on Rumble and Truth Social.
So we were reaching people who are very active voters in the Republican primaries. And as a result, Roy lost that race by a margin of 11 percent. And we have done this repeatedly with other people. So, money can be useful, but $6 million has been spent on all this work so far . I mean, we're not talking about huge amounts of money, and three sitting members of Congress have already been removed.
Several other primaries have already been won. So it's not that money can't help, it's just that it has rapidly diminishing returns. The very nature of technology has changed the way we engage with voters, making free or very cheap things like social media extremely influential, while expensive and outdated tools like broadcast television are much less effective .
Do you have any guesses about how these midterm elections will go? You said that the composition of the House of Representatives will change. What about the Senate? Look, you can look at the projections or something like that, and it looks like the Democrats will have about 52 seats. But the question arises: for what?
Ultimately, I dislike Trump so much that I support anything that goes against him, even though I'm an independent, but, you know, whether Democrats have a majority in the House and Senate, or just in the House, no legislation moves forward. Yes, judicial confirmation, some minor issues, but in the Senate, 60 votes are still needed to overcome a filibuster.
The Democrats won't even have about 60 votes, and I would say the midterm elections won't have much of an impact on the tech sector simply because Trump is so anti- regulation that he will veto it . They will not be able to overcome it, and at the state level, many laws will still be passed, but on a bipartisan basis.
Both Republican and Democratic governors oppose artificial intelligence. They are going to take on the data sectors. So basically, I think that despite all the attention and money, at least in my field of technology, the results will be pretty much the same regardless of who wins or loses in a few weeks.
Is there a scenario in which receiving money from billionaires who are becoming less and less popular in popular culture could harm you? So, if it becomes known that you received money from Elon Musk, is that bad? Sam Altman is a good example of this. There were congressional primaries in New York. It was a key seat in Manhattan, arguably one of the most famous districts in the country, and Alex Boras was one of the two leading candidates.
There were many candidates, but Open AI came out very aggressively against him because he passed regulation of advanced models in Albany, and that gave his campaign a boost. Because when voters heard that Sam Altman hated Alex Boras, it made them love Alex Boras. So, Boras lost, but Sam Altman, in trying to destroy Boris, inadvertently helped them.
So yes, I think these companies need to be very careful, because at least in areas like social media, data centers, and certain forms of AI, like advanced models and hyperscalers, the hostility is so great that it could lead to collateral damage. Before you go, what do you think the future of money in politics will be?
The amounts will probably continue to grow. I think efficiency will continue to decline. And I think it will take some time before this is fully realized, because there is a huge industrial complex of people who make money from political money. Therefore, they do nothing to dispel the illusions of billionaires, and billionaires fundamentally believe that the only thing that matters in life is money, especially their own.
So they won't be in a hurry to say, "Oh, no, no, I don't think there's really a return on investment here ." And so, while I don't think that this money will be spent for the most part , I think it will continue to be spent. OK. Bradley Tusk is a venture capitalist , political strategist, and author.
Bradley, it's always good to see you. Thank you. Thanks for the invite, dude. I am grateful for this . Okay, guys. Thank you. As a reminder, please vote for us at the Signal Awards. Go to vote.signalaward.com. We appreciate it very much. We will be back soon. And if you like the show, don't forget to subscribe to the Profitt Markets YouTube channel using the link below.
The show is supported by the Upwork platform. Business owners know that to grow, you need to become a jack of all trades, but there are times when you just want to hire a specialist in a very specific area. In such cases, you 'll be glad you have Upwork. Upwork gives your business quick access to highly skilled professionals with deep knowledge.
With their help, you can fill critical skills gaps, launch projects faster, and scale support without the commitment of hiring full-time employees. Find experts in everything from software development and AI implementation to design and business operations. View profiles , evaluate past work, and get help defining the tasks for the role.
There is also a Business Plus plan, which gives you access to the top 1% of talent on Upwork. And when it comes to operational matters like contracts and payments, Upwork takes care of it all . With over 170,000 freelancers with five-star ratings, you can hire with confidence , knowing you're getting proven work experience.
Visit upwork.com right now and post your job for free . This is upwork.com to find the best talent ready to help grow your business. This is u p w o r k dot com, upwork.com. The show is supported by Granola. Most meetings end with a bunch of tasks floating around in the air but not specifically recorded anywhere.
Someone thinks they are doing something, but it is not actually written down anywhere. A week later, nothing has been done, and no one knows who is responsible for the task. This is the problem that Granola was created to fix. Granola is an AI-powered notepad that makes meeting notes useful. It captures everything that happens in your meetings and turns it into clear, structured notes with highlighted solutions and tasks that are easy to find.
And the best part is that Granola integrates easily into your current workflow. No settings, no configuration, no hassle. It turns chaotic meeting conversations into something you can refer to even weeks later. Your notes become structured, searchable, and ready to be executed. You get better notes in one place, staying focused on the meeting without extra work.
Once you try it at your first meeting, you won't be able to do without it. You can try it out for free, just go to granola.ai/markets. This is granola.ai/markets to get your time back. Go to granola.ai/markets and try it out during your next conversation. We return to Profitt Markets. Fears of an AI bubble are once again spooking investors, and chipmakers are falling.
The worst was yesterday in South Korea, where shares of semiconductor companies make up the majority of the market. Korea's KOSPI index fell 5.5%, SK Hynix fell more than 3%, and Samsung fell more than 7%. These concerns have also affected American chip manufacturers. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index fell for the fifth straight day, and Micron shares fell about 5%.
Meanwhile, warnings about an AI bubble continue to pour in from banks around the world . The IMF warned yesterday that a sharp drop in investment in AI could reduce global GDP by 1.1% by 2028. Last week, Bank of America analysts said a bubble was inflating in tech stocks , and Jefferies analysts wrote that the AI boom would likely end in, quote, “ mass destruction of capital.” So, is Wall Street changing its mind about AI?
To find out , we speak with Gil Luria, head of technology research at DA Davidson. Gil, good to see you. Thank you for joining us. So, chip stocks are having a tough week right now . The KOSPI index is falling, and it is, of course, largely made up of these companies that produce chips and memory. What is causing this sell-off right now?
Why are investors so worried ? Well, there are plenty of worrying headlines: from misunderstandings about OpenAI's gross and net revenue, competition with China, opposition to building data centers, to the politicization of AI. There are a lot of similar headlines, and the market is very nervous. But, you know, we're financial analysts, we work with income statements, cash flows, and revenue statements .
And everything we've heard over the last few weeks—I want to emphasize this—from all the companies in the AI value chain is not only showing very good results, but also that the market is in a better state now than it was three months ago. They say their forecasts have improved , raise expectations, and claim that their predictability is now better than ever.
This applies to everyone from chip equipment manufacturers to chip manufacturers themselves , hyperscalers, and model developers. So I think investors are nervous because they just don't believe this can last long, and that's understandable. On the one hand, time will tell, but on the other hand, companies need to better explain why they claim to have such good visibility of results.
Here are some recent comments from banking research that I just collected. Barclays sound quite concerned. They stated: I quote, a total AI revenue of about $250 billion would not be enough when the ecosystem needs much more than a trillion. I have not yet been presented with any credible model of where this money is supposed to come from.
Jefferies said it was no longer possible to assume that large language models would ever become profitable at all . There are signs of the 2008 credit crisis in the real estate market in this AI boom. As for the chip supply chain, as you said, the profits are great, the money is coming in, and it looks like that will continue in the next 12 months.
It seems like a lot of the fear arises as you go down the value chain or supply chain, where a lot of the companies doing big language modeling, AI labs, have yet to demonstrate profitability. It is not entirely clear how sustainable this ecosystem really is and how long these super profits for chip manufacturers will last.
What is your view on these concerns at this point? Yes, I'm going to take the opposite position on many of these arguments. Let's start with the fact that in the next few hours Anthropic will be giving us a somewhat more formal update on its revenue for the first time. And when they reveal their current revenue levels, it is likely that when combined with Open AI's figures, we will get an amount well over a hundred billion dollars.
A year ago, that number was maybe ten billion dollars, and the year before that, zero. These are the real costs to companies and consumers of using AI models. By the way, these numbers probably provide a gross margin of 60 to 80%, depending on whether it's net or gross income, which is a very high level of profitability.
Open AI probably doesn't have positive cash flow right now. Anthropic may have a positive cash flow because their growth was so rapid that they didn't have time to spend money. But considering the growth, their income is actually quite profitable and continues to grow very rapidly. The nature of long-term investments in economics is that in the first year you invest money, in the second year you get a small profit, which grows in the third, fourth, fifth and sixth years.
We are really in our first year. Of course, we don't generate enough to justify profitability. We need the second, third, fourth, and fifth years to be much more profitable than the first to justify the investment made. But, again, there are signs that companies and consumers are willing to spend ten times more on AI models than last year, and twice as much as three months ago.
And as this growth continues, we look forward to the opportunity to make huge profits. I think this will be the most likely trend in the next 12 months. Obviously, the more important question is what happens after this. Will the models get better? Will their adoption improve in corporate technology organizations?
Will we use AI models? Will they create real value? These are more global questions, but looking at the next 12 months, the answer is probably yes. It's what comes next that scares investors. Regarding the profitability of Open AI and Anthropic, we will focus on Anthropic for the time being in gross margin calculations.
It seems that one of the open questions is how exactly they calculate it. In particular, do they exclude training costs, which are obviously among the largest, compared to inference costs, i.e. the cost of actually running the model versus building it. So, there remains an open question to which I have not yet found a real answer .
Do they take this into account or exclude it? Additionally, there is the question of whether they exclude their revenue sharing agreements with other companies, such as Amazon. If the answer is that they exclude them, does that change your perspective on the issue of sustainability? Yes, so we're talking about accounting.
Let's just go through the OpenAI numbers since there was so much discussion last week. Let's say it's $70 million, including the hyperscaler share, which is $20 billion. So, 50 billion goes to OpenAI, and they probably get $30 in gross profit from it. So, this 30 billion is the amount after deducting only computational costs.
Revenue from inference after computational costs and after the markup for hyperscalers. Yes. Now their tuition costs—this is the next part— are probably over $30 now. Certainly. But that's like saying that startups that have 80% gross margins but spend a lot on R&D and sales can also be unprofitable.
It is at this stage of the cycle that OpenAI is currently at. The good news is that tuition costs are not actually increasing faster than income. And part of that is because we're starting to train models that are so big that you can only spend a certain amount, and the cluster can only be a certain size.
So OpenAI may be unprofitable, it probably is unprofitable right now overall, but it is profitable in terms of gross margin, which is how much revenue they make after taking into account the cost of computing. And again, I would say, we assume that on a net basis it's more like 80%, and on a gross basis it's about 60%.
These are still pretty healthy margin numbers for a company that didn't exist a few years ago and is still growing very quickly. Given the size of their training costs, don't you think that to some extent the only thing we should be concerned about is the overall profitability picture? Because I guess I think this is a completely different type of company where the cost of training models is just huge, and yes, this is a long-term perspective.
And so, you know, for any other startup, you might not include that in your gross profit calculation. But I think the overall profitability picture is quite important here, as it is unclear whether these training costs will decrease significantly in the near future, or whether they will ever disappear altogether.
This is because for Anthropic and OpenAI to continue to have this level of growth and profitability, their models need to constantly get better, and therefore they will have to spend a lot on training. So it is entirely speculative whether they will ever become fully profitable overall, i.e. including hyperscaler payments, compute and training costs.
This is why Anthropic's IPO will be very speculative, because let's not forget that a significant portion of consumer and corporate spending on AI now falls on these two companies. It wo n't always be like this. There will be a whole layer of applications that will be built on top of these companies, and it will go to other players, mainly hyperscalers.
And then a significant portion of the market will move to cheaper models, open- source models, open-source models. So , their market will not necessarily continue to grow at the same pace. Their target market and their ability to grow are in big question. I completely agree with this. But I would argue that application-level revenue , revenue from other models, open source revenue will continue to flow into the system and fund investments, even if Anthropic and OpenAI are not the winners they look like now.
So do you think that ...because I often hear in conversations, especially online, that OpenAI and Anthropic are doing well. And I'm inclined to think they still look very speculative. They are unique in that they are startups with a capitalization of one and a half or two trillion dollars. Startups have a very high failure rate.
We are comfortable with startups losing money because we know that these are extremely risky investments and therefore they can fail. They can go bankrupt. That's how I perceive these two companies. We seem to agree that this probability is significantly higher than any other company we typically talk about in the public markets.
But your point is that the ecosystem itself will be sustainable with or without them. So we shouldn't worry too much about the companies that are higher up the chain, that is, the supply chain companies, the chip manufacturers. That's right. Because when we use an open- source model, an open-source model, we still use GPUs, CPUs, and memory.
It doesn't matter if we host it in a data center, on our own servers, or on a device, we still need GPUs, CPUs, and memory. It doesn't really matter what model it is. But I think it's important that you emphasize that these two investments are highly speculative . Yes. I really think they have...there are reasons to believe they can be successful, just like any other startup.
It all really depends on the team they have. They have some of the most talented people in the world building these AI tools, and they continue to make new, impressive breakthroughs. And I really think that even in the long term, they will probably occupy the premium segment of the market. The most powerful tokens used for the most important systems will still likely come from cutting-edge developments, dominated by these two companies, with Google being more of an outsider.
But overall spending on AI is likely to be much broader than these two companies, and could end up being much larger than these two companies. Yes. Looking at the valuations of some of these chip companies, I was looking at them, and that happens often when I look at chipmaker stocks . I'm surprised they're actually quite cheap, at least based on forward earnings .
Looking at SK Hynix, for example, which has been hit hard, is trading at 3.5 forward earnings, Samsung at 3.7, Micron at five. There are some other companies that are, frankly, just overvalued. I was just looking at AMD at a 51x ratio. What is your feeling about valuations in the chip sector and to what extent do you think investors are factoring in the possibility of some significant correction or crash?
Yes, there is a huge imbalance here. The market has conflicting views. There are three or four companies that he treats as if the cycle has already ended. You mentioned them: SK Hynix, Micron, Nvidia, Broadcom. They're trading, you know, at multiples of 18 and four or five, respectively, while most of the semiconductor complex is still trading at multiples of 30, 40, 50.
Yeah. So the market says, "Yes, for any other chip company, we believe the cycle will continue until 2030. And for these four, no, the cycle is already over." This makes no sense, because if the cycle continues until 2030, these four companies will receive most of the profits. Not only will they continue to grow, they will take the lion's share of the profits.
So this is a big imbalance. Part of this is due to trade. This is partly due to the law of large numbers. But realistically, these four companies are where the opportunity lies, unlike other chipmakers who play a smaller role in the AI ecosystem, yet the market values them as if the AI cycle will definitely last until 2030.
One company that you identified as, let's say , unstable, at least from a financial perspective, I thought of you when I saw this— Coreweave, because their debt is being sold off en masse right now . Their unsecured bonds are currently yielding 15%. What's happening with Coreweave now? What does this tell us about this company?
And what does this tell us about the larger development of AI infrastructure? Yes, there are many factors regarding Coreweave, why it is a prime example of risks, right? And Yes. I would say that if the AI cycle starts to slow down, or certainly if it reverses, Coreweave will be the first to suffer.
The value of their equity will fall to zero. And the reason is that this is a clear example of a bad strategy: borrowing at very high interest rates to create a speculative asset. Again, this is a speculative investment, a speculative asset, and they are borrowing at 9 % to finance it. And the return they are getting now is about 1%.
And at best, they predict they will reach 4 or 5%. Since your audience includes private investors, it's like an investor taking out a margin loan at 9% to buy Treasury bonds with a yield of 5%. This is the destruction of value. This is the essence of Coreweave. If things don't go well, they won't be able to pay the interest on their debts.
They will simply be washed off the market. Before we finish , can I get a list of company names that you like and dislike in this sector right now, because I think that was very informative and helpful. In the semiconductor field, we have already discussed the ones we like. So , it's mostly Micron, Nvidia, to some extent Broadcom and SK Hynix.
There is a group of companies in the software space that are doing phenomenally well, and they will continue to do so. These are Palantir, Snowflake, Datadog, Shopify, CrowdStrike. Extremely good companies that benefit from AI tools getting better. They create more and more value. Their growth is accelerating.
They have performed well recently, but in the future they will all become much larger companies. And what names don't you like? Coreweave? Yes, uh C3.ai, um Cerebrus, these imitators. Of course. Well, we're grateful for that. Gil Luria—Head of Technology Research at DA Davidson. Gil, thank you very much for your time.
Thank you. Thank you. We will be back soon. And if you like the show, be sure to subscribe to the Prof G Markets YouTube channel at the link below. The show is supported by Framer. The future of website creation is a seamless combination of all the tools available to us. That's why you should use a platform that has it all and remains useful even after launch.
That's what Framer is. Framer is an AI-powered website builder that helps creators, teams, and businesses produce ready-to -use websites faster than ever, with every detail taken into account . You will be able to create requests, review, edit, and publish in one place with a whole new level of speed.
In Framer, agents and people work together. Agents provide speed and scale, while humans provide taste, judgment, and control. And it all happens in one workspace, where the real site is developed, managed, tested, and published. Everyone's ideas go onto the canvas, remain editable, and can be published when the team is ready.
Framer is an enterprise-level solution . Thousands of companies, from early- stage startups to Fortune 500 companies, choose to build their sites with Framer, where changes take minutes instead of days. Learn how to get more from your site with a Framer expert, or start building for free today at framer.com/markets with a 30% discount on an annual Framer Pro plan.
This is framer.com/markets. Rules and restrictions may apply. We are back from Prof G Markets. The White House has asked Kimberly Guilfoyle to resign as U.S. ambassador to Greece. This came after the Wall Street Journal reported that she demanded $100,000 from a wealthy Trump donor in exchange for access to the president.
Reports indicate that Guilfoyle promised Trump to be, quote, “faithful to his death,” and even pledged to lobby for his interests at the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice . Instead, he helped finance her lavish lifestyle, which included private jet flights to elite resorts. Announcing that she had been asked to resign, the new White House press secretary, Katie Zakharyev, wished the ambassador well, calling her, and I quote, "a wonderful asset to the team." Yes, aside from the lies, corruption, and bribery, I'm sure she was great.
The good news is that at least the White House appears to be doing something about this corruption. I wouldn't be surprised if they simply denied this report, called it fake news, or simply ignored it. Instead, they acknowledged it and politely asked her to leave. It's a low bar, I know, but it's a bar nonetheless.
The question now is whether they will do anything about all the other corruption scandals that have gone unpunished. Will they do anything, for example, about Tom Homan, who accepted $50,000 in exchange for a promise to help win government contracts, while still running the government's deportation program ?
Will they do anything about Howard Latnick, who negotiated $1.6 billion in federal funding for a Kazakhstan mining project from which his sons ultimately received commissions through his investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald? Will they do anything about Jared Kushner, who has actively directed America's foreign policy in the Middle East, including the decision to go to war with Iran, while simultaneously raising money for his private foundation from Middle Eastern governments and sovereign wealth funds; or Eric and Don Jr., who invested in 15 private companies just before they won more than $3 billion in federal contracts ; or, of course, Trump himself, who sold $220 million worth of shares in the first 3 months of the year while simultaneously selling Wall Street early access to his social media posts?
Will any of these people be held accountable? Will it just be Kimberly Guilfoyle? The truth is that the corruption that Guilfoyle engaged in as ambassador actually pales in comparison to the corruption we see in the rest of government structures. And maybe that's why they asked her to resign. Maybe it's their way of saying, " See, we got through this." "We also do not approve of corruption." Meanwhile, nothing was done about all the other corruption we observed.
And while Ms. Guilfoyle should probably go to jail, you can be sure she'll be fine. The White House expects us to just nod and ignore the corruption we see every day, every week, but we document it all. And until someone is held accountable for this, until someone is behind bars, I'm sorry, but we won't move on.
Thank you for listening to " Real Estate Markets" from Property Media. If you liked what you heard, subscribe to our YouTube channel and join us tomorrow for new releases.
Comments 0