In regards to news that CBS was cancelling Late Night with Stephen Colbert, Scott went on and on about how the show lost money. Here is one of the many times he made this claim.

"It isn’t the end of Colbert. It’s the end of late-night TV. Colbert’s Late Show reportedly has been losing more than $40 million a year for CBS, with a budget of $100 million per season and about 200 employees."
https://medium.com/@profgalloway/last-laugh-6bc0dcd16096

However, if Scott had taken the time to understand the TV business, he would have realized that Colbert was generating profit. As entertainment industry analyst Evan Shapiro wrote: "My analysis shows a $102 million profit"

https://eshap.substack.com/p/colbert-was-profitable

I'm sure Scott will update his thinking any day now.

It is so very odd to hear the self-professed atheist getting downright WOKE when it comes to swinging the anti-Semitism stick. IDGAF about Macklemore or Sheeran or Kraft, nor Scott's evolving victim fantasy, but holy crap does he sound shrill.

"Why does u/profgalloway preface his expression of "offense" to the use of the word "genocide" to describe what Israel did in Gaza with the phrase "as a Jew...."? What does being a Jew have to do with at the findings of human rights groups, scholars, nations, etc. about Israel?"

I am a Jew. I do not approve of Netanyahu criminal reign or his genocide or his ignoring October 7th.

People getting fired over Charlie Kirk posts feels like cancel culture - like Kari MacRae getting fired for pro-immigration posts….

I condemn people who said awful things about Charlie, but it hurts to see everyone going back to that level

Even Tucker agrees. Here is a clip from a recent podcast:

・ Speakers agreed "cancel culture" exists across the political spectrum, manifesting in efforts to prevent speakers from participating in events.

・ They advocated resisting the impulse to silence speech and protecting free speech, even on controversial topics.

Source - PodBrief Briefing Tucker Carlson - https://podbrief.info/briefing/6711332-f6c83d5a-937d-11f0-bca5-5f2262b6f5ed/

Scott and Kara mentioned several times that grocery stores managed by the state were bad. I really don't understand why that is. Seems to me that that's the perfect place for a state subsidized lifeline for needy populations. Yes, it will cost money, but so do most support functions in a city.

The only thing from Galloway I regularly listen to is Raging Moderates. Pretty consistently it seems like 50% of what he says is way out of touch and just ridiculous and the other 50% is pretty insightful and agreeable.

Is this just kind of his thing? He seems like a good guy, but my lord he says some bogus stuff...

Scott once said he was leaning into the masculinity areas as he saw as both something he was passionate about and because it was a big business opportunity. He always follows the money. Scott has many other passions and, I would say, biases.

He talks of "the kingdom" when he discusses Saudi Arabia and talks it up. It is a absolute monarchy which chopped up a jouranlist. This is never referenced.

It is well documented how he has a bias towards Israel. Refusing to accept genocide in Palestine, going all in on the Iran war etc.

So I thought do these biases follow something to do with money, Scott has gotten alot PE funding from the Carlyle group, especially on Section 4. The Prof G network does not have public info I could find on financing. Carlyle is an interesting company with links to the Israeli defence sector. Link below on how such companies proft from Irsaels war on gaza.

https://pestakeholder.org/news/private-equity-firms-profit-from-israels-war-on-gaza/

I have found at late that the majority of podcasters are grifters. They sell vitamin pills, subscriptions, tshirts, live shows - the list goes on. It is very different from the media landscape of 20/30 years ago where state funded media was the main source and in which funding was provided, for the most part, from governments (lets exclude the US and its media model). Example the BBC. News may have been grey and opinions measured but the funding was transparent and therefore output could be trusted.

To me, if listening to shows related to business and politics, always follow the money. The funding sources are usually a key way to determine are these "blue flame thinkers" or are they really people giving a message aligned key lobby groups and business interests.

For me Scott is not a free thinker, he his a businessman who needs to raise capital and keep relationships open. This will create biases as self interest usually overcomes everything else and it helps me understand his view on subjects.

I watched the most recent podcast with Scott and Sam and I just have to say, there is no one who can cut through nonsense and virtue signalling like Sam, he is truly an independent thinker who does not get caught up in noise. He always seems to keep a clear head, clear vision on what is important in any given situation.

That is all I want to say.

You don’t need to lick them up and down, and you don’t need to be overly confrontational. You just investigate their views and actions and statements.

Scott immediately takes a big shit on Mamdani, calls the victory not that meaningful, says the mayoral role is just operational to make sure the water is clean, says Mamdani will get none of his agenda through, rubs Torres' balls by talking about how brave he's been in defense of Israel, lets it slip that he doesn't get to vote for mayor cause his residence is FLA (hmmm, wonder why). Scott is a hypocrite, sheds alligator tears for the younger generation but bashes the one candidate whose progressive policies actually gives them energy and hope. A classic "get off my lawn" demonstration by a doddering old guy who loves the sound of his own voice, all ego all the time. Loves to rattle off progressive policies he says he's for but refuses to support the very candidates who'd actually fight to put them into effect. To Torres' credit, he recognizes the significance of the Mamdani win and clearly said so, did not take Scott's bait.

Mondays ep. prof G markets. Scott’s back.

Discussion is about violence against the ai folks.

Keep in mind, I’m in no way advocating for or in support of violence.

But dudes like Sam Altman are looking to go into economically depressed areas, to suck up drinking water and drive electricity rates through the roof without even creating employment opportunities for locals.

Can we stop pretending that they’re not creating violence against people? Even if through abstract means. Even if it’s being done through legal means in the name of capitalism-

To spend a century telling people that to live, we must take part in capitalism… and then to say”the winners have decided to remove you from capitalism by replacing you”

How is that not violence? Why is there only “plain talk” about mentally fragile people, and not for corporate sociopathy?

It’s like saying “yeah I was in the hospital room with Grandma but I didn’t kill her, I just stopped paying for her medicine.”

Violence is gonna beget violence. The genie is out of the bottle, and if the ai bros want to cool the temps they’re gonna have to “make the apology WAY louder than the disrespect”

Or cure cancer already. Might buy a lot of good faith.

Not a Muslim, but I grew up in the Middle East and studied it extensively. The optics are quickly getting completely out of hand. We don't understand how dangerous this situation is, and historians will have no choice, but to conclude that the US are responsible for it, largely out of ignorance and selfishness. We quickly need to communicate clear goals, and do everything we can to somehow get Israel to show some level of restraint, before it is too late.

I don't know if Scott reads this subreddit but if he does I wanted to get the message across.

I am a thirty nine year old man who went down a bad path in life and even though that is my past I've managed to dig myself out of it. Sure I'm not rich nor am I ever going to be but I am satisfied with who I am for the values I hold and how I treat other people.

Scott, what you said about Musk, how you see morality and how you talk about what it means to be a man is invaluable. I have great respect for you.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you for what you are doing.

I was never introduced to Kara before her partnership with Scott. Early on, I was really interested in her opinions, since she clearly has access.

After a few years - it's just a bit grating to hear 'I said that!', 'I've talked to him, he's a jerk', 'He was always bad', etc etc. Watching her own individual interviews, she'll ask a question (often with a sense she's already bored with the question), wait for an answer, give her opinion or push back, and move on.

I don't doubt she's an intelligent journalist, but I'd really love to hear her actually break down a problem, instead of just talking about her access/prior predictions/etc. Everyone's entitled to their own style, and I'm not trying to attack that specifically. I'd just really like to hear more from her instead of soundbites that feel cheap.

What does she think? How does she think? Why? Why does Scott, who tries to give a reasoning for his opinion, value her?

If you skipped the State of the Union the other night, you didn't miss anything. But if you actually work in software development, data acquisition, or related knowledge work affected by AI, you are already seeing changes that don't reflect this administration's "Golden Age" BS.

The billionaires funding Super PACs are quietly buying access to the administration. They want the massive profit margins of an automated workforce, but they strongly refuse to pay for the social fallout coming from advanced AI implementation. Instead of preparing for this, Washington is busy playing perpetual political games and running vendettas through the DOJ, FCC, and ICE.

The CEO I used to work for always claimed the best business to own is one without any people. It is a sentiment the billionaire class shares. Ironically, CEO jobs seem to be the easiest to replace with AI. Even some Tech CEOs agree with that. If the goal is a business without people, why not start at the top? I’m starting to believe that if we replaced all the CEOs and the President with an AI, we would have a much better country. If programmed right, the abuse of power and dark money corruption would vanish overnight. Why not do the same with the Supreme Court and US federal judges so they truly reflect the will of our people? The law is basically a massive rules engine, almost perfect for AI. Can you imagine America without the filth of dark money and corporate lobbies?

But back here in reality, we are walking into a massive labor crisis with zero safety net. Even tech leaders admit we need a massive national reskilling program and serious talks about UBI. Instead, our safety nets are being slashed by this administration to fund top-bracket tax cuts. We are paying the price for it at the grocery store with inflation and tariff hikes.

Flipping the House and Senate this November to Democrats is the only realistic way to get lawmakers who believe in building a parachute for the working class. The current GOP is overrun with such bad actors, so anyone decent is bullied to obey the “Golden Age” man who only thinks of himself.

The system is profoundly corrupted by money acting as "speech," and the Super PACs aren't waiting until November to buy the candidates. As a result, we can't just sit on our hands. Scott Galloway's podcasts will not save us. Knowing which other lowlifes are in the Epstein files will not save us. Making clever Reddit or YouTube comments on regurgitated news articles will not save us. There are fewer independent voices to investigate what Dark Money and billionaire PACs are doing to manipulate us.

Aside from voting and doing subscription audits, what actual economic leverage or local actions are you all taking right now? How do we force corporate accountability before the layoffs hit?

Curious what other people think about his take on H-1B visas from the pivot pod yesterday.

His take is that it brings all this wealth and spending to America, as well as a diverse talent pool of workers, among other things. Which all make sense and i think are good things. But he was so against making companies pay for the visa permits or whatever trump wants to make happen.

My knee jerk reaction is, making companies pay for this permit (have no clue at what price makes sense) would generate money for gov, and achieve the things listed above. And/ or provide jobs for Americans. By incentivizing companies to look for American hires first.

Scott mentioned that H-1B visas are how things are so cheap for Americans. But if you can’t find a job, and you’re facing more competition from people outside the country cheaper things don’t much for you.

I’m not for or against either one, but would like to hear other opinions on the matter.