Economic Impact of the Ongoing Iran War

You can tell a lot about a person by their accent. I really do say I pack my cat and have it yet. Everyone around here says like a coffee and dog . We're so attached to the way that we sound because it tells a part of the story of who we are. Your accent decoded. That's this week on Explain It To Me. Find new episodes Sundays wherever you get your podcasts Megan Rapino here. This week on a touchmore we've got two insiders to help us unpack the WMBA's new CBA three-time champion and WMB PA Vice President Alicia Clark, aka C, and ESPN basketball analyst Andrea Carter. We're also gonna take a look at our NCAA brackets and check out what's next in March Madness. Check out the latest episode of A Tchou More wherever Your Podcasts and on YouTube . When is the AI bubble gonna burst? How do you AI proof your job? How should colleges handle AI and prepare students for a shifting job market? I'm Henry Blodgett, and on my show Solutions, I've been exploring all of those questions and more with experts who have actual answers. We hear enough about our problems. Let's solve them. Follow solutions with Henry Blodgett. Today's number four. That's how many car accidents Tiger Woods has now been involved in after he rolled his car over in Jupiter Island, Florida last week. Today's other number is 20. That's how many dollars it would cost you Tiger if you simply ordered an Uber. 17,000 . Money markets matter. If money is evil, then that building is hell. Show goes out! Sell . Welcome to Prof. Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is March 31st. Let's check in on yesterday's market vit als . The NASDAQ fell as a tech sell-off deepened. The index is firmly in correction territory heading into its final day of the quarter , down 13% from its October peak. Meanwhile, the SP also declined and the Dow was flat. Treasury yields dropped after Jerome Powell indicated the Federal Reserve will look past the oil shock and keep rates steady. His comments came as Brent crude prices rose to more than $1 16 per barrel. Okay, what else is happening? Some of the most powerful people in tech are now formally advising the White House. President Trump has named 13 industry leaders to the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, also known as PCAST, appointees include Mark Andreessen, Jensen Huang, Mark Zuckerberg, and Larry Ellison. Their mandate is to advise the White House on science and tech policy, and their goal is to ensure that, quote, all Americans thrive in the golden age of innovation. Co-chairing that council is David Sachs, whose time as AI and crypto czar has come to an end. And also Michael Kratzios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Joining us to discuss this council and what it means for AI policy. We're speaking with Liz Hoffman, Semaphore Business and Finance Editor and host of Compound Interest. Liz, uh, welcome back. So I want to get right into this. This has these councils have existed uh for a long time. FDR had his first one in 1933 . Historically, it seems like they've usually been academics. Um, but this time it's really industry leaders, it's the people who are actually building this technology, people like Zuckerberg, Jensen Huang, Mark Andreessen, et cetera. What do you make of this council and is it surprising in any way to you? First, I think there was a missed opportunity in not getting the acronym to be podcast. I don't think you'd have to try that hard. The pre presidential order director ing uh council of whatever. Um, because that is that is the crew here. Yeah. Um no, I think you're right. And and that's extremely intentional. You know, there was you know, David Sachs was talking about this and said, I think, quote, these are doers . And you can, you know, feel however you feel about the the politics here. But you know, one complaint that was really widely felt in the private sector about the Biden administration was less the sort of policies they were pursuing than the personnel pursuing them and and the sort of access that private sector people had. Like, say what you want, even the Trump's first term. He would say something that you know the private sector didn't like and they would but they would call up Steve Minucci and they would call up Gary Cohn and there would be this back and forth. And that totally went away during the Biden administration in the sense that people were making decisions who would never run a PL, who would never run a balance sheet, never really underwritten risk for a business you know, for a living. Um, that has obviously come come back. So that I think is the most the most charitable and and sort of least politicized view of all of this and like seems fine to me. AI is really important. It's really important economically. It's really important for national security . And I think, you know, we'll all remember that Senate hearing, you know, where a bunch of the big tech executives were being questioned by senators who clearly just had no idea how they made money. I mean, that that knowledge gap between people doing the regulating and writing the laws and the industries they're regulating has been pernicious before. Um and so, you know, that's one way to look at it. The other is this is just another sort of corridor of power that is um cropping up and that there are a lot of asks from the industry and they now have a a more direct line to people who can give them what they want. Wouldn't the conflict of interest here though, to to play devil's advocate, wouldn't it be that the people who are supposedly going to regulate this technology are also the people who are most heavily invested in this technology. They're the ones who are incentivized to profit from this technology. I mean, it would be one thing if you had a council of people whom with whom technology leaders could speak with and maybe who had some background in technology, but it's literally Jensen Huang. It's literally Mark Andreessen. It's literally the people who are most invested who want to profit off of this thing. Is that not a conflict? It's absolutely a conflict. But I mean that this administration is full of them. I think , you know, and it's a slightly less pernicious one than like people's kids making a lot of money on crypto deals and Trump selling half of his family business to the Middle East. I mean, you don't have to look far and wide for, you know, things that are genuinely problematic. I'm not that bothered by this one because I guess what's the alternative, right? That again, you have this being regulated by people who have no idea what it is. I would also say that there is a surprising and actually slightly comforting um um the w a range of ideas and and and viewpoints within the AI community about actually how best to regulate this. I would be more concerned if everyone was just full steam ahead, but there are real like, you know, Anthropic has put out a different version of how this technology ought to be used and regulated. There are states that sort of have their own point of view. Um I I don't know, but I I don't think that the the argument or the the alternative is a whole lot better where you have got a bunch of like oxygenarian senators trying to to oversee this. Um I would also say, and look, David Sachs has been a real lightning rod. He's the the presidential advisor of sort of chairing a lot of this stuff. I think it's hard to argue that he is richer now being in the White House than he would be if he was in Silicon Valley, like actually investing in this stuff. So I don't know. Yes, it is you gotta be worried about it, but as the knowledge gap between the people regulating huge sections of the economy and the people in them gets wider, I'm not really sure there's a better option than to bring people to the table. By the way, the one people, one group of people not in this are the big the big AI models themselves. So you wonder whether there isn't this isn't gonna end up being some kind of you know origin story where like Elon Musk's turn to the right, a lot of it kind of goes back to his snub from the the Biden E. V council. I don't know. I I I was surprised to see that um that group, Sam Altman, those folks not included here. Right. Elon Musk wasn't in it. I guess he had his fallout with the president. That one a little less surprising. But yeah, you would expect to see Sam or Dario or um or other folks who are running these models. Right. But I I guess I I I just want to push back for a moment because I mean, with David Sachs as the example, it seems as though his policy, his approach to AI regulation has been: let's not really regulate AI, let's make it kind of a free-for-all. And at the same time, he was still invested through his investment firm, Croft Ventures, in a lot of companies that were building in the AI space. And it does seem that that is kind of the risk here. I agree with you, having a bunch of oxygen arian senators who don't really know what they're talking about on this council advising on things that they've literally never built products in seems like a bad idea. But it also seems like a little bit of a bad idea to have the individuals who are most inc entivized to build policy, not that necessarily protects Americans, but that allows them to profit as much as possible. And it just makes me think: can we not find some sort of happy medium? Can we not find some people who aren't balancing their their other job as a as a VC in Silicon Valley and being a special employee for the government? People who could actually do the job of regulating, but who also have some flu ency in the in the language of business. I don't know, someone like you. Could we not get people in there who know what this is about, but who also aren't going to be totally incentivized to simply get as little regulation as possible to profit as much as possible. I was not invited, nor was my colleague uh Reed Avrigadi, who actually knows a lot, a lot about this stuff. Sure, obviously yes. There's like a million AI safety groups and like having them um included would be the normal thing to do. Like that's not generally how this administration operates. So they don't have a lot of respect for precedence and how we've kind of consistently done things. Um yes, I I agree. But you know, I do think that um that the you know there's always been this gap between regulators and the people they're regulating. But like for example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC regulates utilities, like there's a the this sort of price of having people who understand the industry in the regulatory seat is kind of allowing that revolving door over time, right? Letting people come in and come out and get paid in the private sector. That's how you get them there in the first place. This one, they don't need that, right? These guys are so wealthy and there's not a lot of incentive to have bring them in to a a f a true regulatory role. And so I really do worry that this is that the that knowledge gap is just gonna be incredibly wide here for a technology that is very powerful and and developing really quickly. I guess the the thing that would make me maybe a little bit more comfortable is the these this is an advisory council , they're not actually writing the laws, but they're gonna have some sort of advisory role and maybe they'll shape things in some capacity. I guess the question then becomes how significant are these councils really? Do they really influence policy in a way that is meaningful? You'd be hard-pressed to find one, you know, during the Biden administration and probably and certainly Trump won. When you remember by the way, like no CEOs really wanted to to be kind of anywhere near that that administration from an advisory perspective. You know, they tend to crop up kind of around national emergencies and you go back to OA, then there was obviously some a lot of private sector input into how that that problem would be solved. Um or honestly even the pandemic, right? Warp Speed had a had a advisory council with a bunch of pharma CEOs. Um it was a huge win. And and I often say like it's weird, Warp Speed was one of the the biggest wins from Trump's first administration that he completely walked away from, right? It totally worked. It was in fact very popular. Um, but he never took any credit for it because of the politics had had shifted around it. So so we'll see. Um I think there's a there's a balance to be struck between sort of being regulators being in opposition to the industry they regulate while trying to sort of tap their expertise or at least have some open lines of communication. I think often is is helpful. Um this one seems fairly lopsided in in that respect. Um, but there's just, you know, I hate saying AI is different, this time is different. This technology does fundamentally feel different to me. And so I think that having private sector involved is probably helpful. And understanding that not all of them want necessarily exactly the same thing. They are competing with each other very aggressively, which uh is not where I like to put my eggs, but could be a little bit of a of a check on on this sort of one-way push. All right. Liz Hoffman, semaphore, business and finance editor and also host of Compound Interest. Liz, thank you. Always appreciate your time. Always fan Ed . After the break, SpaceX is filing for liftoff. And if you're enjoying the show, please follow our new ProfG Market s YouTube channel starting next week. That is where you will find all of our content on YouTube . Support for the show comes from Incogni. If you knew that identity thieves were snooping around and digging through your garbage to get your private information, then you probably wouldn't keep leaving your bins out at night. Same goes for your online privacy. If you knew bad actors were rooting around trying to steal your private information, you'd want to protect yourself, right? That's where incogni comes in. Incogni removes your data from people search sites and data brokers. It works automatically in the background, doing all the messy work of requesting your personal data rem oval and dealing with the data broker's objections. Your private information, like your full name, email, home address, gender, phone number, education, relative, social security number, even your employment history and shopping habits will be protected with Incogni. Incogni can even target hidden databases that you may not even know exist. Your data is constantly being collected, shared, and sold without your knowledge, and Incogni can help you stop strangers from finding your personal information online. Take control of your personal data today. Visit NCOGNI.com and use code ProfG for 58% off. Now streaming on Paramount Plus . My center, my soul is gone. From Academy Award Nominee Taylor Sheridan. Mine is not a family design to withstand tragedy. Starring Academy Award nominee Michelle Pfeiff er and Golden Globe nominee Kurt Russell. The worry is what you do next, you will have as much life to live as you allow yourself. The Madison. Now streaming only on Paramount Plus . It's the Family and Friends event at Shoppers Drug Mart. Get 20% off almost all regular priced merchandise. Two days only. Tuesday, March 31st and Wednesday, April 1st. Open your PC Optimum app to get your coupon . We're back with ProfG Markets. SpaceX is preparing for its biggest launch yet. According to the information, the company aims to file its IPO prospectus imminently. It's reportedly targeting a valuation of $1.75 trillion and hopes to raise $75 billion in the offering. That would make it the largest IPO in history. Earlier this year, Musk merged XAI into SpaceX, which had already absorbed the social media platform X, which begs the question: will Tesla be the next Musk property to join the SpaceX conglomerate? Lots of questions here. Here to help us break it down. We are joined by john mcneal ceo of dvx ventures former tesla president gm board member and author of the new book the algorithm john good to see you i'm gonna get right into this here. You just published a book called The Algorithm. It's basically about how Elon built both Tesla and SpaceX . And now SpaceX could be going public. It could be the largest IPO in history. As someone who has worked with Elon and as someone who's written about this company, what do you make of this company now going public? The basis of the approach and the algorithm is simplicity, and that's Elon's organizing principle is simplicity. So I think there might be three reasons why Tesla may become a part of SpaceX and these entities might combined. I don't have any inside knowledge, but uh but these three um reasons are pretty significant. So the first is it's easier to run one public company than two. Uh and so that is that's simplicity argument number one. But I think beneath that it solves a couple of problems. Uh Tesla is essentially becoming an autonomy company in terms of humanoid robots and car robots. And so both of those things rely on AI as their operating system. And so Tesla uh as you know invested two billion dollars into X earlier this year. Uh but combining the entities of Tesla SpaceX and X into one entity would put the AI resources closer to the application at Tesla. So I think that's a second reason. And a third reason is uh is you know there's been a lot of talk about Elon's frustration with his um his portion of the cap table at Tesla. He wants more. Uh and this would seemingly help to solve that problem uh of combining Tesla in given his significant SpaceX ownership , uh, he would sort of solve the problem of who the majority shareholder is uh at Tesla and when one move. So I think those three things probably point to this being a higher than 50% chance of happening. You took Lyft public. So you were there for an IPO. I mean, just as an observer here, if you're trying to combine SpaceX with Tesla , is it not gonna be a lot harder if SpaceX is its own public company? It has all of its new regulations, you got all these retail investors in the mix at that point. Why wouldn't they they just combine the two things now, why take it public first? And will that not make things more complicated down the road? You're right, Ed. It makes it more complicated to do it post-the SpaceX IPO. Not impossible, but more complicated. You invite in, I think an extra layer of regulators. Uh uh whereas you have one company to to look at now uh versus two then. So I think uh I think it is easier now to do, but I'm not sure they want to slow this down because Elon's got uh this line in the sand where he wants this done by his birthday. Just on the uh the valuation here, 1.75 trillion dollars. That would make it the seventh most valuable company in the world that would make it more valuable than Meta. It would also make it more valuable than Tesla, uh, which is quite striking. I'd love to get your reactions to this uh valuation target that they're shooting for, 1.$75 trillion . Does that make sense to you? If you break it down first and say, let's add up the pieces, you've got uh the SpaceX business, which has got 90% market share in launch and call it 99% market share in satellite internet. So two kind of monopoly positions uh in that business. And then you've got XAI, which is competing in the world of the kind of trillion dollar valuations of uh open AI and then uh maybe three quarters of a trillion for anthropic. So uh it putting those two pieces together, you've got to depend, I think, a lot on retail investors to look past any fundamental financial metrics on what would justify that valuation, which I think is why they're r reserving a third of the IPO for retail. I think they they need that retail demand not only for the valuation , but to your early point, this is going to be the largest capital raise uh in history with $75 billion. So they're going to need everybody from institutions to retail investors coming to the table to fill in that uh that book. That's a big, big order book. It seems to me that I mean Elon is clearly a moss uh master of a lot of things, but this is kind of a criticism here incoming, is that he's kind of a master of getting us to not look at the fundamentals, which is exactly what is happening with SpaceX here. I mean, you look at the fundamentals, the fact that they've, I mean, I think they did around $15 billion doll inars revenue. They want a 1.7 5 trillion dollar valuation. At which point you say, yes, because this is a entirely different business, this is space, this is going to change the world. And then when we start to talk about the idea of merging SpaceX with Tesla, to me, it starts to sound like we're doing a lot of fundamentals laundering of some kind to basically make us forget about the fact that Tesla sales are not that great right now and make us start to look into the future and get all excited about all these things such that we are down to pay extraordinary multiples uh for these for these shares. Would you not say that that is perhaps what is happening here? And does that not make you, I don't know, a little bit uncomfortable, maybe? I would say I've never met somebody as good at the promote as Elon. Uh he is incredible. Uh and to your point, like Tesla is a declining car business with declining margins. Margins have fallen by half in the last two years. And yet it's worth twice as much as all other car companies combined. And so he has got an ability to get people to defy uh finan cial logic uh around these val uh these valuations. And I think um Um i you know, there are plenty of people that lost a lot of money saying I'm either short or I'm not participating uh in uh in Tesla. Uh and I've learned not to bet against the guy, but he is unique in his ability to uh to get people to look f past financial metrics and m financial fundamentals. Aaron Powell What do you think this means for the automobile industry? Obviously that's really your expertise here. Uh if Tesla were to merge with SpaceX, I mean if we're really combining those two things, does that have any downstream implications for the other players for say GM? I can't see any, uh, in the sense that we're all kind of racing towards the same existential uh issue, which is autonomous cars and uh and factory automation to compete with the Chinese. That those are the two issues that oughta be on every uh car manufacturer's mind . And I don't think it changes that dynamic at all. And those are clearly the two things that Elon's got Tesla pointed at us as well. All right. John McNeil, CEO of DVX Ventures, author of the new book, The Algorithm. I got a copy. I don't have it with me, but I have it at my apartment. I appreciate you sending it to me, John. Really appreciate your time. Great to talk to you Ed . Before we end, a quick update on the Iran war. As of this week, we have officially been at war for more than a month. This is week five of the conflict. And just as a reminder, we are now officially over the amount of time Trump said this war would last. On day two, Trump told us this would take, quote, four weeks or less. He then separately told the New York Times that it would take four to five weeks. Pete Heggseth also followed up and said, quote, This is not Iraq, this is not endless. Well here we are in week five. We are now breaching the original estimations of the duration of this war, very similar to what happened with Iraq, and there is still no indication that we are anywhere close to ending this. In fact, yesterday we learned that our military presence in the region had grown by roughly 10,000 troops. We also learned that Houthi rebels in Yemen are now joining in on this war. Iran is also now making threats to attack American university campuses in the Middle East, and Trump is threatening to quote completely obliterate Cog Island while the Pentagon makes arrangements for even more ground operations. In sum, this war is far from over. Which also means we must now brace for even more economic impact. Here is just a quick update on how prices have risen since we invaded Iran. We'll start with oil, the price of which has now risen nearly 60%. As a result, gas prices in the US are now up more than 30%. And over in Europe, that number is now 75%. We also discussed how this affects the price of fertilizer. A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned how fertilizer prices had risen roughly 25%. Well, now that number is almost 50%. Fertilizer is of course essential for growing food, which means that grocery prices will also be affected, but many other goods will be affected too. Things like construction materials and therefore housing costs, also consumer packaging, home electronics, and many, many more. And as a result, inflation expectations are now rising even higher. Just last week, the OECD raised its 2026 inflation forecast to 4.2%. That is more than a full percentage point higher than what they had previously estimated in December. Let's also check in on how this war has affected the markets. Since we invaded, the SP has fallen roughly 7%. The Dow has also fallen roughly 7% . Shout out to Pam Bondi, who literally called the top in her Senate hearing. European stocks are down 8%, Japanese stocks are down 12%. In fact, global stocks as a whole have lost roughly 9% of their value since the start of the war. That is more than $10 trillion in market value, which has evaporated over the course of a month. As for the direct costs to the government,, well the bill has now risen to more than $25 billion . That is money coming directly out of the federal budget. It's also enough money to cover health insurance for 2.7 million Americans. That was a lot of numbers, I know. But the reason I'm highlighting these numbers is because we are now getting to a point in this war where we are actually starting to lose track of them. The longer this goes on, the more we forget just how expensive this is, not just in terms of dollars, but also in terms of lives. I can also give you the death toll. We are up to more than four and a half thousand. So it's now getting to that stage where we start to view this not as a tragedy, but as a statistic. We are becoming desensitized to the destruction that is happening in Iran, which is why we have to keep track of it. We have to remind ourselves where we were a week ago or where we were a month ago. And we need to reflect on what our expectations were at that point in time. We need to consider what used to sound like a big number and then compare it to the numbers that we are seeing today, which have, of course, gotten even bigger. And only then will these numbers actually have any meaning. Only then will we appreciate just how detrimental this war really is. And hopefully , hopefully once we do that, we will start to have a more appropriate response to all of this. We might react to these headlines with an appropriate level of outrage, as opposed to doing what we did with Iraq, where no one really understood what was happening. So they just reacted passively and with a sense of general confusion. Hopefully , that won't happen this time. Hopefully, we'll actually do something about it. But that isn't going to happen if we don't keep track. We have to continue to know the numbers. And more importantly, we have to make sure we all understand what those numbers actually mean . Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss, edited by Joel Patterson and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams, our research team is Dan Shallan, Isabella Kinsel, Kristen O'Donohue and Mia Silverio, and our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Prop G Markets from Prop G Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow