Morgan Housel
01:38:22 Share

Morgan Housel, welcome to ACQ2. Thanks so much for having me, guys. Happy to be here. I'm like giddy right now. I have read so many of your words. I feel like they have shaped my thinking over the past few years. So I just want to say before we start, thank you. Well, thank you. And it's a mutual admiration because I've listened to virtually every one of your guys' podcasts, including, I mentioned earlier, the podcast you were on very recently on The Art of Investing, where you talked about your background, your personal backgrounds and the history of the show. And it was so inspiring and great. I'm such a fan of you guys. I love it.

Aw, thanks, Morgan. I will just add real quick, I echo everything Ben said. You have also shaped slash rechanneled a lot of my thinking and behavior as a native of Westchester, Pennsylvania, very close to Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, and the home of Vanguard. I had strayed from being so focused on Vanguard over the years, and you brought me back to the flock. So thank you.

That's great that it worked for you. I always have to make the point, though, that even though I'm a Vanguard fan and I invest in Vanguard funds, I don't necessarily recommend other people do it. I think the way that I invest would not be right for a lot of people because they could not look themselves in the mirror if they were not trying to find the next...

Microsoft, the next Tesla, whatever it would be. So it works for me. I'm glad. I hope it works for you. But that's definitely not like a blanket advice that that's what everybody should do. You mean you don't wake up in the morning and look yourself in the mirror and say, you are going to find alpha in the market today, Morgan. That meme. What's funny is that I think when I was 19, I did. The only skill I had was very quickly recognizing that that was a meme and not reality. Right.

Well, good for you for doing it quickly. So for folks who don't know, you started your career as a professional ski racer, you know, where all great investment analysts and writers start. You went on to write a lot for The Motley Fool. I was at Motley Fool for nine years, and I think the final tally was 3,200 or 3,300 posts. That's actually a statistic that I'm proud of and I wince at.

I'm proud of it because there's no better way to learn writing than just repetition, particularly repetition when it has a comment section. And every article that you write, people will tell you in no uncertain terms, this sucked, you're wrong about this. You learn so quickly. The feedback loop was so tight for that.

But I'm not proud of it in the sense that a lot of it was just writing for sport. And it was like a game, like how many posts can I write today? This is inevitable for someone starting out in writing. But I look back at some of the stuff I wrote in 2007, 2008, and it's like, oh, God, that is not a post that I hope anyone reads ever again. But it was a great way to learn just that much volume and repetition.

It's funny. I feel that way about some of our early episodes, too. You have to perform the craft to hone the craft. Yes. There's no substitute for getting reps. Yeah, but it's hard to do in a public forum like a podcast or a blog where people can and do just shred you to pieces. It would have been great if my first three years as a blogger, I could have had no audience.

Well, no, I'll take that back. It would have felt better. But what made me better was every bad post. People told me it was bad. And then after I got done sulking, I would say, okay, let's try to not do that again. I don't want to say there's no value to just...

producing something in private for yourself, that's certainly not the case. Kind of through a certain lens, the only reps that matter are reps on the field in public, right? For this kind of thing. I think that's by and large true because even today, after doing this for 17 years, I still, whenever I write a sentence, I think there's at least part of my brain that's either implicitly or explicitly thinking, okay,

how are people going to interpret this? Are they going to think it's dumb? Are they going to be offended by it? There's always a like, okay, people are going to watch this. How do you feel about it? Whereas I think if I didn't have an audience, the crazy side would just come out. Maybe there's some value to that, but I kind of like the pressure of knowing that people are going to read this.

So you transitioned from writing at The Motley Fool to writing for yourself. How did the whole like writing on the collaborative fund blog that had that happen? Yeah, I don't know if I've told the story before, but it's pretty interesting. I was very comfortable and happy at The Motley Fool. My intention was I was going to be there for life.

In fact, 2016, we bought a house half mile from The Motley Fool's headquarters. And my wife and I were like, "This is it. This is good." And I was so stoked. They took good care of me. I was happy. All my friends were there. And then in 2015, a guy named Craig Shapiro, who runs a collaborative fund, reached out and he said, "Hey, I like your writing. Why don't you come work for the collaborative fund and keep doing exactly what you're doing? Just do it here."

And my response was, hey, thank you. I'm flattered, but I'm really happy at the Fool. And my wife and I, we had our first kid, a newborn. We just bought a house, like I said. I was not in the mood to upend my career that was already so good and so comfortable. So I said, thanks, but no thanks. And he kept pestering away. Not pestering. He was very polite about it. But Craig and I kept meeting for the next year. And he finally convinced me that it was going to be the right move. It was still very scary to leave something that I was so comfortable at and that I'd really ingrained my identity at.

I joined Collaborative Fund in 2016. The reason it works so well is that Craig and I have total mutual trust in each other. And our arrangement is more or less, you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone, and we'll both go do our best work. And that's why it works. So when I joined Collaborative Fund, the agreement with Craig is like,

I'm going to write what I want, when I want, in the style that I want, and like period. And that period can never be erased. It's worked to seven years later. That's what it's been. I really feel like it's just my personal template to draw on. And it's a lot of fun. It's so funny sitting here at like the end of 2023 and

people listening who maybe haven't focused on your story before, they might be like, yeah, okay, cool. That's maybe somewhat surprising that this happened. Like, oh, a venture capital fund would bring somebody on to just create content not even related to the firm. In 2016, that was like

A literal insane idea. It was crazy. And then for some more context, when I joined Collaborative Fund, I think AUM was a little over $100 million, which is not very big. And I was employee number like four. Not many, what is effectively a startup venture capital firm will say, our fourth hire needs to be a blogger. Who's not going to contribute to the investment decision-making. Who's not even going to write about the things that we're investing in. I think Craig, to his credit, he was so smart in realizing that

money in so many ways is a commodity. And there are a lot of VC firms who can write a check. And if you want to stand out to LPs, to founders, whoever it is, people need to know about you. They need to know what your values are, what you stand for. They just need to know who you are. And if we had a blog that would

generate content that people would share forward to their cousin, forward to their coworker, that that was just going to raise brand awareness of the firm. Even if I was not even writing about what we were doing, I was actually pretty explicit about that because I said, very few people wake up in the morning and say, I want to read about the investments that this VC firm I'm not even aware of made last week. It's a form of marketing. But if I was to say, hey, I'm going to write about these quirks of behavioral finance and economic history that I hope

if I do a good enough job, people will find interesting enough to forward to their friends and family. And if we do that every week for years on end, it'll eventually raise the brand awareness of the firm. That was the whole idea.

Fascinating. And almost like, duh, now, but fascinating at the time. I mean, to the extent that anybody was doing this before, you know, you and Collaborative Fund like this, it was Fred Wilson at USV, Brad Feld at Foundry. But like they were GPs writing about the investments they were making and other things, too. And I think the secret was it was the other things, too. And that's what like actually got them audiences. But people didn't realize that at the time.

Yeah. And my theory was like, look, this is all I know how to write about. I know how to write about behavioral finance and the intersection of that with history and some other things. The litmus test for whether they're going to share it is just whether they like it. It's not about whether it was about a company they invested in or whatnot. And also if you're Fred Wilson, who is a savant at what he does and such a good writer, but that is a smaller net to cast than if you're writing about something that is much more general interest.

interest. And so Fred Wilson's writing is very, very effective at targeting that specific audience, which is his goal. It's not to say it's wrong. He's doing exactly what he wants.

But my goal was like, I want to cast a wider net. I want my parents who are smart, educated people, but have no interest in finance, let alone venture capital. I want them to be sharing this post with their friends. That's kind of the target that I'm going for. Yeah. You have this one post, how this all happened. And I'm pretty sure I've made this a carve out at the end of an acquired episode. You definitely have. Maybe multiple times. It is so good. There is zero chance you would find a venture capitalist writing a like,

retrospective on the last hundred years of America and how the social, political, and economic factors wove its way through various war times and peace times to give people this sense of whether or not they should take on debt or not. You read that and you're like, sorry, what about investing in startups? Right. But I think in so many ways, these things are all intertwined. Whether you are an index fund investor or a seed stage VC, it's all just the study of how people make decisions with money.

And we've all been influenced by the economy and society in very similar ways. So I think once you put yourself in a box and say, I'm a siege stage VC, and therefore the people who buy Vanguard funds, we're not related at all. I think that's wrong thinking. I think we're all trying to make decisions amid uncertainty and risk and greed and fear. And actually the Venn diagram is like massively overlapped between those.

So something like how this all happened, which is a short history of the U.S. economy. I think no matter who you are, even if you're not an investor at all, I hope that you will find some interest in a post like that. I think that's always what I'm trying to do. I wouldn't even say I'm trying to do it. I would say I write things that I'm interested in personally. I write for an audience of one, which is myself.

And it's just like, what am I interested in? And I'm really interested in things like that. Like, how can we try to understand 50 years of economic history through the lens of behavior and incentives? And no matter how you're viewing the world or how you're investing or what your political beliefs are, I think that will apply to virtually everybody.

All right. So speaking of applying to virtually everybody, you like this transition I'm about to pull off. You just wrote a book called Same As Ever, which is a focus on the things about humans that will never change. And this is...

such a good second book topic. I mean, your first book, The Psychology of Money, I think New York Times bestselling. What are some of the stats on it? Just crossed 4 million copies sold. That's the only stat that I care about. Congratulations. Ludicrous. And for context on that, that's like, I mean, it's what, one of the top

nonfiction books of the past decade. It's hard to verify this stuff, but I think it's now the fourth best-selling investing book of all time. There's a lot of nuance on what is an investing book. It's not as clear of a statistic, but it's in that zone, yeah. Okay, but this idea of a second book, Cognac,

Coming off of a like mind bending, ludicrous, successful first book that just landed so well with so many people. I mean, when I was reading it, I just remember going, yes, yes. As I'm reading some of your points on the page and clearly other people. You were texting me as you were reading it. Yes. Like taking photographs of the pages. But how did you arrive at the topic of what book two needed to be?

I've talked about this book I'm about to mention so often, but it had such an impact on me. There's a book called The Great Depression, A Diary. And it was written in 1930s by this Ohio lawyer named Benjamin Roth. He was a bankruptcy attorney and he was just a very astute observer of society. And he kept a diary during the Great Depression. And his son published it in 2010. It's so fascinating because it's one of the only economic books that is written with no hindsight bias. He was writing it in real time when he didn't know how this was going to end.

He's writing it in 1932. And when I was reading it, I was thinking to myself, this is exactly what happened in 2008. If you change the date from 1932 to 2008, this, what he's writing would fit in perfectly. So I had that thought. And then like two pages later, Benjamin Roth writes and he says, what's so striking about 1932 is

is that if you change the dates to 1893, it's exactly what happened. And in 1893, if you change the dates to 1874, it's exactly what happened. And I was like, yes, like obviously the details of the economy change, new technologies, new rules and regulations, but it's the same story over and over and over again.

for hundreds of years. And it's because what's happening are just the ways that people respond to greed and fear and risk never change. And they will be the same in 2123 that they are in 2023, that they were in 1823. These things never change. That was one insight. The other was I was kind of disgruntled and cynical at just how bad the industry was at predicting recessions and bear markets and technological change. It's awful. Not just bad, it's abysmal.

And so then there's two options. You can just kind of become a grump about how bad we are, or you can say, okay, if we can't forecast a change, what can we predict with confidence? I think there could literally be thousands of things that are just innate things

features of human behavior that will never change. So this book, I just picked 23 that were big in my mind of like, not only have people always done this, they will always do this. And you can predict with confidence that this little quirk of human behavior is going to be part of your future. So once I thought I had enough material for that, it was like, all right, let's take another swing at the ball and try this.

We want to thank our longtime friend of the show, Vanta, the leading trust management platform. Vanta, of course, automates your security reviews and compliance efforts. So frameworks like SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, and HIPAA compliance and monitoring, Vanta takes care of these otherwise incredibly time and resource draining efforts for your organization and makes them fast and simple.

Yeah, Vanta is the perfect example of the quote that we talk about all the time here on Acquired. Jeff Bezos, his idea that a company should only focus on what actually makes your beer taste better, i.e. spend your time and resources only on what's actually going to move the needle for your product and your customers and outsource everything else that doesn't. Every company needs compliance and trust with their vendors and customers.

It plays a major role in enabling revenue because customers and partners demand it, but yet it adds zero flavor to your actual product. Vanta takes care of all of it for you. No more spreadsheets, no fragmented tools, no manual reviews to cobble together your security and compliance requirements. It is one single software pane of glass that connects to all of your services via APIs and eliminates countless hours of work.

for your organization. There are now AI capabilities to make this even more powerful, and they even integrate with over 300 external tools. Plus, they let customers build private integrations with their internal systems. And perhaps most importantly, your security reviews are now real-time instead of static, so you can monitor and share with your customers and partners to give them added confidence. So whether you're a startup or a large enterprise, and your company is ready to automate compliance and streamline security reviews, let's

like Vanta's 7,000 customers around the globe and go back to making your beer taste better, head on over to vanta.com slash acquired and just tell them that Ben and David sent you. And thanks to friend of the show, Christina, Vanta's CEO, all acquired listeners get $1,000 of free credit. Vanta.com slash acquired.

We have to ask, given this is acquired and given that you are also now a Seattle person, did like the Bezos philosophy have any impact on your choice of topic here? Yeah. So there's now a very famous Bezos quote where he says, people always ask me what's going to change, but what's more important is what's not going to change. And the more nuanced to that question that he said a couple of sentences later is he said,

You can never imagine a world in which consumers don't want cheap prices, fast shipping, and big selection. It's impossible to imagine a world where people don't want that. And because of that, you can put so much confidence into investing in those things, knowing they'll be relevant in the future. And I think that's a big part of this. It's like once you've identified what will never change, you can confidently put effort into that as your prediction. So many problems in finance come from people putting overconfidence in things that may or may not happen.

But when you find something that is definitely going to happen, like go all in on it. You can invest in an all in. So like I have no idea what the market's going to do next, but I know exactly how people respond to greed and fear because it's always been the same. So I can like very confidently predict that even if I have no clue exactly when the next bear market's going to occur. Have you figured out a way in your life to structure making bets on human nature without having to be precise about them?

I think it's less about making bets on other people and more back to like the audience of one. I think it's more just trying to understand myself. And I think in some ways you could tweak every one of these chapters. Psychology of money too. This could have been a diary entry of just like trying to figure out myself here, just my own flaws and my own crazy mind. And so it's less about, okay, now how can I make a big bet with this? And it's more just like an introspective like,

What's going on in the world? How does this all work? I'm pretty open with the fact that I dollar cost average into index funds. So like from a technical sense, I'm not really making bets other than I'm betting on the long-term innovation and economic growth. That's pretty much the only bet that I'm making, which by the way, like there's some things that never change embedded in that.

But I follow markets every day and I'm very interested. I read the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Bloomberg every single day because I just think markets are a fascinating window into how the world works. It's such a fast feedback window into how people process greed and fear and uncertainty.

There's greed and uncertainty in politics, but there's only one election every four years, whereas the markets open five days a week or crypto 24 hours a day. So it's just a much faster feedback loop of how people respond. It's just like really interesting window into the world. So it's less about making bets and more to me, it's just like a philosophy of trying to understand what the hell's going on out there.

And in part, probably just to keep your BPMs and your heartbeat down. It's like, hey, it turns out I actually don't need to get too worked up about this because I already sort of know where this is going to go approximately. And I think it's a huge relief to...

take the burden off your shoulders of saying, I don't need to try to predict the economy. Like that's a really stressful and hard thing to do. Once you just shrug your shoulders and say, I don't know, because I don't need to know, that's actually like a massive burden that's relieved. And then you can spend all of that extra mental bandwidth focusing on something else, like trying to make yourself happier or focusing on the things that you know are never going to change.

As I was starting to read Same As Ever, I wanted to ask you this question. This is actually before I emailed you and said, do you want to come on the show? I'm like, oh, I should see if Morgan will answer my email on this. What do you believe today that is different than what you believed when you wrote Psychology of Money?

So the history of psychology of money, at least to me, was pretty interesting because I set out to write a traditional book, which is eight to 10 chapters, each chapter is 5,000 words. And I wanted it to all be brand new material that had never seen the light of day. And I started doing that. And after six months into that, it was a complete and utter failure. I cranked out two 5,000 word chapters. I sent them to a couple of friends whose opinions I really admired. And both of them wrote back and said,

This ain't it. And the reason was I had- Those are good friends. No, I was very grateful for it because they were not nuanced about it. They said, this is not it. I think a lot of the reason was because I had for my entire career written thousand word blog posts and writing a 5,000 word chapter is actually a completely different beast. A 5,000 word post is not a longer post. It's a completely different animal. It's the difference between like football and baseball. They're both sports, but they're totally different.

And so when I was like, oh, I'm going to write a book, I was actually taking on something that I had no skill in doing. I wrestled with that for months. And I finally, out of desperation, not out of strategy, but out of desperation, I just said, you know what? Screw it. All I know how to write are thousand word blog posts. That's what this book is going to be. I'm going to write 20 or 25 short chapters because that's all I know how to do. I didn't do it because I thought it was the right thing to do. I did it because I gave up. Honestly, I gave up. And so not only were they short, but

But lots of what's in there are topics and stories that I had already written about before on the blog. And there was a big part of me that was like, you know what? People have already read this story. They're not going to like it. It turned out that was not the case at all. That was not the case whatsoever. I'll quote our mutual friend, David Senra, who likes to quote David Ogilvie, who says, you're not advertising to a standing army. You're advertising to a moving parade.

And that was true. Like if I had written this blog post 15 years ago about the story about Bernie Madoff, the idea that I could never use that ever again was obviously bogus. Of course you should use it again. Jerry Seinfeld has a saying where he says, don't show me your new work. I want to see your best work. Don't assume that you just always need to come up with new stuff. Show me your best work.

And so psychology of money was again, out of desperation, not strategy. It was short chapters of what I thought was my best work that I had already written. And I was ashamed of that. And I was disappointed in myself at the time. And in hindsight, I'm like smartest thing I ever did. Smartest thing I ever did. I had no clue that it was going to be that case because I think a lot of people in nonfiction books are

Most nonfiction books, the chapters are too long. People are just like, make your point and then get out of my way. Stop with the fluff. Stop with the 57 other examples of your point here. The average chapter in Psychology of Money ends same as ever. It's about 1800 words versus five to 7,000 in a traditional book. I think it makes it really quick and snappy, I hope.

And the fact that I was using what I thought were my greatest hits, the greatest stories, the best examples I'd come up with was like, yeah, if that story was good, I should use it again. So now that's my strategy. That's my style. I want short, snappy chapters. And if I use an example that people liked, I'm going to use it again without shame. Yeah.

Because like Seinfeld said, people don't want your new work. They want your best work. That's such a good insight. Not only did I not know it at the time, I firmly thought the opposite at the time. Wow. What did your publisher think? What did the industry think? I remember when I emailed Harriman House, I basically said, guys, I'm giving up on this book and I just have to slap some stuff together that's a derivative of what I've written in the past.

They said, "If that's what you're going to do, that's what you're going to do, but it's not a good idea." I said, "I know, but this is where we're at. I've been struggling with this thing and this is where we are right now."

They said, okay, like do it, but it's not going to be good. I don't even think I've thought about it to this degree since then. You sort of accidentally uncovered this like great secret for writing a book. I'm going to say this for the 50th time. It was not my strategy or my insight. It was just serendipity that I kind of stumbled into that. Because I mean, as we said, psychology of money was not just a grand slam. You hit it out of the park and it rolled around through the whole state. Books just aren't as successful as that ended up.

I think books are very much like a seed stage startup where even if you do everything right and you're smart and talented and you make all the right decisions, the odds are so stacked against you for success. And that just like a seed stage startup, success for 99% of successes is like,

And then for 0.001% of them, it's Facebook, Tesla, whatever. Other examples of books recently, James Clear was one, Ryan Holiday Books, Mark Manson's books, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck was sold, I think 15 million copies now. So usually books are like extremely tail distribution of 99% won't work, even if they're great books. There's so many books that you've never heard of that did not sell well and you read it and you're like, this is amazing. This is a wonderful book.

book. So even when you do everything right, it's just very hard to get it to scale. There's something very interesting here too, which is when your book is left for dead, or let's say the startup analogy is the VCs wrote it down to zero. You were not going to get any promotion out of the book publisher because you said it was crap, they said it was crap, so everyone was just going to get it out there. It means that

intrinsic value of the work is the reason that it did well. 100% of the signal or of the value of the signal belongs to the fact that you did good writing. A lot of times, like at an overfunded company, you could say, I don't really know if they have product market fit, but they're doing a lot of revenue. I'd hate to look at their advertising line. And the

there's sort of a beauty to the fact that you just assumed it was going to be zero. And so it was all word of mouth. So about a week before psychology money came out, Jason Zweig of the Wall Street Journal is a good friend of mine. He told me this thing. He said, look, if the book is good, you don't need to market it. And if the book is bad, no amount of marketing is going to help.

And I think that was tongue in cheek. I think what he said is like 70% true, 80% true, but it's definitely lean towards true. There's only so much marketing that will sell books and nothing sells books like word of mouth. And obviously like the formula for a book that keeps going is super simple. If every person who buys it recommends it to at least one other person, it's not only gonna maintain, it's gonna grow.

And it's not easy to get that, but nothing works like word of mouth. Even if you are, you know, if you had a 30-minute spot on the biggest podcast, the biggest TV show, if you had a billboard in Times Square, nothing sells books like the person who bought it texting their brother or their sister or their mom and saying, you should buy this too.

I don't know exactly what the formula is to get there, but that's the only thing that will really, and I'm sure it's true for products too. It's a hundred percent true for podcasts. Yeah. True for podcasts of like billboards, advertisements, banner ads, nothing, like nothing is within an order of magnitude as effective as getting a text from somebody you admire saying you have to go try this, buy this, whatever it is. It's so pure. I had a recent example of this. Have you seen the show The Bear?

Or have you heard of the show, The Bear? I've watched the first episode or two. Okay. So I had independently three people on Twitter say, it's the best show that's ever been made. If one person said that, I would have been like, nah, probably not. Two people, I was like, when the third person said it's the best show that's ever been made, I'm like, I have to drop everything and go watch this right now. And I agree with them. It's one of the best shows I've ever seen. It's just phenomenal.

But that kind of like social proof from other people, there is no banner ad on or even recommendation on Netflix. If it came up in the algorithm and saying, you might be interested in this, nothing is going to move the needle like a recommendation from a friend. So here's sort of a funny question, only because I know your psyche a little bit. Is it going to gnaw at you on the inside if Same As Ever sells the same number of copies as Psychology of Money, but like

same as ever had a leg up on getting started. So it wasn't purely the work that generated all the sales. I have no false impressions. I don't think there's any universe in which future books I write are going to outsell psychology of money. It's such an outlier that realistically it's not, it's not going to match anything. And I think I'm very much at peace with that.

It would be like if Mark Zuckerberg quit and started a new company tomorrow and be like, oh, so that company is going to be worth a trillion dollars too, right? Like, no, it just doesn't work like that. I'm at peace with the fact that my career peaked when I was 36. I have no qualms with that. But you're still in the arena, of course. Like, it's not like, you know. So you nullify the premise of my question then? Yes, completely. Okay, fair enough.

Oh, it's an interesting experiment, though, because you use the same style, if you will, the same approach, right, of like, take your best work, right in the style that like is your native style in blog post type chapters. It'll be interesting to see like, you know, was was what happened the first time repeatable.

Yeah. And maybe to some extent, but maybe not within the same order of magnitude. But look, the book industry, particularly for nonfiction books, it's typically if you can sell 10,000 copies, you did great. You did really good if you could sell 10,000 copies. 100,000 copies is like you completely knocked it out of the park. That's even for people with a massive social media following. Those are kind of the numbers for book sales. So if Seamus ever sold 100,000 copies, I would be stoked. I'll be stoked.

That's the Bayesian expectations you need to go in with it. Our version of this is the Portia episode of Acquired, where we've got this nice, beautiful chart where it grows word of mouth, double zero over year. Lots of people are seeing the chart that we tweeted on Twitter. We exempted out the insanity of the YouTube algorithm

from the Portia episode because the Portia episode got four times as many downloads or something crazy as any other episode ever because it got swept up in whatever the magic of the YouTube algorithm was, of course, because we had Doug DeMuro on. You're sort of looking at that and you're like,

That's just unnatural that that happened. That is an unnatural thing that I don't even know how to try to recreate the elements that created that. There's too many weird biases that just because somebody won the lottery once and they're standing there holding a ticket, it's not like you can be like, okay, I need to go retrace the steps that that guy took that day and go to that gas station because that's how you win the lottery. I think it's a really important skill in life to be able to recognize when there were things outside of your control that led to some element of your success that are not repeatable.

The more positive spin on that is like just focus on the things that are repeatable, that you can do again. And there's lots of that. So if you look at Warren Buffett, you can maybe repeat and learn from his patience, his endurance, his risk controls. You cannot recreate the fact that he was investing in the 1950s and 60s when, at least in hindsight, there were just opportunities everywhere to buy blue chip companies for two times earnings. You can't replicate that.

that. So it's really important to try to only take from your role models or your own when you're being introspective about your own career. What can you learn that is actually repeatable? And that's a hard thing to do because you want to look at your successes and assume you can do it again. And sometimes it's the case. A lot of times it's not. Well, something I think...

hopefully might bode well for same as ever, whether it hits psychology of money levels or not to maybe at least beat the benchmark. I do think it and you have something really valuable to say right now that's different, at least to me, than psychology of money of like, you know, we've now come off this hangover of the drunken binge of the last couple of years that I found psychology of money very helpful during that, you

that drunken binge period, shall we say, for the couple of years of insanity of zero interest rates and COVID. I found a lot of your writing very cathartic recently about my own feelings about myself and my behavior and what happened during that time. You had this great... I think this has shown up maybe in a couple of different places in your writing recently, but this great saying that we all have this idea that money is fungible, but money that comes easy...

You actually don't value in the same way as money that you had to work hard for. That has been so true for me in the last couple of years. When money is easy or when it's fast, you didn't have to give up that much to get it. Then the emotional cost of parting with it is very low.

Whereas if you just grinded and sweated and lost sleep and you work so hard for this money, you're going to move mountains to hold on to it. The sentence I used in that recent post was, old money wants a tax shelter and new money wants a Lambo. And I think that's really true. Like when you've really sweated to get your money and that money is in the identity of your family and your great-grandfather planted the seeds of this money, whatever it is, you're going to hang on to that.

But when you buy Dogecoin and it goes up tenfold, you're like, yeah, let's go blow it on Lambo. Who cares? I think at large, we saw a lot of that over the last couple of years where there was just a surge of easy money. And with that became not necessarily, in some cases, Lambos, but more common, just an easy way to part with it. It just felt like fake money because in a lot of ways it was. I think there's an analogy here with now that interest rates are 5%. It's such a healthier world that we live in.

It's so much healthier to live in this world where it's harder to part with your money. It should be hard to part with your money. Investment decisions should not be snap, knee jerk, sure, whatever, throw a million bucks at it. It should be like, well, there's alternatives measured against it. We need to think about opportunity costs. So just having that opportunity costs of like five and a half percent in treasuries, whatever it could be, it's so much healthier than the zero interest rate world that we had for years.

Yeah. Having gravity is helpful to create a functioning society. Huge. And I know there's pain with it. It's like mortgage rates are tapping 8% right now. If you're a first-time home buyer, it sucks right now. It's an awful, awful world. So it's not to say everything's great, but it's just healthier. It's not more enjoyable. It's just healthier to be in this world. Well, it strikes me as one of these things where it's healthier long-term and

And even though it might be the right steady state for the world for T-bills to be 5%, it's not to say that there's not short-term pain that comes from it. It's that like, okay, home prices went crazy. And so those seem to be mostly staying there. They're down like 10% or something. Interest rates have gone up, but now we have this really difficult issue where we have these potentially very overvalued assets that are also very expensive to finance. We're in this sort of like,

One thing has corrected, but the other thing hasn't corrected yet, which creates that enormous short-term pain. And I think most of that is probably just a mark-to-market flaw. Like when you say home prices haven't declined that much, it's probably because there's a lot of homes that are still marking themselves on Zillow at 2022 prices.

And maybe like I'm not a guy who makes predictions about the economy, but maybe like in the Wile E. Coyote moment, we're like we're still kind of running. Like we haven't looked down and realized it's about to. We're in this weird zone of like, look, we're over the cliff, but we haven't started dropping yet because, yeah, it shouldn't make any sense that you go from a world where mortgage rates go from three to eight and home prices go up.

Like, what? What are we doing here? How does that make any sense? - If it's a super thinly traded asset class where you actually can't market and suddenly actually it becomes even more thinly traded because people can't move 'cause they can't find anywhere to move into 'cause they can't originate a new mortgage,

Well, then you have a really thinly traded asset class and suddenly no ability to price anything. Right. I do this with myself for my own house that I'm in right now. I have a number in my head that I think our house is worth. And that number that I have in my head today is the same number I had in my head in 2022.

So if you want to say like the cognitive dissonance of like the mark to market failure, I believe it myself. And I feel like you multiply that by almost every homeowner in America. And it's very hard to say in 2022, my house was worth X and now it's probably worth 0.6 X or whatever. That hurts. There's a real wealth effect of admitting that. And because people aren't listing their homes. For the vast majority of people, it wipes out all their principal.

Yes, for a lot of them. If you bought in 2021 at this inflated price and whatnot, even, okay, congratulations, you got a 2.5% mortgage, you have a low monthly payment that's fixed for 30 years, but you paid 100 and now it's probably worth 60 or 70 or whatever it would be. And like, that's a hard thing to admit. And home transactions right now, the actual number of homes changing hands is at the lowest point in like 20 years. I think it truly just is a mark to market. There's just not enough liquidity in the market to get a good sense for where prices are. Yeah.

Over the last couple of years, you've been public and talked about the fact that you don't or at least you didn't have a mortgage on your home and the psychological impacts of that. You know, and it's been something that like before I read you talking about it, it would have never even crossed my mind that that could be a financial way to live. I'm curious in this environment, how...

How are you feeling about that? Has your thinking changed about it at all? I haven't tried to hide it. I don't know if that was the right decision or not, but I thought it was an important part of how my wife and I have managed our money. And the short story was, it was 2017. We had a mortgage. It was a 3.5% mortgage. 3.5% 30 years fixed, and we paid it off in 2017. And I knew at the time, and it's so clear in hindsight, that on a spreadsheet, that was the wrong decision.

even at the time, not even in hindsight. In 2017, I said, this is a dumb idea. If we had instead taken that money and invested it, I knew at the time and in hindsight, we would have been so much better off. And I've done the calculation. Let's say we hadn't paid our mortgage off. Let's say we'd have just invested in the S&P 500. How much more money we would have today? It's a not insignificant sum. Does not bother me in the slightest because the reason we paid our mortgage off was I wanted that sense of security, of this is my house.

And you cannot measure on a spreadsheet going to bed at night knowing that, hey, if something happens to me, my wife and kids are going to be okay. There's no bank that's going to take, particularly because I'm the sole breadwinner in our family. Something happens to me, it's okay. This is my family's house. No one's going to take it away from us. This is ours. It's definitely different for some people. But for my personality and my wife's personality, even though we knew it was the wrong thing to do on a spreadsheet,

I wrote in Psychology of Money, it was the worst financial decision we've ever made and the best money decision that we've ever made. It's the only money decision that still to this day, we could like high five ourselves about. And still six years later on the first of every month when my mortgage payment would have been due, I still get this feeling of like, ha ha, I won. Even if it was the wrong thing to do. And I think that's actually a pre-universal lesson is that there are some things you can do with your money that are not rational.

that you can't explain on a spreadsheet, but they're reasonable and they make you happier and they help you sleep better at night. And if they do those things, like, great, go do it. And even when I have said that to other people on other podcasts, they'll be like, okay, they'll dig deeper to the numbers. And I'm like, no, no, the numbers don't work. The numbers don't add up, full stop.

But it made me really happy. And like, is there any value in that? Why are you just living your life in Excel versus like, like life is not an Excel life is at the dinner table and at the dinner table, it was the greatest thing we ever did with money. I'm so glad you wrote about it. Thank you for doing it because I was one of those people before having read that and thought about it and live with the idea over the last couple of years, I was in the camp of like,

money lives in Excel, you know, and like every decision should be made rationally, analytically via Excel. This example of like your home and your mortgage, especially once you have a family, as I do now, like, again, probably not for everybody, but for me, it just like completely pierced that bubble of like, oh, yeah, I totally get why you would do that. Oh, maybe I shouldn't live everything that I do financially in Excel.

And I think for part of it, for me, for just for my personality, maybe this doesn't map with other people, but it was probably if I sat down with a therapist, it would probably be some sense of career insecurity that I was like, I want to quit the game before someone can take it away from me. And like having a bunch of debt, I was just like, look, debt is just a symbol of somebody else owns my time in the future. That's what debt is.

Every dollar of debt you have is a piece of your future that somebody else owns. I think if I sat on the therapist's couch, I would have said, I don't have enough confidence in my future, in my career to know that like I can sell somebody my time in the future. Even if like realistically, I actually did. I think there's a part of my soul that was like, it's better to just wipe this out now and you're going to sleep better if you do this. And I have.

And look, I think there's lots of similar examples. Like if you're day trading penny stocks on the spreadsheet, dumb idea, terrible idea. You're going to lose money. You're letting money on fire. If that scratches an itch that you have to scratch and you're doing it with 5% of your money, like awesome. Like go do it. Like have fun. And that's probably the equivalent to some degree of paying off a mortgage. Makes no sense on the spreadsheet. Makes perfect sense for you in your head.

David and I used to work with this very, very successful older venture capitalist who bought lottery tickets. And I remember asking him at one point, I was like, what are you doing? All you do all day is calculate odds. And he goes, where else can you just make $100 million on a few bucks? It's the craziest thing. I love it. That's great.

John Bogle, who founded Vanguard, he has this interesting part of him. He passed away several years ago, but his son is an active fund manager. His son is an active stock picker. And John Bogle invests a lot of money with his son. And someone called him out. They said, John Bogle, you are the godfather of passive investing with explicitly the idea that nobody can beat the market. And yet you invest in your son's active fund. Isn't that a contradiction? And he responded. He said, yes, but...

But life is just a contradiction. I think that to me is like he was basically saying, don't figure this out on the spreadsheet. It's just like life is messy and don't pretend it's not messy. Of course it is. I am okay with admitting that not everything should be run through the spreadsheet. I mean that you can think of these extreme examples of like, well, sure, you can eat for $6 a day. But like –

Come on. Do you really want to? If you don't have to, then after three or four days, you're going to be like, my life sucks. I get in the extreme examples not living your life in a spreadsheet. The thing with housing that makes it so particularly difficult to stomach is buying your house is first and foremost not a financial decision. It is a sort of life decision. And it is the largest financial decision you will ever make at the

at the same time. For most people, it's the most significant portion of their net worth, and it's first and foremost not a financial decision. And reconciling those two things is hard. I think every parent will relate to this, but when our first child was born, I was so overwhelmed with this emotional urge to provide. That is what, of course, lasted today. A parent's job...

is to provide for your children. At least first and foremost, that's it. And sheltered like might be at the top of that list. Food and shelter is the top of that list. I think I had this like caveman instinctual urge to provide safe shelter for my wife and kid. And I think that was really the core of this, of why we bought the house and then why I was eager to make it our house, not the bank's house. You brought up the idea of things that make you happy. What makes you happy? Like what patterns of activities make,

make you happy? And do you think there's anything in your life that's just different than humankind as a whole? I want to ask the two different questions of what makes you happy and what makes people happy. It's a great question. I think that the answer is kind of one in the same for these because

I have a lot of career autonomy. I can write what I want, when I want, in any style I want. But there are elements of my career where I lose control over my time. My calendar fills up like anybody else's. I look at my calendar and I say, oh, I got all these calls that I don't want to do. I've got all this BS admin work that I don't want to do. And in that moment, I don't have control of my time. And that's when I'm the least happy. When I'm the most happy is when I wake up and I look at my calendar and it's free as a bird. And I say, I can do whatever I want today. And

Nine times out of 10, what I want to do is work. That's what I want to do. So like freedom does not mean sitting on the couch. Some days it might, but freedom just means you get to do the work that you want to do. That's when I'm the happiest. I think I get an abnormal amount of that relative to other careers. I've been a writer since college and whether it's at the Motley Fool or the Collaborative Fund, I've always just been like, I'm just going to do my own thing for better or worse. I've had a lot of independence and autonomy doing that. And I think for most people,

Independence and autonomy is not the only factor, but it's a major, major factor for happiness in your life. And independence comes in a lot of different forms. If you have to work in a job that you hate, but you have to do it, like that's...

That's completely losing control of your time. There's also, by the way, CEOs who make $50 million a year and have no control over their time. I think most have no control over their time. Most don't. I'm making this up, but I would bet good money that Tim Cook, he is scheduled from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. And he doesn't have that much control over it. He has to meet with this department. He has to meet with this person, whether he likes to or not.

And that's a level of not controlling of your time that for a lot of people can lead to a sense of just things spiraling out of control. They're not under your own influence. So I'm happiest when I can do whatever I want. And I think that's true for most people. I think this was one of the best parts of our interview with Jensen from NVIDIA.

Ben asked him, I think this is becoming the Ben Gilbert question. This is like your version of the Tim Ferriss question of, you know, what do you believe now at X that you didn't at Y period in your life before? And you asked that to Jensen and his answer was, there's always time. Don't let outlet control what you do. It's exactly what you're saying, Morgan. I think during COVID-19,

I did some of the best writing that I've ever done. And I think the reason is because during COVID, I was not traveling. I was not speaking. I was just sitting at home seven days a week with nothing else to do but think and write.

And because of that, it was almost like a forced independence. I didn't, during the lockdowns, I didn't have the luxury of being like, oh, I'm going to go fly to see a friend. I'm going to go fly to speak at this conference. It was forced to sit at your desk and there's nothing else to do but write. And I think I get this a lot, actually somewhat of a counter to that. I actually get a lot on airplanes when it's a five-hour flight. There's nothing to do but sit in your seat and listen to this podcast and think about it. Versus at home, I'm like, oh, I got to walk the dog. I got to do the laundry. I got to get up. I got to do this.

There's some sort of like forced independence. That sounds like a crazy contradiction, but it's like you're just sitting here and there's nothing else to do, but you're just like run with these thoughts in your head that I think can be at least for an artistic job is really great. So I run with your thoughts in my head a lot. You had a recent podcast episode that ended with what I thought was just an excellent sentence. And the sentence was, I tend to view material desire as a loose proxy for the inverse of what else you have to offer the world. And

And I wanted to ask you about this point. Can you, first of all, expand on what it means to sort of take us backwards through the post? It was based on this idea that when my son was born, he's eight now, but when he was born, I wrote him a little letter. It was a blog post. And it was like, here's some financial advice that you might be interested in someday. And one of the things I wrote was,

You might think that you want a big house and a fancy car and expensive watch, but you don't. I'm telling you, that's not what you want. What you want is respect and admiration from other people. And you think that nice material stuff will bring it, but it almost never does. So the point from that is like everybody wants respect and admiration. It's just like an innate thing. Everyone wants to be respected and admired, particularly by the people who they want to respect and admire them. And so there's a lot of ways to get respect and admiration, one of which is through your

your wisdom, your love, your capacity to be a friend, if you cannot achieve respect and admiration through those things. The other way to do it is with the square footage of your house and the horsepower of your car.

But that's like a last resort. This is not black and white. I'm not painting this on everybody. But I think a lot of the people who have Lamborghinis and mansions and yachts are doing it because they cannot gain respect and admiration through the other avenues like intelligence and wisdom and love and friendship. If you can't gain it there, then you revert to the material side of trying to gain it through, hey, look at my car.

And so that's where like the proxy comes in. Like the more that I want to show off material wealth, I tend to view it as the least or like as a proxy for the less I have to offer of things like wisdom and intelligence and humor and love and whatnot.

I always use the example of Louis CK of like, he's so funny and people admire him for being funny. They don't admire him for his looks. They don't admire him for his attire. And because you don't care, he's funny. That's why you admire him. And I think it's true for like a lot of athletes. And a lot of athletes have gone bankrupt. Phenomenal athletes that go bankrupt. And by and large, you don't care. You're like, he was a great football player. Who cares if he was a bad investor? I admire him for being a football player.

And so if you can admire people for being wise and smart and loving, that's where you should gain your respect and admiration. And to the extent that you are trying to gain it through material possessions, you should take a step back and ask yourself whether you're doing it because you can't gain respect from other things that are more durable.

It's funny. There are a small minority of people who buy something very expensive that everyone knows is very expensive because they are obsessed with the craft of building that expensive thing. We did this Porsche episode with Doug DeMuro. There are a lot of Porsche people out there that own that particular 911 because they could tell you every detail of how it was all made and the story. And then there are 10 times more people who

who think they're like that person. And the reason that they're justifying making this purchase to themselves is because they fancy themselves someone who is obsessed with the craft. But really, the primary motivation that they're sort of like hiding from themselves internally is exactly what you're talking about, Morgan.

Yes. If you have a Lamborghini because you like the craft or because you actually take it to the racetrack on the weekends and drive it. Awesome. I'm so happy for you. Legitimately. Lamborghini might not be the right example for either of those. I would venture to guess, though, that 90 percent of Lamborghinis have never been driven over 70 miles an hour.

because they're just buying them to show off. That's the only reason they're doing it. Like if you own a Lamborghini in New York, you for sure have not driven over 70 miles an hour. You're just doing it to show people what you have. And I think there's two things that money can do for you. You can use it as a tool to give yourself a better life, or you can use it as like a scorecard for other people to judge you by, for other people to value you by.

One of those, like the former is obviously is like a great tool and the latter is an addictive drug. And just like any drug, like it might give you a temporary high, but eventually this is going to catch up with you and it's going to lead to like an extreme amount of misery. Yeah. I feel like the electric cars have like really thrown this into like full relief where like, you know, my like,

Long range model three, which is like a I think now less than the cost of like an average car in America. Like it's just like it's a bottle three. It's not a big deal. It's definitely faster than like most Lambos ever produced. Oh, totally. I think like there are entry level electric cars that will smoke Ferraris and Porsches. It's completely thrown it on its head.

You had a quote, I think it's way back from Psychology of Money, that is, whenever you see someone with a $100,000 car driving by, that all you know is that's $100,000 they don't have. It's not actually a sign of wealth. All it is is it's a sign of whatever their wealth could have been, less $100,000. It's just an indication of consumption. There is a 10-mile-wide gap between consumption and wealth.

I got this idea, this insight. So I was a valet during college in Los Angeles. And it was in the mid-2000s when it was just fake money galore. L.A. was the subprime capital of the world. It was just like literally trillions of dollars sloshing around L.A.,

And as a valet, I would get to know some of these people who would come in. And it'd be like a 25-year-old driving a Porsche, driving a Ferrari. And I'd get to know them and I realized that they were not that successful. They were like a first-year associate at a law firm making 100 grand and spending two-thirds of their paycheck on a Ferrari lease payment.

And I was just like, I assumed when a 25-year-old came in at Ferrari that they were a billionaire entrepreneur. And I realized that was just so clearly not the case. And then the flip side of that are you meet people who were billionaires driving fairly modest cars. My wife and I were talking about this last night. Every single person who we know who flies private, not one of them has ever posted a picture of it. Not one of them will, every single one of them will move mountains to keep it secret.

And there's no exceptions to that. Like people who are actually wealthy don't tend to be the people who look the wealthiest. It's not quite that black and white, but it's definitely, that's where it leans to. That as I wrote in Psychology of Money, wealth is what you don't spend. Wealth is what you don't see.

Wealth is the money that you did not spend on a car. You did not spend on a nicer house. It's saved wealth that gives you independence and autonomy. But since you don't see it, it's very hard for us to like have any kind of sense of who's wealthy and who's not.

When is it okay to make these very high dollar amount indulgent purchases? Because we've talked a lot on this episode about demonizing all these activities. Sometimes I do it and it's fun. I think there's a lot to be said for everyone's indulgence is going to be different. And you really need to, rather than just saying society tells me I'll be happy if I have this car or this purse.

You really need to try a billion different things. Ramit Sethi is really big on this. I'm pretty sure his thing is like he drives an old beat up Honda, but he always flies first class and his wardrobe is like might cost more than my house.

because that's what makes him happy. Cars don't, clothes do. And it's like, you really have to figure out what your quirk is. And everyone's is going to be different. But I feel like most people don't because they just accept at face value that society tells me I'll be happier if I have a big house, a fast car, and shiny jewelry. And maybe for some people, those three are the key. But everyone's quirk is going to be a little bit different. I don't even want to tally how much my wife has spent on landscaping.

our house. And she loves buying rocks and plants and trees. She's made our backyard beautiful, but that's her thing. She loves it. Most people would not be, but nothing's going to make her happier than spending a crazy amount of money on some like rare Japanese maple tree. If that's what you're into, then you could probably be pretty sure you're doing it for the right reasons. Cause like nobody on social media is going to be like, whoa, that rock. Like, I don't know, man. Landscaping. It's a thing. Nobody on mainstream social media. Yeah.

And there's a lot of people for whom they would say buying a first class seat on an airplane is the biggest waste of money. The seat's only three inches wider. The food sucks. What are you doing? And there's other people of whom I am one who says it is worth every single penny and I will never sit in economy ever again for the rest of my life. That's my little quirk. And I completely respect other people who say that's a waste of money.

Do you have other indulgences? Like when you reflect back on things you've bought in the last five years where you're like, yeah, that one made me happy, but that was an indulgence. The house that we're in now, we bought in 2020, our house in Seattle. It was almost 50% above what our budget was at the time. We could still afford it without being crazy, but we were like, okay, our budget is X, but we found this house that's one and a half X and oh my God, we love it.

And it felt reckless at the time, but in hindsight, I'm like, I'm so glad we did it. I'm so glad I didn't, I wasn't the miser looking at the spreadsheet. I'm so glad I just went with our heart and said, oh, that one looks great. Let's swing for the fences and do it. And all you'd have is zero regrets. It's one of the best decisions we ever made. My wife and I were having this conversation. I did a similar thing with my house. It's 50% over the budget that we had made. And kind of funny how house budgets seem to go that way. It never goes in the other way. No.

Yeah. Right. But we were sitting in it like nine months after we bought it and I was making coffee and she was on the couch and we were like, this is a delightful way to spend a Saturday morning. And we got to talking about like, why was it okay to be more indulgent on our home purchase? And

The way at least I've bucketed it is it's actually not a thing. It's an experience. And in the framework of spend your money on experiences, not stuff, like a house is something you experience every day and you spend the majority of your hours in. If you do what we do, I'd say for other people, they spend a half or a third of their hours in it. So it is actually more the experience bucket.

than a physical object that clutters things up. I don't necessarily like our nice living room. I like watching my wife and kids play in our nice living room. Those are two very different things.

And if I watch my wife and kids play in a junkie living room, I would still enjoy that too. But I think if I were in this house alone, I would not appreciate it a millionth as I do of watching my family in that house. I don't think this is true for everybody. For me, a house is even more than an experience. It's part of your family. This is why, Morgan, your post on this and thinking about mortgages really had such an impact for me. I was like, oh, yeah, I'm going to make

terribly financially irrational decisions about my house for the rest of my life. And that is the right thing for me to do. I forget who said this, but they said...

don't show off the outside of your house, show off the inside of your house. Because the outside, you're showing off to strangers. And that is the trying to gain respect and admiration with your peacock feathers. The inside of your house is for you and your family and your friends. So if it is a place to have a really nice house, it's that. That's when you're doing it for the right reasons. The other framework that I heard a couple months ago that I thought was so brilliant is someone who said, a high-end Toyota is a nicer car than an entry-level BMW.

Because a high-end Toyota is filled with things that make you happier. Cushy seats, a nice sound system, a nice moonroof. The entry-level BMW is only bragging rights. Other than that, it's a pretty shit car. That framework applies to a lot of things. Some people will do that with housing where they're like, this is a junky house, but it's in a great area code. It's in Beverly Hills, whatever it is. And like, that's the wrong way. You actually want the really nice house in the nice, safe neighborhood that's a little bit less prestigious. That's how I would view it.

When you're writing, what about it brings you satisfaction? Is it extrinsic or is it intrinsic? I think it's very much intrinsic. I really don't think that much about the audience. I'm aware that people are going to read this and judge it. But as I said before, I write for an audience of one, just me. And I really get a lot of value when I write a sentence. It instantly dawns on me like, oh, this

That explains this quirk that I have. That explains the stress that I have in my life. That explains like how I've been grappling with this element of my life. And I feel like it's like a self-therapy kind of thing. I think that's really one of the magic parts of writing is that the process of writing is what teaches you. It's not that the people who write a book already had this information in their head and they just had to write it down. The process of writing it is what taught them what they're writing about.

And so a lot of times when I'm writing, I'll write a sentence and I'll be like, oh, that reminds me of this other thing. And I'll pull that in. I'll be like, oh, if I link these two together, that actually reminds me of this other thing. And now, oh, this is all starting to come together. I had no idea where it was going to go when I started. But at the end of the article, I'm like, I think I kind of figured out this new puzzle piece for this dilemma I was having in my own head. That's what's so rewarding about it to me. Have you ever felt like...

you were writing for the extrinsic rewards of shipping it and then having someone tell you it was good? Definitely early on, I think, in a way that I think was pretty reasonable, I was really just fighting for approval. Early on, when you did not have an established audience, and I was very young, and I was not very good, it was like, if I don't get approval, I'm done. I'm toast. This is not going to work. There was definitely more pandering that I did back then of like,

I'm going to say this because I just really want you to clap for me. And I think if I say these lines, you'll clap. I think that was really it. Whereas once you have an established audience, then that goes away. And like the irony is once your writing is honest and you're not pandering, that's when they start clapping. That's what people want. They want honest writing. And so like there's some irony in that. But yeah, it took years for that pressure to go away. And it's not that I don't have it anymore, but it's just I feel a little bit safer now than I did then.

Do you think it's possible for people to do work where they primarily derive their satisfaction from people telling them what they made was good and that that's sustainable? I don't see – at least my personality. If everything I wrote –

Everybody said this sucks. Even if I thought it was great, there's no way I could sustain that. Eventually I'd have to say like, the audience has spoken. The people have spoken here. This isn't good. So even if I liked, I think there are some people who just truly don't give a shit. And there are some artists that are, who are like that, but it's very, very rare. I think most people are, they're social creatures. And particularly, you know, there are five people in my life, my parents, my wife, my kids, one or two friends, you know,

who if they say this wasn't good, I'm mortally wounded. And if they say this is great, I can last on that compliment for a year. So it depends who it's coming from. And if a stranger says, I like psychology and money, I'm like, oh, thanks. That's great.

If my wife says I like that, I'm like, I can die now. Just take me now. And that goes both ways too for people who say they don't like what I wrote. So it just depends who it's coming from. I ask because I feel I'm still definitely in the extrinsically motivated phase.

part of the journey. I feel like when we make an acquired episode, I get an immense amount of joy of learning these things and the aha moments that I string them all together. Or like Costco, when we were assembling the puzzle pieces of like, okay, there's the low skew count and that works with the high inventory turns and that works with the way that the inventory is financed where they don't have to keep it on their books. They were very fun to figure out

I totally think I get more satisfaction from getting it out there and hearing from the world, you made something and your creation, I think your creation is good. You added value to the world by creating this thing. If I had to be brutally honest, I get more out of that than the intrinsic. One thing that I just thought about now is the smart way to write would be once you finish your final draft to sleep on it before you get it out. That's the smart thing to do. I can never do it.

As soon as I'm like, this is done, I'm like, publish, publish, publish. I haven't thought about this now, but I probably do that because I can't wait to get the feedback for better or worse. That's probably true now that I think about it. There's definitely a scale of this stuff, right? Like probably nobody is all the way on the end of it intrinsic or all the way on the end of extrinsic. I suspect that you are probably more on the end of intrinsic than most people and certainly us. The nature...

of what you're writing about is both so personal and so like timeless. Like the whole point is like, you know, these principles that you're writing about are not news of the moment. And we also aim to make timeless things, but it's not quite as timeless, I think, is what you're doing. I mean, one, one counterexample to all this is that is truly like the, the only standout I can think of is JD Salinger, the famous author who is,

For a lot of reasons. He had a lot of PTSD and mental illness, but I think it was around the 1960s where he just said, screw the system. I'm done with you publishers. I'm still going to keep writing. I'm going to write novels for the rest of my life, but you're never going to see them. And I think it's not really well known or verified, but I think the assumption is that he wrote many, many novels that are literally still locked in a safe in his basement today.

Wow. I didn't know that. I knew that he disappeared, but I didn't know he kept writing. He kept writing. He kept writing because he loved writing, but he just said, screw the system. I could never do that. And maybe those novels are amazing. Maybe that since he knew people weren't going to read them, they weren't. I don't know if we'll ever know. It's so funny. When you go to the extreme like that, I look at that and I'm like, that is so deeply unhealthy. You know, like extremes really like throw into relief, like whether things are good or not, you know? I think he was a classic example of-

Yeah.

One of the most disturbing parts of it is, so he killed himself with a shotgun. That's well known. For like two decades, he would rehearse that for friends. His friends would come over for dinner. And during the dinner, he would pull out the shotgun and he would say, this is how I'm going to do it. Barrel to the mouth. I put my toe in the trigger. This is how I'm going to do it. He did that for two decades. What? How he actually went out. He had been planning that for most of his life. And then you just realize like the extent of the demons in that guy's head.

Just had been going on forever. Wow. I didn't know that. Wow. That's crazy. Yeah. You know, it's funny. When you study...

These four or five standard deviation entrepreneurs like the demons aren't quite what we're describing here But the trade-offs are like these people they're who we cover in the press They're who we cover and acquired episodes because you know to create a trillion dollar company or a 500 billion dollar company You have to be four plus standard deviations from the mean and whatever you're doing but like you trade off everything else to

to have the perfect skill set that you need to accomplish whatever that thing you're doing is. And whether it's intentional or not, like you may be born with the perfect cocktail of skills to be Warren Buffett, to have an infinite attention span to read annual reports and to get all the right joy out of doing that and to be very good at math and have a phenomenal memory. Like whatever the cocktail of skills is,

My mom used to say this. Everybody adds up to the same number. And it is crazy how much when we're studying these people and idolizing these people, we disregard the fact that we are seeing all of their successes and they have poured all

everything else into these characteristics. We're just assuming the other characteristics are there too, but often they're not. Often those dials are all the way zero. There's no such thing as like a balanced genius. And people will be like, Elon Musk is mean on Twitter and he says things that are inappropriate. Like, yes, this guy took on NASA at age 29. Of course he's not well-balanced. Of course he's a nut job. Like anyone who thinks rationally would not be like, I can take on GM and Ford with battery cars. And

Anyone who thinks that, of course, they don't think society's rules apply to them. Same with Steve Jobs, who was a monster of a boss. Same with Warren Buffett, whose family life has been not something that most people would aspire to. I don't think there's any exceptions to that whatsoever in politics, in sports, in business. What's the stat on the number of divorces in the richest people in the world? So among the top 10 richest men, there are a cumulative 13 divorces and seven of the top 10 have been divorced at least once.

So obviously a small sample size and correlation causation, et cetera, et cetera. But like it's so deviant from the broader averages among a group of people who are so universally admired. I think if you ask most people, would you want a very successful career and a lot of money, but it comes with one price tag, which means your family life is going to fall apart. Wife's going to leave you. Your kids aren't going to know you. Would you take that trade off? It'd take me 0.1 seconds to answer that question. Obvious no.

And I think that we fall into that trap when we really idolize these people. It's great to idolize them for the skills that they have. It is wrong to idolize the lives that they live. That's the quirk. I've said this a couple of times on air. I feel like every acquired episode needs to come with this big banner at the top of the episode. That's like, Hey everyone, this is a phenomenal story of which we are not promising. You can learn anything from it. Exactly.

I was talking to David Senra recently and he said one of the, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I'm pretty sure he said one of the only people he has studied who he felt like lived a great balanced life that he admired was Ed Thorpe.

And with the exception of Ed Thorpe, most of these people that he's profiling, at the end of the story, you're like, yeah, so that life was pretty crazy. Like, I don't want to do that myself. I think that's a really healthy takeaway. And it's true for anyone. Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Michael Jordan. So easy to say, ah, I wish I had that life. But actually, if you lived a day or a year in their shoes, you'd be like, ah, this is hard. This actually kind of sucks.

I'm curious in your work, and maybe particularly since Psychology of Money has come out and been so successful and widely consumed, have you had any people, obviously without saying names, but who've come to you and said like, you know, either asked for advice or said that the book helped me or your work helped me, who've kind of maybe been along the vein of what we're talking about and then said like, you know, you've helped me realize that I want to live my life in a different way?

I think what surprised me the most, and this was a lot of feedback that I knew when I wrote it and also from the publisher and early people who read the book was like, hey, it's good, but this is really geared towards the young newbie.

Like if you're 18, you don't know anything about money, this book will help you. But if you're a 40-year-old hedge fund manager, like you want nothing to do with this. That was the early view that I really believed too. And I think what has surprised me are the number of bona fide billionaires who have reached out and said, this really changed how I think about my own. And I'm like, really? Because I really thought this was like a book for beginners. But I think the concepts of risk and uncertainty and greed and fear

are universal no matter how much money you make. There are differences, but billionaires fall for the traps of greed and fear and overconfidence as much as any, maybe not as much as everybody, but they still fall for them. So I think there are a lot of universal rules and that's what took me back from the people who said they got something out of it where kind of internally, I would think to myself like, I would have thought you already knew that, but apparently you don't. And there's a difference between knowing it and knowing it

You know, whatever part of your brain has your short-term memory and guides the decisions that you're making today. It's like you can know truths, but living them and being reminded of them is always helpful. Way different to know it versus actually do it. I know this for myself too of like, I can write about Warren Buffett and like, be greedy when others are fearful. You can write about that all day long. In March 15th, 2020, are you opening your brokerage account and going all in? That's exponentially harder to do than it is to quote Warren Buffett. Right.

So many of these things, when you quote, it's very easy to quote them and you're like, oh, that makes sense. But to actually do it, you're like, ah, it's way harder. Dude, every Thinkboy account on Twitter should be required to auth their brokerage account so we can see in community notes what they actually did in March of 2020 with their accounts. That would be great. That would be wonderful. That's a smart thing.

What's your view on participating in Twitter through this lens? On the one hand, it's a great ecosystem for spreading awareness of your work, but

On the other hand, it's also a like, maybe not necessarily, it feels like a drug fueled playground of like a lot of these pitfalls come to bear. I think drug is the right word there. Twitter is legitimately addictive. I mean, and for hopefully for most people, including me, it's not that unhealthy of an addiction, but let's not pretend that it's anything but an addiction because it is. It's a dopamine addiction. It's not healthy. And I've tried to go on Twitter fast. And if I can make it a day, I feel like it's really successful.

And I've been on Twitter since 2011. So it's just been attached to my hand for 12, 13 years now.

One thing that's easy to fall for too is that there's the meme of online people, like people who are very online and are not people who are necessarily representative of the median American or the median global citizen. So it's very easy to say, not only within my own Twitter bubble, but Twitter at large believes X, Y, and Z. And it's like, no, people who live online believe X, Y, and Z. But the other 7.8 billion people on the planet think something totally different.

So it's not even the filter bubble that we all have.

have of like the feed that I see is just what I want to see. But even if you were to look at Twitter as a whole, you're looking at a pretty small sliver of society. I mean, how many active members does Twitter have? 250 million out of 8 billion people in the world. And that I'm sure heavily skews towards college educated, higher income, et cetera, et cetera. Well, and those are the people reading Twitter. I have a feeling, I haven't seen the numbers on this, but it's got to be one 10th the number of people who consume Twitter actually post.

I'm making this up too, but I'm willing to bet half of posts come from 1% of Twitter users. So you're probably looking at what Twitter is, is like the opinions of 2 million people in

in a country of 350 million people and in a globe of 8 billion. So it's so easy to just get skewed about like, oh, everybody thinks X, Y, and Z. No, they really don't. And all those people's incentives are to get engagement because many of them have figured out ways to make their livelihoods on engagement, no matter how directly or like we're among the most direct in the world. And we're not even getting, you know, the payouts from Twitter or the YouTube video, you know, pay a partner program payouts. Like we could be a lot more directly aligned, but like,

At this point, politicians have found a way. Their entire existence is monetizing their social media presence. It's a very small set of people. That set of people is very skewed. And all their incentives are to produce engagement bait. Yes. And even if Twitter is not where you get your income, for a lot of people, it's where they get their dopamine.

And there are many people, of course, without saying names here, who have really figured out the Twitter algorithm and everything they tweet goes to the moon. And I think a lot of those people in their heads, they think I'm producing, I write very good content. I'm a genius at this. Content is subjective. So it's just my opinion. But a lot of times I look at these people and I say, no, it's not good. You just figured out how to tickle the algorithm in the right way. That can be hard for those people who like, they have massive Twitter followings and they get zillions of retweets.

But that doesn't scale to other platforms, books, podcasts, blogs even. It doesn't transfer because all they've really figured out is what the algorithm wants them to do.

Oh, man, I had this accidentally happen this week. We did this great interview with Jensen and there was a lot of good substantive stuff the whole time. And then the thing that I tweeted this that went nuts, you know, 2.4 million views or something in the first few days. First time that's ever happened to me. I was looking at it and I'm like, oh, man, viewed through a certain lens. This is just hustle porn.

And the reason this is going so nuts is because like the whole hustle porn crowd has like glommed onto this thing and is retweeting it with all their hot takes. I feel like Jensen and our take on it was the opposite of hustle porn. He was literally saying, I wouldn't do it. As one of the people who also retweeted that post of yours. Thank you for sharing. I viewed it as the opposite of hustle porn. I viewed it as just a stark reality of how hard business is in a way that was very refreshing because mostly what you get is hustle porn of like,

I'm successful because I grind so hard and I'm so smart. And I come to work at 4 a.m. and do pushups. This is the person who made it. This is the 10th standard deviation winner. And he's saying, I wouldn't do it again. It was too hard. That was just like, oh, that's such a bucket of cold water of like, thank you for being so honest and for just giving me a dose of reality here.

Yeah, man, he's one of a kind. Those are the moments that you only get in those last 10 minutes of an interview where like you're comfortable with enough with each other and like you've kind of gone through all the stuff that you both sort of planned for. And now you're in like run out the clock time where it's like, all right, well, like,

What fertile ground is there here where we're in an emotional state to be able to discuss it? I'm sure there are athletes like that of actors, actresses who achieve the pinnacle of success that you think is everybody's dream. And if you actually got them on the therapist's couch, they would say it wasn't on net. It was not worth it. There were parts that were good, but there were so many parts that were hard that I would not do it again.

Yeah. That's the Will Smith thing, right? Becoming famous is awesome. Staying famous is a mixed bag. Becoming less famous sucks. Yes. What most people want is the change in trajectory. That's what feels good. That's what's giving you the buzz is like you used to be here and now you're there.

But once that's flat, even if it's flat at the top of the mountain, you reach the top of Mount Everest, but now you're not moving any higher anymore. That is a mixed bag. And once you start descending and losing fame, losing income, losing clout, that hurts more than gaining it felt good.

There's a quote that I love from Seinfeld again, where he quit the show and it was on top of the world. The show was the biggest it had ever been. And he said, we're done. We're out of here. We're going to pull the plug. And he said, the only way to know where the peak is, is to experience the decline. And I have no interest in feeling that.

So that's why he quit while he was ahead. He was like, you only know how high you can go when you look back in hindsight and say, oh, I guess that was the peak. And if you don't want to feel that way, you have to quit while you're ahead. But it's very hard to do. Yeah. His interview with Tim Ferriss was so good. I've often said comedians are the only good thought leaders. I truly believe that the top tier of comedians understand human behavior better than any psychology PhD. George Carlin is...

I think is more insightful about psychology than any, even Nobel Prize winning psychologist. I would go out on a limb and say George Carlin understands psychology better than Daniel Kahneman.

Because not only do those people really understand motivation and how people's heads work, but they can communicate it in the most effective medium that's ever existed. And that, I think, is just a form of genius that is off the charts. My favorite George Carlin joke or just line, he says, everybody driving slower than you is a moron and everybody driving faster than you is a maniac.

That, A, it's funny, but there's also so much wisdom of like relative viewpoints and like your view versus their view that if you actually think about that, you're like, God, that is brilliant. That is such a smart thing to ponder. How many psychology PDF white papers have you read and come across a nugget that insightful? Very, very few.

And I think it's true. Like Bill Burr, Chris Rock, Louis C.K., Jerry Seinfeld, they understand psychology in like the most profound, deep ways you can imagine. Because for something to be funny, it has to be true. And like for something to be funny to a lot of people, it has to be true for a lot of people. And I think that's what makes it funny. Like if you read like a deep –

hardcore psychology paper, you really have to struggle and be like, okay, what are they saying? Oh, now I understand what they're saying. Like, let me grind the gears. Is that true? I think that might be true. But for comedy, you can be sitting there drunk at midnight and instantly, you know, it's true. You're like, that's exactly how the world works. You nailed it right there. It takes so little effort to understand that what they're saying is profoundly true.

Again, I think this is Jerry Seinfeld. It was some podcast I was listening to where someone was talking about the academic literature behind trying to figure out what makes people laugh. And one of the only conclusive studies is that it is something unexpected.

It's when your brain is assuming that a certain event will follow, but a very different event follows. And it's the like physical reaction you have to this massive change in direction to the unexpected. It's a surprise. Yeah. Yeah. I find myself doing it. I have this very weird, I'm curious if either of you have it. Someone will tell me something like horrific and sad. And occasionally I'll like, I'll feel the chuckle reflex happen. And I have to like stuff and be like, oh my God, do not let yourself like laugh.

But it's so unexpected that I'm like, I don't know if you're joking. I don't know. I don't know why I just did that. I'm so sorry. This has happened to me numerous times in the last couple of months. It's just shocking. One thing I was talking about my wife about this last night, my reading guilty pleasure is John Grisham. I know it's trash fiction, but I can't get enough of it. And.

And I realized, I just finished his most recent book, that what he does, and I'm sure this is intentional, is roughly nine out of 10 pages are very boring. You're just like, why are you going into detail about like, okay, you got coffee and the coffee tasted like this and the chair's like so boring. And then page 10, you're like, holy shit, what? Like guy came through the door with a gun. And I'm sure that's intentional because if every page was a shocker, it wouldn't seem real. But I think you intentionally, you insert a lot of boredom

So that when you have a surprise, you jump out of your chair. And it's the contrast between the two that makes it good. It's just a constant contrast of black and white, of boring and surprise that makes it such a thriller.

It's kind of how you can't do a standup routine for longer than like 40, 50 minutes. Cause at some point people like are just expecting to keep laughing. And so nothing is ever funny. There's a Chris Rock quote that I loves too. He was doing an interview and he said his favorite moment when he's doing a show is when he gets a good laugh early on early in the show. And he thinks to himself, if you guys think that was funny, wait till you see the good jokes. You ain't seen nothing yet.

And I was like, oh, that's good. He's very purposely managing expectations. I think a lot of those people put the good jokes towards the end, some of the best material at the end, which is counterintuitive. But that's how they manage the expectations. Like, oh, you think that's funny? The next one's twice as funny. Ben and I talk about this a lot amongst ourselves and try not to bore our audience with it too, too much. But

We've been talking about all these different mediums. Obviously, you live in, you know, your well, really two mediums, multiple mediums, but two primary ones, writing for the Internet and writing for books. And you just picked up podcasting. Right. Which is very good, by the way. Everyone who's listening, of course, will say you should go buy Morgan's books. But like if you listen to podcasts, you'll you'll enjoy your podcast. Thanks. I appreciate that. It still is an experiment. Just I have no idea where it's going to go or what I want to do with it. But I figured I should just start talking to the microphone.

always a good thing to experiment, but I'm curious, especially, you know, in light of that, you've probably, I assume, thought a bunch about like the pros and cons and natures of your, your mediums. I imagine you didn't start that way. You probably write, I imagine, cause you, you like writing, but put that aside.

What's your take on this stuff? And I guess to give a sense of grounded on where Ben and I discuss, like, we're always talking about things like the relative algorithmic, you know, impact in a given medium, and being very, very glad that it is low in podcasting and hoping it will, you know, continue to be low. But we think about this stuff a lot. I'm curious, since you operate across so many mediums, what do you think?

I've learned so much about this. This is an area where I've really changed a lot of my views. I'll tell you two stories about it. So I had been a professional writer for 14 years before I wrote a book. And all throughout that period, I had people and family members being like, when's the book coming? And my response was always, no.

I've published literally millions of words. Why does it matter if they live between pieces of cardboard? That makes no difference. And I realized that was completely wrong, that the number of people who want to read a book, not a blog, even if the book is a collection of blogs, more or less, is enormous. And that was the wrong thing to think, that I thought it made no difference if I published these words in between cardboard.

I really thought it made no difference, but it clearly did. The other thing that has really blown my mind is that the audiobook version of Psychology of Money outsells the physical book two to one because there is a huge number of people who would rather listen than read. And they have more time because they can listen in the car when they're exercising. And I never in a million years would have thought that because I'm a reader. I listen to podcasts on planes and that's it. Most of my life, I would rather read with my eyes than listen with my ears.

I assumed everyone else was the same. That's the bad assumption is that you automatically assume that how you consume content is how other people want to as well. There's such a huge variance in how people want their content that there's part of me that wants to say, like, just pick the medium that you're good at and stick with that. And there's part of me that's like, look, if I can blog at some level, I should be able to read those words into a microphone and turn it into a podcast. And I

I don't want to change the content that I'm making for the medium. I want to really figure out how I can shove my blog content into the microphone and hopefully what comes out sounds good. I don't want to change it. I've realized that like the audience size, the total addressable market is monstrous once you realize that people consume their content through different mediums. And so have you found yourself trying to change the content to make it more native to a new medium?

Or do you feel you don't need to? I don't know if it's the right thing to do, but I haven't. This is another thing I don't hide. The podcasts that I have, I'm reading old blog posts. That's what I'm doing. I'm not coming up with new material. And I think the reason that is fine is because the huge majority of people who listen to podcasts do not read blogs. So for them, it's brand new material.

There's not much overlap. Well, it's probably very similar to the book, right? Like with people like, oh, you know, this is recycled stuff. But like, no, no, it's your best stuff. No, like who am I to think that everyone who buys the book or listens to the podcast also reads the blog? There's a lot of false ego wrapped up in that. It's not true. And it gets back to Ogilvy's thing of like, this is a moving parade. Don't assume these are the same people that are watching you. There's going to be some overlap, but...

But by and large, particularly when you're at a different medium, you're going to capture a different audience who has never read your stuff before. And that's the Seinfeld thing. Don't show me your new stuff. Show me your best stuff.

So that's why I have no shame whatsoever in recycling some of this material. And a lot of times it's a very different format. And in books, I'm going to change the story, spice it up, add a lot new material. Mostly in a book, a 2000 word chapter was born out of an 800 word blog post. So there's new stuff in there, but I'm really rehashing a lot of the core stories that I've told before. And I'll probably tell again. For sure, there are stories that I wrote on a blog

transferred to a book. It became an audio book. Now it's on a podcast and I'll probably use it again. And I have no shame in that whatsoever. Why should you like they're great stories. It's great work. You're just maximizing the surface area that it can live on. Back to Seinfeld, who, as you'll tell, like I have a, I have a man crush. I just think he's a genius, but he told this thing about back to his quote about show me your best work. He said that he has jokes that he uses in his standup today that he's used for 20 years.

And he says, why would I take it out? It's a good joke. Like, it's funny. Why would I stop using it if it's a good joke? And you're like, thank you. Thank you. The Ogilvy thing was his thing was he used the same ad in the same magazine for like 20 years. And I think he said the same thing. He's like, it's a good ad. It converts. Why would I change it? Like, I'm going to take it out just because I've used it before? Of course not.

It's so fun. It's been top of mind. Our latest version of this iteration of this discussion amongst ourselves, me and Ben is it's very similar to, you know, you're this blog post and book thing. We're podcasters. We make podcast episodes. There's also this thing called audio books. We basically make audio books and we publish them as podcasts.

There's also this whole market of like the audio book market. And is there a way that like should our work live there, too?

My argument back to David is always, no, we don't make audiobooks. Audiobooks are a super different thing. It's like literally the written word translated into one person's voice spoken in the cadence of the written word. And what we do is an organic conversation loosely guided by an outline and notes that we have. And my view is they're pretty different things. There's part of me that wants to say the only difference is that you pay for an audiobook and podcasts are free, by and large.

I'm not going to say who it was, but I so admired one of my favorite podcasters recently yawned in the middle of the episode and left it in. And I was like, I love it. I love how informal and off the cuff this is. I actually like gained admiration for the fact that they didn't edit out the yawn as he was speaking. But you cannot do that in an audio book that someone's paying $28 for. There is a level of professionalism, like an audio, a podcast is a conversation and an audio book is a performance.

I think that's the main difference of it. But by the way, I love the yawn. If somebody yawned during an audio book, I'd probably be like, what the hell was that? But I still, I love the off-the-cuffness of podcasts. Which is funny because ours is not that off-the-cuff. Like we have like just enough off-the-cuffness to make it feel, like we try and strike the balance of this is a highly produced podcast.

incredibly planned piece of material. This is a performance and we happen to have some spontaneity and personality in it. But make no mistake, like we've been preparing for this for 100 hours and are bringing our very best work to bear in a very organized fashion. It's weird trying to balance the two. I think that's what's like so confusing for me, at least right now, is like, I'm not sure. I believe everything Ben just said. You and people who listen may not, but I believe it about our show. So that's like,

Can we live in the audio book aisle too? What changes would we have to make those sorts of things? To make it something that people would pay 28 bucks for versus they could get it free. I think it's some combination of new content and more professionalized. But I also might think that to the extent that you guys are off the cuff and by and large, you're not, I know you've, it's, it's a very professional production.

But if you remove that and it was just very like, this is Ben and David in suits. It'd be like, I don't know if I want to listen to that. I don't know if I want to listen to that. I do this thing when I speak at conferences and I'm giving a 45 minute presentation. 90% of what I say is memorized verbatim. It'll be the same at every single conference. And 10%, I intentionally ad libbed.

Because I think when you ad lib, it brings in a very real and very noticeable sense of this is real. And I'm just speaking to you. I'm not reading from a script, not reading from a teleprompter. I'm just having a conversation with you that audiences love, whether it's an in-person audience or a podcast audience. They love the idea that we're just grabbing a beer and talking about life. And that's what this is. And I think if you can bring in a little bit of that, I was listening to a podcast the other day. It was a pretty big podcast. It was just so obvious that

that they were reading from a script. And even though it was a good script, even though it was a good script and it was good words, it was just like, this feels wrong. So compare that to the other guy who yawned. And I just like cheered when he yawned. I was like, dang, it's so great. I think that realness is what make podcasts what they are.

All right. We're not done yet, but I have a series of closing questions I wanted to ask you. One is, what is an idea that you can't get out of your head right now that keeps sort of turning itself over in different forms that you're just obsessed with?

It's very technical and I'm usually don't care about economic details, but demographics are one of the only details that we know how they're going to impact the future. Because even if we started a new baby boom tomorrow, those people are not going to become workers for 20 years. So we really know with quite a bit of precision.

how many workers we're going to have in the world or in the United States 10 years from now, 15 years from now. There's like, oh, a little wild card with immigration. But even if you like have like a big zone, like margin for error in there, we pretty much know what demographics are going to do. And the very quick story is through the majority of the developed world and the emerging world, demographics are awful. No, they're not bad. They are awful.

China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Italy, keep on going down the list. These people are hemorrhaging people in a way that really has no precedent in any modern history outside of the sounds dramatic outside of the black death. There's no precedent for like a massive chunk of society disappearing. Like it's going to happen just through natural demographics. And so,

All economic growth comes from population growth and productivity growth. Everything is one of those two things. You either increase the number of people you have or you make those people more productive. And so in that simple equation, population growth over the next 50 years is very, very likely, even if we start a new baby boom tomorrow, it's going to be a tiny fraction of what it was over the last 100 years. And so that's just one of the few economic variables that we can put a lot of faith in. Like talk about same as ever. Like we know that's going to be the case.

The United States, across the developed world, has some of the best demographics. They're still much worse than they were over the last 100 years, but China's working age population will decline by 200 million people between now and 2050. 200 million fewer workers by 2050. The United States working age population will grow just at a much lower rate than it had in the past.

So that's like something I think about just because you can put so much confidence. It's so important and you can put confidence in knowing that it's true. That's pretty much the only technical detail that I think about when looking at the economy.

That seems to have pretty profound implications in what the future will look like. Do you feel like that's sort of priced in, factored in, people understand how profound that's going to be? There's a big thought among economic circles that the reason interest rates were so low for the last 20 years is not because the Fed wanted them there. The markets wanted them there because future economic growth is going to be low because of demographics. And if the natural rate of economic growth

in the 50s, 60s, 70s was 4% per year. Now it's probably two, just because of demographics. Even if we are just as innovative and come up with new technologies, even if we crush AI, et cetera, et cetera, just because we have a headwind of there are fewer people or just a slower rate of growth, you take that down. And because of that, interest rates should be lower than they were in the past.

That's also an argument for a lot of people that think that we are today dealing with a temporary inflation spike caused by COVID. But once that's worked through, the natural rate of interest rates is much lower than it used to be. And maybe we're going to go back to 1% or 2% interest rates at some point in the near future. Hmm.

So lower interest rates and just like lower returns on invested capital in basically everything because there's just less total aggregate productivity to be had. The other thing to think about here, the optimistic spin, is in the 50s and 60s, we needed to grow at 4% or 5% per year because that's what made growth per capita meaningful. Whereas now, if we're growing 2% per year in growth per capita terms –

It's the same as what 4% used to be. We just don't need to absorb as many people. It used to be in the 50s and 60s, every year there were 5 million more people who needed jobs. And you better, like you need a lot of economic growth just to absorb them. Whereas in a world where there's only one or two million new people who need jobs, you can do just fine in per capita terms with 2% growth. That was a big thing with China for most of the last 30 years is that they needed 10% annual growth just to absorb the number of new people who are entering the workforce.

So 10% growth in America would be bonkers. In China, it was the bare minimum. It was par. It was what they needed just to absorb the people. So even if we have a world in which economic growth is only 2%, like the lives that people live on the ground in per capita terms, it might feel about the same as what 4% used to mean. Yeah, that sounds like disastrous, but it might not actually be.

Here's like the stark example of this. Everyone knows that Japan for the last 30 years, the population has declined and the economy has virtually stagnated. GDP growth of roughly 0%.

But have you been to Japan? It's a very lovely place. They seem like they're living great lives. It is not the picture of economic despair that you would think. And the reason is, even though they had 0% economic growth, they had 0% population growth. Like realistically, they had 1% economic growth and 0% population growth. So they were actually getting richer during the last 30 years. But you could so easily frame it as disaster. But on the ground, it really wasn't. Fascinating.

What is one of the most interesting conversations you have had that sticks in your brain that you remember in the last couple of years? I think in many ways, this is what you want out of a spouse too. My wife is my most honest critic.

And she's willing to say things to me that other people wouldn't, but I know that she means well. I know that she loves me. I know she wants the best for me. So those criticisms mean more. I take them so much more seriously than anyone else. I said this before, if a stranger tells me I did something wrong, I'm like, if my wife says I'm like, I'm like red flag. This is this red alert. This is a big deal. So some of the conversations I've had with her about what we want out of life is,

and how I'm managing my career and what I've done and some of the friendships that we've had, just because I take her criticisms and her compliments more seriously than anyone else. The other thing is I always say that my wife has the narrowest range of emotions of anyone I've ever... The gap between her best and worst mood is like an inch, whereas mine is 100 miles. And therefore, when she has...

a firm opinion on something. I take it more seriously just because there's some people who there's firm opinions. I'm like, you're saying that because you're in this mood. In an hour, you're going to think something else. But when my wife has it, I feel like, oh, this is actually something I should take very seriously. So without getting into the details of what it was, she's just a person that just because of who she is to me and the natural tendencies of her personality, whenever we get into a deep conversation, it leaves a very lasting impact on me and in a way that nobody else in the world can do. I love that.

Is there anything that you think is a widely held belief in the world that you fundamentally disagree with? I think back to the idea of rational and reasonable and like the specific example of paying your mortgage off. If people believe that you should be rational,

And like when you say it, like who could disagree with that? Of course you should be rational. I just think that realistically nobody is. You can pretend you're rational, but usually it's just a self-justification for the irrational things you're doing. Buying the Lambo. Yes, yes. So I think if you're just honest with yourself and you just say, I'm just trying to be reasonable and I want to be reasonable. I don't want to be unreasonable, but I'm not trying to be rational because I know I'm not. And you're not either. If we can all aim to be reasonable, that's the best that we can do.

And I think to people who are very analytical and like, again, like who could argue with wanting to be rational? That's something that like a lot of people are like, well, what's the rational thing to do? I'm usually like, well, like throw that out because we're not going to do it. That's what's the reasonable thing that we can do here. I like that angle.

Morgan, this has been awesome. Same as ever, goes on sale, what's the date? November 7th. November 7th, which is either nearly in the future or just in the past, depending when we actually ship this episode. I am very excited to finish it. I'm about halfway through it. Even though there's a lot of stuff that I have had floating around in my head from the last few years of listening to the podcast and reading your writing, Morgan, it's just been very fun to like

to see you put your best foot forward with some same ideas, some new ideas, but in the most like put together punchy, honestly, like beautiful prose that you could imagine it. So. Thank you. I appreciate it. That means a lot coming from you. Thanks, Ben. Thank you. Listeners, we'll see you next time. We'll see you next time.