Geopolitical Expert: Iran War May Drag On For Years

The US stock market started history's greatest way of a wealth creation, from factory

“workers in Detroit to farmers in Omaha, and he went to own a piece of the great American”

companies. But today, our most innovative companies are staying private longer, which means every day Americans are missing out until now. Introducing BCX, the public ticker for private tech, now available wherever you buy stocks. Visit getVCX.com for more info that's GetVCX.com, carefully consider the investment

material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the fund's perspective at GetVCX.com. This is a paid sponsorship. I'm Mitch Perse, and this week on Confessions of an Elite Athlete, I'm sitting down with Mr. ACL for the world's greatest athletes.

Dr. Riley Williams is the medical director for the Brooklyn Nets, the New York Liberty, and a team physician for USA Basketball. He's also the surgeon who repaired my very own ACL. We talk about how he became one of the world's top surgeons.

“Why women's sports are seeing more ACL tears, and what knee injuries you should be most”

afraid of. You can hear it all here, by listening to Confessions of an Elite Athlete on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Say you're an aspiring pop star. How do you know if your songs are hit?

It's getting harder to tell. I think that something is going on where the machinery of popularity has changed under our feet, and we don't really know why or what it means. This week on Explanage Me, how to avoid being a flop? Find new episodes, Sundays, wherever you get your podcasts.

Welcome to Profty Markets. I'm Adelson. It is September 2nd, let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices fell, as the U.S. launched, another round of strikes on Iran, more

on that in a second, Brent Crude rose, and finally the yield on 10-year treasuries, hit

its highest level in more than a year and a half. On Calcy, odds are the rate hike this year have now climbed to 77%. What else is happening? The bond market is having its worst stretch since 2006, and it is showing no signs of improving. A 30-year yield is now back near 5.3%, a level that hasn't held this consistently in nearly

two decades, and on top of that, Brent Crude is now trading it roughly $95.00, up almost 10% over the past week. These moves follow a fresh round of fighting with Iran. On Sunday, U.S. forces struck near the straight-of-arms and Iran hit back, the first major military escalation in a month, then yesterday, the U.S. military announced even more

attacks. In post-on-tree social Trump warned that if Iran were to retaliate, they will be very left left of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both bonds and oil are pricing in the same thing, a longer war and higher inflation. Here to break this down, we are speaking with Ian Bremmer, founder and president of Eurasia

Group. Ian, thank you so much for joining us on the show.

First off, what do we know about these attacks?

“How important are they tell us about the conflict at this point?”

They tell you that essentially the Iranians and the Americans are still involved in geopolitical price discovery. They are both trying to assert that they have more leverage over the other than the other is willing to accept, and that is both true economically in terms of the amount of pain that can be meted out by the Americans onto the Iranian economy through the blockade and through

sanctions, as well as the threat and the use of military force from Iran, that is true in terms of their ability to continue to strangle some of the exports out of the straight and directly as well as through proxies. And they're willingness to engage in military strikes to ensure that they continue to have that leverage.

The fact that there is no agreement on those things means that you continue to have an unwillingness to get to a more sustainable place in negotiations. The Iranians demanding a return to the memorandum of understanding the Americans saying "go scratch." Look, these are still contained strikes.

The Iranians upset that five to seven million barrels is getting through the straight.

engage in putting more minds or attempting to put more minds into the straight and engage

“in direct strikes against ships that are going through.”

Once they do that, the Americans take shots directly against Iran. Both of these are still pretty constrained in the old couple months ago, you'd be calling this skirmish in, right? You wouldn't call this a return to all out war. It's certainly not an escalation that risks getting other Gulf states directly involved

the way they were briefly that kind of thing, but we're nowhere close to an agreement. And that means that you're still having significant amounts of oil that you do not expect to get through the straight, significant amounts that you do not expect to get out of Yanbu, Saudi Arabia, and through the Red Sea, or up to the Suez, and given that that is happening in the context of major disruptions in the Russia Ukraine war as well, there

is upward push on oil prices, on gas prices in the United States, on gasoline, and diesel prices.

“They have been balanced out by the fact that so much of Chinese demand has been taken off”

the market because they have massive reserves, but what had been 5 million barrels of import

a day has now ticked up to 7 for the Chinese. So they are starting to show that they don't want to give up on all of their demand despite a higher price environment. That plus the fact that some of the stockpiles in the United States are at the lowest levels we've seen in decades, diesel refining capability is also constrained.

So that prices at record highs, those things are going to continue to have a big impact on price. One final point, the fact that Trump worked very, very fast to suddenly announce a really big deal with Venezuela, where the Americans will take an almost colonial position in the government directly engaging in an ownership stake in Venezuela and fields in extraction

is because Trump sees that the impact on a low level of reserve in this strategic petroleum account, and that prices are continuing to be higher than he likes, that he needs to address that. So we should not from all of the activities that we've watched over the past several days.

Your expectation for the markets is that this is going on for the foreseeable predictable future. Yeah, this seems to be what has changed, at least when I'm looking at what's happening is the market's reaction to it. It seems as though over the past several weeks or so markets have given Trump the benefit

of the doubt more or less or at least maybe gave him some more leeway. Now we're seeing $95 a barrel and Brent crude. Now we're seeing rising yields on the 30 year and the 10 year as investors start to price in the possibility of there being elevated inflation, not just for the moment, but for the foreseeable future.

How accurate do you think that response is? Do you think it's correct for us for the markets to be pricing the end of the possibility that this goes on not just for weeks, but several months maybe years? Yeah, absolutely. My baseline expectation that this is going on certainly through the midterms that Trump

does not see a reason to give up on the leverage that he thinks he has versus Iran. He's not willing to take the L on the blockade or on potential additional military strikes before November. And if he's willing to go past November, he's willing to go beyond that.

“That's why I mentioned the Venezuela point, like he's trying to come up with some alternative”

narratives for a war that he believes is going to continue. You can say that you're going to blow up the Iranians tens of times as he has over the past six months. You can threaten them, say that Iran's already functionally destroyed, no one's running the country.

The Iranians certainly don't feel that way. They believe they have more leverage and that their leverage comes from the ability and willingness to continue to strangle the straight, including military strikes. And as long as that difference persists between the Iranian perspective and the American perspective of who has leverage, then this war is going to continue again at a constrained

level.

We don't see the Americans going after massive critical infrastructure.

We don't see the Americans deciding they're going to try to kill a bunch of additional

Nor do we see the Iranians engaging in unfettered strikes against major infrastructure across the Gulf. We don't see that.

“So as much as I believe the markets are correct in assessing that over the coming months,”

we are going to continue to have significant conflict and disruption, no deal that works. We should also recognize that the upside on escalation appears to be constrained by both of the principle antagonists. Now, that may not be true of Israel, particularly as we get closer to an election that be not now who may well lose in October, but leading that aside.

And the Americans would put pressure on him certainly not to take such steps. The United States and the Iranians at this point are not getting to a yes, they're not getting to a negotiated settlement, but they're also not blowing each other to kingdom cut. If it's been more than six months since this war began, which should have, and if, as you

say, both sides show no real signs of being interested in letting up or coming to some sort of agreement, why should we not believe that this could be Iraq, that this could be like if I've gone astounded, this could last several years. Well, it could potentially last several years, but the Americans are very unwilling to put troops on the ground, so it won't look like Iraq or Afghanistan.

They appear to be very unwilling to engage in broader strikes against Iranian critical

infrastructure, because they know what would be coming in return, including with America's Gulf allies, so that makes it not look like Iraq and Afghanistan, and also Iran's leverage over the straight is a wasting asset. There will be additional capabilities, radar defense of capabilities where the Gulf States

“can defend themselves, and their key energy assets, and their populations better over”

time where the Gulf States will have alternatives to get their energy and other product out of their region, they'll export it without using the straight, other countries around the world will also find other ways to avoid the straight, and that means that Iran needs to figure out what price they're going to extract from having influence, because otherwise they're not going to get what they want.

So they can't wait for two, three, four years, or they just don't have the position that they presently are in for all of those reasons. This looks very different from Iraq, from Afghanistan.

But just final question, as you mentioned mid-times are coming up, one of the most important

topics is affordability, IE inflation, and inflation at this point seems to be largely a function of energy prices, and therefore what is happening in Iran right now. Do you see prices continuing to go up? Is that one of the takeaways?

“Yeah, I mean, again, Treasury is what we've seen from Bessent as an effort by Trump to give a competing”

narrative, what we see in the conversation on Venezuela and the actions an effort to give a competing narrative. Trump will say this is all fake news, he says the polls are fake, he says that the affordability is a made up issue, the reality is that most voters don't see it that way, Trump is underwater, Trump is badly underwater on the economy, he's badly underwater on inflation, he's badly

underwater in Iran. He's also badly underwater, since we're talking about water on Lake Ontario, but hasn't stocked him there either, he just doesn't care that much about the mid-terms, he cares more about himself, he's not the one on the ballot, Republicans that are running in November are very keenly aware of the difference between the chip.

Ian Brenner has found a unprecedented of Eurasia Group Ian, really appreciate your time, thank you. Great to see you, man. Off to the break, Amazon is headed to court. We're talking about shops, the Hamthons, and what it takes to make a cry worthy pasta.

You can listen now wherever you get your podcasts.

Dear Mr. President, I want things to always be right between us.

I also know I've been distracted all week for getting to eat throughout the days and even for getting to sleep. I never want to bring you anything but joy, I'm sorry I lost my focus. You are all that matters to me, I don't ever want to let you down. Thank you for being my guardian and protector in this life.

I have learned so much about myself on this trip. For the first time in, I don't know how long you forced me to unplug. I didn't have to be human printer. Thank you for always being there for me, to modify a classic.

And I will add, it is I who is unworthy with all my heart, Natalie. What is going on with Natalie Harp, President Trump's human printer, on today explained from Vox. So like any good millennial, I have a love hate relationship with Gen Z. It's the phenomenon rattling millennials.

They just look at you. They want something bigger themselves, lifestyles of priority, motivation is being inspired. But regardless of how you feel about Gen Z, it's undeniable that they're changing national politics. Generation Z is increasingly showing less loyalty to traditional political parties, many

now more likely to identify as independent. So what is going on with the kids?

“I think the biggest misconception about Gen Z's politics right now is that all of a sudden”

they're all socialist. That is just not the case. They are embracing candidates who are offering new bold ideas in the absence of those ideas from establishment Democrats. This week on America, actually, Gen Z researcher Rachel, Jim Faso joins us to separate Gen Z

fact versus fiction. It's not rocket science, and this is, you know, I keep saying, "Gunkwaters aren't that complicated after all. It's pretty simple." Catch us every Saturday on YouTube or wherever you get your podcast.

We're back with Prof. Markets. Amazon is returning to court. The FTC, along with 22 states, sued the company on Monday, alleging that it "sequently and systematically overcharged advertises on its platform." The suit alleges that Amazon manipulated its pricing and auction systems, causing over

$20 billion in harm, the company called the suit "misguided," arguing that the complaint

to quote fundamentally "misunderstands how advertisers operate." This is the third major FTC suit against Amazon and the monopolization trial is set for early next year, Amazon shares odd down nearly 5% since the news broke. Joining us to discuss this case, we're speaking with our favourite anti-trust expert, Jonathan Canter, former assistant attorney general for the anti-trust division of the U.S. Department

of Justice. Jonathan, thank you for joining us. FTC is bringing a case against Amazon. Supposedly, they are misleading advertisers, walk us through what we know about this, what you make of the case.

This is a blockbuster lawsuit, and I have to hand it to the FTC.

I've been critical in the administration when they do the wrong thing, but I'm also quick

to praise them when they do the right thing.

“This is an example of the administration bringing an important enforcement action against”

Amazon. And I should note that it's alongside a large number of bipartisan state attorneys general. So here's what the lawsuit alleges. It says that Amazon sells surchads, and by that I mean, when you go and look for something on Amazon, you typically go in that search bar and you try to find something.

Those ads, the rankings that show up from there, are paid, and they're sold in an auction. And what it's the kind of auction is called a general-second-priced generalized-second-priced auction. So what that means is not with the highest bidder pays the amount they bid. It means that the highest bidder pays with the next highest bidder bidder.

And so what this is supposed to do is it's supposed to incentivize someone in an auction to offer their highest price. So this is a lot of science on this, it's become very common. This is how Google surchads were sold. So people, lots of small businesses on Amazon, a lot of sellers on Amazon, large sellers.

We're bidding as the suit alleges with this notion that if they're going to pay the second highest price or penny above the second highest price, what the lawsuit alleges is that Amazon was cooking the auction that they were effectively putting in a quote unquote proxy price in order to raise the highest second highest price of the auction so that they can squeeze out more money from the highest bidder.

And what the FTC and the state attorneys general are arguing is that that is costing advertisers.

These are the small businesses, primarily selling on Amazon in excess of $20 billion.

In other words, would the correct analogy be, I hold an auction and secretly bid on the

“thing that I'm selling myself in order to raise the price?”

Exactly. And so you're not bidding to win, you're simply bidding. The auction here is participating in their own auction in order to raise the price for the winner, and the suit has a lot of really interesting internal documents and quotes from folks in Amazon saying they knew exactly what they're doing.

And in fact, the suit alleges that they slowly rolled this out and changed this so that

them even more money. It's somewhat surprising to see this lawsuit, to see that the FTC be stringent on big

“tech right now largely because, I mean, I think the last time we spoke was when we saw”

the alsting of Gale Slater, who was one of the heads over at the FTC in the anti-trust division. I say alsting, she may be resigned, but we also know that she was told off by her bosses when she tried to investigate a merger that seems to have some relationship, or at least the defendants of the merger, seemed to have some relationship with people in the Trump

administration. She got in some trouble her subordinates were then fired and she leaves the FTC. That was sort of a watershed moment for me where I thought, okay, maybe this FTC actually isn't serious about anti-trust, maybe they don't actually care about these issues, but now we do see, as you say, a pretty significant lawsuit.

What are we supposed to make of the actual heft and the intentions of the FTC at this moment in time? I don't want to discourage them for bringing a meritorious case in doing it with bipartisan state attorney's general. So good for them, I'm glad they did the right thing here, and let's see how this case plays

out. Now the elephant in the room, so to speak, is the fact that Amazon is very close to the White House, and Amazon is, you know, donate money to the ballroom or other kinds of endeavors supposedly that the president undertakes, and so the question is whether they will try to use their lobbying heft in order to call off the FTC, or whether they've tried to do it so

far. Kudos to the FTC for not caving or not giving and bringing the case, and so the jury's still out on the administration's view on Big Tech as a whole largely been quite disappointed, but when it comes to the FTC, I'll give them credit where credit is due, they're bringing this Amazon case, they're continuing to litigate the other Amazon case, and even though

they didn't succeed, they brought the Facebook case to trial, and so that was the right thing to do and glad to see it. Speaking of Facebook, while we were on break, there was an enormous settlement from Meta

Meta agreed to pay, more than $17 billion in penalties after it was sued by multiple states.

I'd just love to get your reactions to that Meta settlement.

“That, to me, does seem like an important and pivotal moment in the story of Big Tech regulation.”

I'll list a moment where if you believe that these companies caused harm, they were actually brought to justice in some sense. Yeah, for two decades, people have been clamoring for regulation or oversight or some accountability for Big Tech, especially with respect to social media and children. Motion 230 and lack of government action, particularly by the U.S. Congress, has effectively

allowed these companies to go by untouched and with no accountability for the impact that they're having on society, including on the mental health of children. This marks the first time in which there is accountability.

When I say accountability, yeah, there's the money, right, $17 billion is a lot of money.

Let's be frank about that. Facebook or Meta is not going to break a sweat from $17 billion. It's not going to have a material effect. What's more significant is that the states imposed behavior relief, meaning they are forcing the way in which Facebook and Instagram have to deal with children, what they can show, what times they can appear.

Now, in my view, this still doesn't go far enough. But if you view this as a floor rather than a ceiling, it's an opportunity to say, yes, these companies can be held accountable. Yes, these companies can be brought to account in court and it's a reminder that we desperately need Congress and our government to take action here to protect the safety and security

of children in society more broadly.

“What is it about this case that made it successful?”

I mean, as you say, it was decades of unsuccessful attempts to regulate Big Tech. And then suddenly this happens, what was different about this? It's the Big Tobacco moment. So they brought the case using very similar theories, legal theories, to how states and victims went after Big Tobacco.

So rather than making it about first amendment and speech, they made it about knowingly

designing their products in a way that will be harmful to kids and harmful to mental health. And so they were able to get past some of the section 230 immunity that has largely protected the social media companies up until now. And the fact that Facebook settled suggests they understand that these cases really need to be put behind them, and so perhaps it's the first step forward.

The other thing that's really interesting about this is now that Facebook or Meta, the artist formerly known as Facebook has settled, they're having incentive to encourage enforcers

to the same standard or else, they may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. And so what for, until now has been the largest opponent in terms of MetaFacebook of regulation is now going to be a proponent of at least having similar kinds of regulation imposed on its direct rivals. And so the complexion of the whole debate has changed.

Do you think then this might mean that this is the first of many settlements or the first

of many at least forceful acts of regulation? Absolutely. So we're, you know, just to be very clear, this settlement doesn't resolve all of the issues. There are plenty more coming. So there are municipalities, there are victims, families that have filed lawsuits.

“And we're just like Big Tobacco, I think we're going to see a wave of those lawsuits”

and perhaps settlements. But hopefully this is a wake-up call to Congress, which is that again, country has been clamoring for relief. They've been clamoring for some rules of the road, some lines on the road, some stop signs, some traffic lights, something to protect well-being of the public.

It's widely popular, has bipartisan support, yet somehow we have got nothing with respect to even protection of children and their mental health from social media. So we need to get moving on this, and hopefully this will be the kick-in-the-shorts that Congress needs to start getting moving.

Before we let you go, I always like to hear from you about what Andi Trust cases you

are looking at, what you think that we should be paying attention to, what should we be paying attention to? So there are a couple of things that are out there. First, the Big Tech wars and the Big Tech and I trust battles are still going on. We are waiting a decision from a court, an eastern district of Virginia and a lawsuit that

I filed, that is designed to break up Google's ad-tech business. We've been waiting for over a year for a court to render a decision to come any day now could be quite significant. The other big issue that I think is out there is the DOJ and the State Attorney's General Case Against Apple.

This has been a longstanding case that started when I was in office alleging that Apple has been abusing its position over the phone to gouge app developers and others. We've seen a number of private lawsuits including by Epic Games but the broader DOJ case has a chance to be way more significant and it's pending litigation now in the district of New Jersey and one of the big questions at play, Apple Poe of the questions you were

asking at the beginning of our discussion is whether Tim Cook and his goal bars at the White House are going to be used to try to settle that case now that he's in an emeritus and symbolic diplomacy role where his primary job is executive chairman will be to engage in the kind of diplomacy at the White House and elsewhere that nobody else really wants to have to do. And so we'll see if the DOJ has the stones to stick with it or whether they cave under

political pressure from the White House. At this point is that what is in the way of big tech regulation is some form of lobbying or trying to as you say, does he diplomat in your relations with the White House?

“I mean, is that basically the the the the the the only thing left?”

Well, yes, so that and and Congress and so on the and I trust side, you know, the influence of the White House has had is way more impact on it law enforcement in this administration than any previous administration since Nixon and so traditionally the White House walled as allowed to weigh in on issues of policy is not supposed to weigh in on issues of law enforcement. As we saw in the live nation, take a master settlement which I think might have been the last time

we talked. Unfortunately, the White House has now had a heavy thumb on the scale in terms of interfering with law enforcement. And so to the extent that someone goes to the White House and lobbies them, they're willing to take action so much so that there's a recent Wall Street Journal piece that had some pretty jaw-dropping episodes where the president according to the Wall Street Journal by urging from Boris F.stein who's not part of the government and potentially paid or at least

suggested might be paid by a third party was encouraging the president to encourage the DOJ to settle

which he did and they had settlement negotiations at the White House according to the Wall Street Journal where the president's self put his head in the door of the negotiations telling them to settle.

“The only thing worse than that was the level of incompetence and how they did it because”

they settled the case and then they forgot about the state attorney's general who stayed in the case, litigated it to a jury decision and won. So take a master and live nation did all that lobbying but ended up losing the case anyway because the state AG's had the wherewithal to continue. I'm believe it will. Jonathan Gantza is former assistant attorney general for the

Time for our regular instalment of AI bubble watch on this show and Thropic has just signed a $35

“billion compute deal with a lesser known cloud company called Lambda. Lambda is what's known as a”

neocloud IE a newer compute company and the deal could be seen as evidence that the AI ecosystem is diversifying away from big tech away from these trillion dollar companies that

seem to be subsidizing the entire industry. Yes it could be seen as that. If it weren't for

the fact that Lambda is almost entirely subsidized by Nvidia. Yes Nvidia is one of Lambda's

“largest investors. They're also Lambda's largest GPU supplier and even more concerning”

Lambda isn't even providing the data center in this agreement. No instead another company called Hut 8 will be renting out the data center which will be least not by Lambda but by you guessed it in video. Why? Because renting that data center will cost tens of billions of dollars tens of billions that Lambda doesn't have but of course Nvidia does. In other words this entire compute agreement has almost nothing to do with Lambda and almost everything to do with

Nvidia. Lambda is essentially just a shell corporation for Nvidia. It's a subdivision that just

“happens to go by a different name and the part you also have to remember is that Nvidia is also an”

investor in anthropic. People often forget that. So what do we have? We have an Nvidia backed AI lab that is buying compute from an Nvidia backed cloud company whose data center capacity will be paid for and least by Nvidia. So there is no conclusion that you can draw from this deal other than the fact that it is circular. It says nothing of the underlying economic health of AI this idea that AI is diversifying. It doesn't tell you about the underlying demand. All it tells you

is that Nvidia has a lot of money to go off and do stuff. Now whether that stuff eventually turns into a sustainable ecosystem that can survive on its own. That is an open question and it's worth debating but too many companies and too many deals like this one are trying to con you into believing

that the ecosystem right now is sustainable as it is. The answer is plain to see it is not.

Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer on video editor is Brad Williams on research team is Dan Schlon, Christian Adonohue and Mia Solveria and our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Prof. Markets from Prof. Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Alison, I will see you tomorrow.