The Myth Of Capitalism (w/ Jonathan Tepper) | Expert View | Real Vision™

if you take a variety of inputs into our
leading indicator for wages it would tell you that wages should be rising
considerably the thing that was bugging me though is that clearly our leading
indicator for wages was wrong and I didn't know why the lack of vitality the
lack of innovation and low productivity all of these things The Economist's are
documenting coming from essentially increasing industrial concentration at very perception what we try to do is
to help hedge funds family offices asset managers essentially look ahead and what
we're trying to do is to develop leading economic indicators leading liquidity
indicators and tools that sort of tell us where the economy is going whether
it's the US economy or the Chinese economy but even more importantly where
our credit spreads going where it's the yield curve where our stock prices you
know these investors ultimately it's not that they don't care about the economy
but rather they actually care about sort of you know where their investments are
going and so a lot of the way that the leading indicators are built is based on
some historic relationships you know we haven't reinvented the wheel but there's
also an enormous amount of additional research and work that we've done and
the only reason that we care about this is to try to find tradable investment
ideas so something that might lead us to conclude that we have a disagreement
with the market and therefore a variant perception and where you can find
essentially a high risk reward short or long and then sometimes you know if our
tools confirm what the market thinks then those tend to be more momentum
trades but at least it's good to have an objective set of tools that tell us
where things are going I was a proprietary trader many years ago and
what I wanted to do is to have tools that would help me create a repeatable
robust and scalable process and there's the assumption that you know someone has
a crystal ball and that they might be able to tell you the future and the
approach that we've adopted it variant perception is certainly there many
people who have you know deep insights but the the best way to try to create a
repeatable process is effectively to find tools that work across cycles if
we're trying to create these tools that provide a lead on asset prices in the
business cycle one of the things that had been
troubling me the most in the past few years had been a particular leading
indicator for wages in the United States and so if you think about a variety of
economic data some are coincident meaning they tell you about today and if
you used a driving analogy it's like looking out of you're sort of you know
side window and it tells you sort of you know where you are and that's like
retail sales or industrial production they tell you about today if the economy
is doing well people are buying if the commies didn't well industrial
production is grind then there are things that I know obviously what we
focus on are leading indicators that tell us a bit about the future one of
the things that is a lagging indicator is inflation or wages so typically if
you're running a supermarket you have a good month or two of sales you don't
start hiking your prices immediately you wait to make sure that the demand is
there that you know you can raise prices so the key thing that I was looking at
was wages and wages lag the economic cycle considerably and so you know one
because wage negotiations tend to happen at the end of the year often you know
when you go to talk to your employer and like well how is my year do I get a
bonus you know obviously it's even more exaggerated in the financial industry
and the hedge fund industry where you know how much your entire pay depends on
your year-end bonus but throughout many industries as well that are lower paid
it's an annual thing and so therefore wages lag the economic cycle and over
the past couple years everyone's been saying well wages are very low don't
worry about it you know eventually they're going to
pick up because they like the economic cycle considerably and it's been sort of
like waiting for godot where the ink you know that the labor market has gotten
tighter so if you're looking at initial unemployment claims in the United States
basically they're lower than they were going back to 1973 and at the same time
if you look at it as a percentage of the total workforce it's the lowest
percentage ever so your chances being fired in the United States right now
we're practically insignificant now that would imply that there's this
tremendously tight labor market and therefore the balance of power should be
shifting towards workers and historically if you take a variety of
inputs into our leading indicator for wages it would tell you that wages
should be rising considerably some of the things we look at our surveys like
the NFIB survey which is the National Federation of Independent businesses and
you know they ask them they say do you expect to raise wages you know anytime
soon and most of them said that they did also is hard to find workers most them
say it's hard to find workers those things tend to lead the wages
historically going back decades yet at the same time you know I kept on looking
at these charts and wages weren't going up you know even when our leading
indicator was going up and it's worked almost perfectly for four decades and
and if you plot it against most of these inputs that I'm telling you it's also
worth perfectly so I don't mind being wrong I think that when you're wrong off
and that's where you can actually learn quite a bit if you can analyze sort of
why you're wrong and you know where you can you can fix things or what new
insights or understanding you might be able to have the thing that was bugging
me though is that clearly our leading indicator for wages was wrong and I
didn't know why and so one of the things that I wanted to do is to go away and do
loads of research that variant we focus on cyclical stories you know of the
economy we don't spend an enormous amount of time on unstructured big
structural breaks but we do pay attention to them and so one way instead
of doing a lot of work on the structure of the US economy and corporations and
it was became quite evident after reading hundreds of academic articles
and doing lots of our own independent work that one of the biggest changes
that's happened in the US economy directly affects wages the answer to the puzzle that we had is
you know about why our wage is not rising is essentially that the US
economy is becoming increasingly concentrated and by concentrated I'm
talking about industrial concentration so if you're looking at an industry you
know you have a perfectly competitive industry let's say we have 100 companies
each one with one percent market share right and that's like a perfectly
competitive industry no one company can dominate the industry no one company can
raise prices you know essentially that in do you go back to economic textbooks
that's what's referred to as perfect competition everyone is essentially a
price taker the other extreme is obviously one company which has 100
percent market share that's a sort of classic textbook case monopoly now these
don't tend to exist in in real life for a variety of reasons and where they do
they tend to be regulated so like you know a water utility will provide water
to a hundred percent of the customers in a given City and so there are as it
turns out of course there are many industries in the United States and
around the world that are almost monopolies or believe it or not that
actually appear to be oligopolistic where you take the whole United States
and you carve it up geographically and you defined for players or five players
but you find out actually that each one has a local monopoly and so this matter
is an enormous amount because if you look over time the proportion of workers
that are in unions has been declining and as at the same time we've seen an
increase in concentration among companies so if you are a worker in a
hospital for example a nurse and you live in a town that has only one
hospital you have a diffuse set of nurses for example in doctors
negotiating against one hospital provider likewise there many other
industries where you know if you are a telecoms worker and you're working in a
a town that has one cable system you are negotiating for wages against one
employer and this is also true for example if you're looking at Airlines
many airports in the United States or what are known as fortress hubs so if
you take Charlotte North Carolina it's close to ninety percent I believe it's
um American Airlines right and then you look in Atlanta which has Delta right
and so you start going around the country and while it appears that there
is this a very market what actually happens is that you
have these sort of local monopolies and this to a large extent explains why
wages have been weak there's quite a lot of research that's been done and you
know that looks at online job posting and then pairs that to industrial
concentration by city and county and what's very clear is that if you live in
a town and this generally rural because obviously if you're in a big city you
have more choices in general for who you're going to work for but it's so the
rural economy generally has an in that just rural but sort of smaller cities
relative to big cities have a lot less choices and therefore tend to have much
lower wages due to the fact that they're generally facing off against one big
employer and this is very true certainly in towns that you know have
one major poultry employer whatever it might be this clearly has enormous
implications one for for wages in the 1970s there were quite a few reasons for
the inflation spiral one of them happened to be the wage price spirals
inflation is going up then workers demanded wage increases if we're just
increases were going up then companies started passing them on as costs and so
you ended up with this wage price spiral so there's sort of a macro element to
the story in terms of why we know what we're saying so what we're saying on the
on the price level and the other is the micro story for long short investors
what what are the implications in terms of do you want to be going long or short
certain industries or certain companies what's fascinating is that if you're
looking at the sort of top-down question right which is where should inflation be
and where should bond yields be they're they're two ways that you can look at it
an investor in New York I was a client put it this way to me he said they're
straight to two types of sort of monopolies or concentrated industries
one is the sort of Giants kicking midgets in the head and the other is
Titans facing off against Titans so one has very clear implications for prices I
mean either going up so this is generally the Giants kicking midget
in the head if you are the local cable company and you know you're facing off
against all these diffuse consumers you can afford to hike prices on the other
hand what often happens is you'll find industries where like for example
Walmart faces off against for you know agricultural you know meat or you know
soft commodities producers and you end up with sort of Titans facing Titans and
this is something that happens often and so what what happens there is not the
pricing necessary go up but rather that the supplier gets squeezed tremendously
and it's unsurprising that bankruptcies among farmers over the last twenty
thirty years have completely skyrocketed and that's partly because while it
appears competitive in the sense that you have so you know three hundred
million consumers and then you have sort of two million farmers and you'd say
well that's extremely diffuse this is like the definition of perfect
competition it's a very sort of an hourglass structure where there are four
firms that meet in the middle whether it's archers Dan'l middle and Bunge
Cargill you know and so you have the hourglass figure whether it's on the
softs whether it's on the meat side you know whether it's produced in the field
and so increasingly more and more of these industries are concentrated and it
really does depend on what kind of industry you are whether going to see
price increases or whether you're going to see squeeze on suppliers and squeeze
on workers but invariably the worker gets squeezed and that was really sort
of the origin of the question what's interesting is that often the companies
that are monopolies don't necessarily appear to be monopolies so for example
if you take many industries that appear to be oligopolies that would be you know
four five six players generally it's for when you get to up to six players it
tends to be more competitive but for players what happens is often as I
mentioned before you have these local monopolies develop so for example take
something like the funeral industry the phenol industry in the United States
about 30 percent of it is in the hands of service corporation most people
obviously are in great distress when a family member dies you know it's a
horrific event and so they don't tend to be shoppers you know they're not going
to go around and comparison shop for funeral services for a loved one and so
because of that if you can be the funeral home it's located
in a place that it doesn't have much competition you know you're going to get
an enormous amount of pricing power unsurprisingly
service corporation has prices are about thirty percent higher than independent
funeral homes and so these are very clear examples where markets may appear
to be essentially diffuse and perfectly competitive but in fact have a lot of
local monopolies Warren Buffett is the ultimate monopoly man you know he's
certainly a genius he's very very smart when greatest investors of all time but
if you start looking sort of over all his investments from the outset not till
later now clearly Berkshire Hathaway where the name comes from was a terrible
investment you know it was a New England mill but once he started moving outside
of that and learned some of his first lessons he was essentially buying local
newspapers and he would often run like there would be like a weekly newspaper
and maybe a weekend edition and he would drive out the other other newspaper from
from business and then he would have a local monopoly and four years before the
internet that was basically a license to print money
likewise one of his first investments was you know in the ABC television
company uses capital cities and you know it was very similar you know you paid
for the asset you know the cost appeared high but it was just depreciation over
time and you know these were essentially local monopolies and often you know
local duopoly and oligopolies he's almost always bought industries when
they've gotten down to about four players so he bought Burlington Northern
when the railroads got down to four players you know so when the staggers
act and deregulated the US railroad industry you know there were about 31 I
believe railroads and then over time you had said of all the railroads started
converging and it got down it was like you know March Madness it got down to
the Final Four and sure enough that's from Buffett bought one interestingly
same thing happened with the airlines the airlines were allowed to merged they
got down to four players and Warren Buffett not only bought he didn't buy
one he bought all four of them right so he wasn't making a bet on a company he
was making a bet on an industry in a way that when he had said that capitalism
would have been better off if the Wright brothers had been shot down you know and
so it gives you a sense of sort of how Buffett thanks you know the oligopoly is
a monopoly is very powerful when industry by industry identifying
the stocks that had monopolistic power it took quite a long time because
there's it's not immediately obvious how to do it you know you can for example
look at higher returns on capital there many companies that might exhibit higher
returns on capital but might it might be brief or temporary and then some
companies that do have pricing power and I do have monopoly power often
essentially don't appear so from the outset but when you qualitatively start
looking at it you can then see where the the pricing power of is there's a paper that I highly recommend
reading it's easy to find online it's everywhere it's by Gustavo go to you and
GRU LLO and he is a professor at Rice University and he wrote a paper called
our industries becoming more concentrated and what's very interesting
is that he noted that if he went long the concentrated industries and short
the unconcentrated industries you would achieve a 9% out performance per year so
that has very clear implications for equity long-short managers we've
identified almost all the companies that would fit the concentrated industry
we've not yet written a short report on the unconcentrated industries but that's
probably a second step and what's interesting is then you can put them
into a a portfolio now obviously you could throw them all in this it's not an
optimal way to wait to do it necessarily because that clearly what you would
prefer to do is to buy cheaper ones or buy better ones and that is where some
of these sort of secret sauce comes in but the implication is pretty obvious
from bullion's work and from our work that this that concentrated industries
can produce higher higher performance and in there clearly is something about
moats you know we're Buffett talks about it some of the moats are our business
related so you have for example you know Buffett's talked about low-cost
providers and Walmart and he once said it was mistake that he did not buy
Walmart early on but he has brought other low-cost providers you have the
network effects those often can essentially help create conditions that
might encourage monopolies or duopoly so network effects for example are very
evident if you're looking at sort of PayPal you know a payment systems it
seems true with Visa or MasterCard you know before they were floated obviously
the banks owned them collectively and the reason for that was that it made
sense to have a common resource you know where you wanted to have a network for
payment and you know I don't think that their manager is sitting around saying I
want to buy monopolies and that's their invest
and philosophy but rather obviously it's a very key part of it which is that
you'd like to find companies that have less competition so I don't think anyone
would necessarily go out and say you know give them monopolies are usually
viewed as being bad people probably wouldn't admit that but certainly from
an investment standpoint they're quite a lot of funds out there that that do that inevitably there is a pendulum back and
forth and you can see this in history that I think this will change the
question of course is one how quickly does change happen and you know how does
the political mood shift if you look at American history you have to go back to
essentially the the Gilded Age the time of the so-called robber barons I mean
the term itself robber baron comes from medieval Europe where you had barons who
had roads going through their you know lands and they would charge people for
going on the roads without actually providing any improved roads and in a
way the funny thing is the the entire basis of monopoly investing if you will
for a long short fund is that what you're trying to essentially own a toll
road and so the it's funny that the term robber baron comes from the sort of toll
road collecting idea for for long short investors but if you go back to the
robber barons that in 1890 a Sherman Act it took quite some time
once the Act even been passed for there to be effective prosecutions and it
wasn't really even until 21 years later that Standard Oil was broken off in 1911
and so the question is now one you know how did we get where we are and how it's
going to change so for four decades particularly after the late 1930s
antitrust was vigor very vigorously enforced and there were you know most
industries were not very concentrated what you had was Roosevelt had appointed
a head of the Antitrust Division very aggressive the 40s and 50s presidents
continued this and it was only really in the late 1960s and 70s Robert Bork in
the Chicago School started attacking essentially the idea of antitrust
arguing that efficiency is better and consolidating companies getting bigger
companies can create more consumer welfare and okay and then the
the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act the only real reason they
existed was because they might raise prices on people and therefore if you
could have a monopolist or you could have a do a list that might be more
efficient and give you lower prices then who cares about any of the other
considerations and of course the consumer welfare doctrine is nowhere in
the original acts it's basically a sort of a revolution and in thought and but
everyone bought into that and you know Bork were a highly influential book
called neon tetras paradox and so when Reagan came into power the antitrust in
a way had possibly gone too far in the 70s where you know to Los Angeles
supermarkets couldn't merge with each other because they might increase their
market share by a percent or two which was you know probably taking it too far
so as a pendulum things had gone from no antitrust you
know in the 1880s to essentially quite a lot by the 1930s that stated for a while
and then it went essentially from the early 1980s it's now moved in the exact
opposite direction where once Reagan appointed people who bought into vorks
idea you know any merger could go through and since the 1980s what we've
had essentially is every single decade has had a merger wave and which is
extraordinary if you think about the first merger wave was a strangely after
the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed because it wasn't really enforced so
from 1918 92 1904 you had a huge merger wave then the next one was the 1920s
you know everyone stock market rebuilding companies or button people
were buying each other and and then you had essentially the and these were all
horizontal mergers meaning the you know competitor a buck competitor be in the
same industry the 1960s because they weren't actually enforcing the antitrust
laws you had a merger wave of creating
conglomerates so if you couldn't buy your direct competitor because of
antitrust enforcement you'd have crazy things like Gulf Western where you'd
have an oil company buying a Hollywood studio you know and you just had the
most ridiculous conglomerates put together you know wanting to merge but
not being able to by their direct competitors so these all got broken up
in the 1980s and 1990s in these were like ITT for example and others and so
when threatened came in in 1980 they changed the merger guidelines and then
every single decade has had a merger wave where competitors have slowly been
you've been there field down till now you're down to a
very very few so as you can see from history it takes a very long time to
move the pendulum in either direction and I think that unfortunately it's
going to take some time it's going to take I think it's starting to happen a
bit on the Democratic side I suspect that Republicans as well you can see
this with some conservatives and capitalists you know bizarrely in the
Chicago School which is historically been the most Pro merger free market for
stroud they're recognizing that there are very bad consequences that come from
high industrial concentration and it's not just low worker wages is actually
less economic dynamism so there's quite a lot of research that ties fewer
startups in all areas you know including technology they're just fewer startups
and so the the the right or the sort of pro-capitalist side is also recognizing
that it's just not good to have two or three companies or even one completely
dominate an industry you end up with less innovation and you end up with less
flexibility less creation of new companies so I suspect that the left and
the right will end up abandoning together eventually for different
reasons left motivated by higher wages the right motivated by more economic
dynamism and you'll end up with merger guidelines being changed perhaps new
acts some of this has to do with I think the digital monopolies if you're looking
at Facebook and Google and others you can see that people are starting to wake
up the fact that one player owns all your digital information and so all this
that I've been talking about essentially is starting to play out and the national
consciousness and I think that that's going to start leading to a change we've
written these reports for variant clients I've started writing a book and
you can go to the website it's a myth of capitalism calm I'll be doing further
blog posts on all the various issues that I'm outlining here not so much from
the investment investing angle more from the social angle from the historical
angle looking at these very very big issues and so I do think that things are
going to change but I think that this process is a long one and I think that
you're going to start seeing it play out essentially in you know the department
justice FTC but also obviously in the election cycle that this is not
really purely a u.s. phenomenon I think that perhaps it's most exaggerated in
the u.s. you know because it's a very it's one of the largest markets in the
world by GDP but you see this in many other countries and the the strange
thing is often you see it even more in smaller countries so if you think that
for example the Australian banking situation that's an oligopoly right they
earn extraordinarily high returns because there's almost no competition
likewise if you start you know if you're in the UK you can see that there are
very few players in many industries in some industries these are obvious
monopolies that are regulated you know whether it's telecoms in some of the
European countries and so to that extent they're they're reined in and controlled
but in many other countries you have oligopolies and Wobblies that
essentially are not reigned in not controlled and you see a very similar
dynamic that you see in in the United States and so the problems in the United
States which is the lack of vitality the lack of innovation and low productivity
all of these things The Economist's are documenting coming from essentially
increasing industrial concentration or evident in other countries and you know
this this is very true if you're looking at Mexico if you're looking at Russia
and unfortunately it is highly tied to income inequality which is obviously
getting to be a much bigger issue in our time and I think this in part explains
why you're seeing a rise of third-party candidates sort of outside of the two
major parties in most countries people are simply watching you know every day
if you pay money to these monopolies and oligopolies money's going out of your
pocket into their pocket and this is effectively a form of Taxation but it's
happening and people recognize this feel that somehow things are wrong and then
mysteriously are voting for third parties you know and obviously the
political system itself is a form of duopoly in most countries you know so
they're there in a way we revolt against this political and economic sort of
oligopoly and duopoly and I think that it does answer quite a lot of those
questions I think the technology clearly can help
break up some monopolies but the paradox is that if you're looking at technology
often it actually entrenches monopolies and oligopolies
and you know part of that is that before you know if you wanted to take over many
many towns you know you had to physically locate a store there or a
service point in the digital world you can achieve scale much much faster and
and therefore locking people in to your program or to your software and you know
your your web platform means that you can generally achieve network effects
and economies of scale much faster and I think that's one reason why a lot of the
monopolies are concentrated in the tech sector and you know they're clearly not
just the tech sector but very definitely I think scale and technology rather than
break down barriers actually helps erect them by allowing for faster scaling
under Network effects what's very interesting is if you're
looking at the asset management business the investing business which everyone
who subscribes to real visions in you know whether whether you're providing
the the product or whether you are an investor and consuming the product you
know investing in a variety of funds or even stocks and what's fascinating is
you've seen this increase in concentration in other industries where
fewer and fewer players exist and so for example like if you're looking at u.s.
listed stocks they declined by 50% since 1997 so you're getting all this
concentration on the industrial side but in the asset management side you're
seeing a similar industrial concentration some of it for example in
the hedge fund side comes from increasing regulation and scale so like
you know the top 100 funds control almost all the assets in the hedge fund
world you know people it's very hard to start smaller funds but interestingly on
the passive versus active side you know the very big passive players are getting
more and more of the market share and in theory this is great because everyone's
paying fewer fees I mean it's just bibs the problem with this of course is that
you end up looking at an industry and before I was saying Buffett's buying all
the airlines well it turns out that all the passive guys are buying all the
airlines too and they're buying every other industry right and they have no
interest in promoting one company to try to gain market share to compete they
would far prefer to see no competition and have no interest in sitting on the
boards or voting their shares and achieving a better outcome for any
particular company that's just not the way they operate right so you have this
increasing concentration on the investment side then with further
effects that encourage further concentration on the operating side of
companies so in under the laws you know JP Morgan used to buy up shares and you
know trying to control industries whether it's buying all the railroads
that competed with each other and so that was outlawed now obviously there
are some exemptions for passive investing where one fund can own in
every railroad and it's not a problem but quite clearly it's the same effect
you know where you have essentially a few large players whether it's Blackrock
and Vanguard and others that are essentially now the dominant owners in
the US economy with no interest in encouraging any
competition between their holdings you know and I think that it is sort of
going back to the days of of JP Morgan there's an enormous amount of historical
detail which i think is fascinating you know it's so we have like a report on
the investing side at fair and perception if you have any interest in
the history the ideology and all the rest that goes with the the pendulum
back and forth and where things might be going on the myth of capitalism which
will be coming out probably later this year and so there's there's quite a lot
there and they're just true truly unexpected paradoxes so when the US came
into Europe after World War two you had essentially the Potsdam agreement they
wanted to dakara lies and decentralize the u.s. effectively exported its
antitrust ideas to Europe and wanted to make sure that was a critical part of
European reconstruction and it's funny that the u.s. now forgotten about
antitrust completely and the EU is actually the one making all the noise
right so it's funny how sort of history often goes in swings and roundabouts but
it's absolutely fascinating area you know which is one I think fun to read
about and two obviously has enormous investment implications on the macro
side you

  1. What we currently have is corporatism. Change will come sooner than people think as we are now exposed to unrestricted internet media, as oppose to restricted traditional media.

  2. Blockchain Technology will decentralize everything. The Enterprise Ethereum Alliance is already setting the standards for open blockchain Technology, just like the communication, aviation, Chemical industries did before.

  3. Wages are not rising because money is coined liberty and it is not in the FED's best interest for the masses to have more liberty.

  4. I'm half way through Jonathan's excellent book. As in the interview, straight talking with good examples of distortions in the market that are damaging or destroying capitalism. The lack of wage growth he talks about due to the emergence of key players in different sectors having a dampening effect on earnings is one aspect but I also think the E Myth effect (Michael Berger) is also key. Not many businesses will be needing 'experts' who used to make up the middle class any more. Systems, as in the E Myth and technology already means that workers are very interchangeable. Give a new worker the company manual and a days training and they can take over from the last worker with 10 years experience with no discernible change in the production of the product or service being provided. (probably an over simplification but…) Companies are becoming less likely to bid on experts, which used to create wage growth as basically, experts are being made obsolete due to expert systems and technology. As an employer myself, I can say that the regulations and duties of employing people forced on us by government (UK and Europe, especially France) have become too onerous which only accelerates this shift. Thanks Real Vision, when are you going on Amazon Fire?

  5. The way to balance the scales is to have debt forgiveness all the owners take a hit and the renters – get some relief without raising taxes for UBI – which is a cheap political ploy that only keeps the Globalist in charge. Hit the Globalist where it hurt the most in their pocket book.

  6. So Boring he could put anyone to sleep and then content is questionable.

    Everyone one knows Cities are 75% more efficient it’s called SCALE.

  7. This is about to change as wages are now rising +3.00%. Don’t blame Capitalism Blame the Globalists who want to drive down your wages so they can get more of the pie.

    We will see the shift is occurring and Capital will struggle and get less of the pie. Watch what happens in the Credit markets as a result.

    Not sure what the hell this guy is talking about

  8. The truth remains that, market that dips and crashes like this are difficult to deal with. But mind you that no matter what happens with this market, this is the best time to invest in cryptocurrencies because these coins you see going down now will go crazy higher in no time. The prices of these cryptocoins are volatile, it goes up and down all the time. They act like it's falling apart. The market is still much higher than it was some years ago. If you ever thought about cryptocurrency as an investment, then you’re on your way to greatness. I urge you to listen to what I have to say. Because if you make the right pick you could find your self jumping for joy on top of an enormous pile of cash. Ready or not , a growing number of economies, banks, billionaires are backing this new forms of tender. And once you understand how easy it is to make profit from cryptocurrencies it's easy to see why the cryptocurrency market is preparing to take off. Anything you've seen up to this point is going to be shadowed by the amount of money that is about to come pouring . And for investors who get in before the end of the year , they are going to make it big and earn an unbelievable amount of profit as far as you make the right pick of coin to invest or apply a currency prediction software to help know and select the right coins with value and potential to rise in no time to invest in as digital currencies are going to be once-in a life time opportunity. The only caveat is that you must act quickly and smart then invest with a good and trusted platform to help make the right pick or choice of coins with value and potentials to invest in. Investors who wait idly on the sidelines until the media tells them to 'buy now' are going to lose out on millions and potentially billions of dollars . And if you wait for the media to tell you when cryptocurrencies are safe you'll be losing out a great deal. I am not talking about buying bitcoin alone. I am not here to double or triple my money when I can potentially create 10times, 100times or even 1000times my money investing in ethereum and other new coins which have potentials. In just few months I've made nothing less than $100,000 investing in ethereum and other coins . My rules for buying cryptocurrencies if I want to keep my 98% win rate are thus; The asset must have intrinsic value, The asset must be new, but not too new. The digital currency boom that's happening right now is a once-in-a-life time opportunity. You may never have the chance to make this kind of money this easily, ever again. There are lots of tiny digital currencies that can generate higher gains more than bitcoin and the rest which people can invest in and cash out big. For a successful crypto investments to make the right picks of coins to invest to earn better profits feel free to get in touch. [email protected] gmail(dot).com.

  9. What does any of this have to do with capitalism? I live in America and we primarily have a socialistic corporatist economic environment. Corporations and gov't have nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism can't exist with gov't interference into the economy – that's corporatism. I guess you could call the current system crony capitalism, but it's just a funny way of saying that it isn't capitalism. So let's throw out the semantics because people keep using the terms differently. Let's just say and agree that we don't have a free market, and if we want fairness, freedom, and justice – as well as wealth – what we need is a free market! Gov't involvement and corporatism is NOT a free market. When corporations can buy favors from politicians, we do NOT have a free market! When gov't regulates everything, we do NOT have a free market! Bring us the free market!

  10. This is an important point. The US regulators have been asleep at the wheel on anti-trust and wages have been stagnant as a result.

  11. The myth is that we have capitalism. Capitalism was destroyed when FDR illegally confiscated Constitutionally-mandated gold ownership, to pave the way for the welfare-statists' "New Deal".

  12. here's the one and only question that matters Mr Jonathan Tepper;
    can you name 1 monopoly that exists without the support of the government?
    answer; no … yet, you fucking commie thinks we should have more government

    at no point you addressed the cause of it; regulations!

    none of these problems would exist, if it wasn't for the government causing them

  13. Great to see Jonathan get his book message into the public sphere here via Real Vision. We wonder if in his book he did any study or discussion of full fiat currency financialization leading to some of these wealth concentrations and vast disparities.
    Another excellent interview we have heard with Mr. Jonathan Tepper speaking with Jesse Felder on 'Superinvestors and the Art of Worldly Wisdom – episode #25'.

  14. He forgot to talk about Citizens United. This is why monopolies are becoming more prevalent in the US and not being struck down by the DOJ nearly as much

  15. what's with the creepy ginger puppet in your intro Real Vision? Freaking me out.

  16. Well asking the military industrial, banking, prison system to please protect us just seems a little misguided to this simple man.

  17. Great POV. However didn't discuss BENEFITS of SCALE….like if u buy larger quantities u get better prices…

    However I agree u still have his counterargument that these cost savings aren't always passed on to the consumer.

  18. not the best analysis as is whilst monopolistic situations are true the presenter missed the over supply of labour through immigration, legal and illegal. Govt numbers do not account for the under the table economy.
    Western economies have exported real jobs to lower wage countries and replaced them with low value jobs , uber+ other gig jobs , retail, hospitality etc.

  19. Not to mention that these obvious monopolies buy off politicians making change impossible. How does this end? See France for your answer when taxes rise and pay stagnates. Coming soon to a theater near you.

  20. Is there really such high employment though? U3 numbers say yes. U6 numbers say no.

    Having said that, even if the employment numbers are poor finding good employees can be hard. The problem is the sense of entitlement. People think they don't have to work!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *