Latest / Merryn Talks Money / Trump Memecoin Frenzy, Herald Trust Says No to Saba, and Rachel Reeves in Davos

Transcript

Trump Memecoin Frenzy, Herald Trust Says No to Saba, and Rachel Reeves in Davos · Merryn Talks Money

0:02
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. Welcome to the Marin
0:19
Speaker 1: Talks Money Weekly round up, our debrief of the biggest
0:22
Speaker 1: oris in market and economics. I'm marrying something set, web
0:25
Speaker 1: editor at Large for Bloomberg.
0:26
Speaker 2: UK Wealth, and I'm joined to the epics and your
0:28
Speaker 2: reporter and author of the Money Distilled newsletter, John.
0:33
Speaker 1: We've been here before, you and I. Here we are
0:35
Speaker 1: this time of year. We're not at Davos. No one's
0:38
Speaker 1: invited us, not me, not you, and yet again we
0:42
Speaker 1: have not launched our own meme coin.
0:44
Speaker 2: It's true, it's true, and I can't believe we've not
0:46
Speaker 2: been invited to divorce now that it's not really relevant.
0:50
Speaker 2: You know, I've been sing the battle by.
0:52
Speaker 1: Now you don't have enough empty seats they could get
0:55
Speaker 1: the likes of us in. But now I tell you what,
0:57
Speaker 1: I am more disappointed about the meme coin, to be honest.
1:00
Speaker 1: I mean, I wouldn't expect that you and I would
1:02
Speaker 1: launch a launch a you know, a MTM coin and
1:06
Speaker 1: suddenly be multi billionaires. But quite nice if we could
1:08
Speaker 1: launch one, and okay, not in the top twenty five
1:11
Speaker 1: riches people in the world, but you know, maybe in
1:13
Speaker 1: the top couple of thousand. I could have done with that.
1:15
Speaker 2: Mtm's got a ring to because it sounds about like MMT.
1:18
Speaker 1: Ooh oh it is, and that will be kind of
1:21
Speaker 1: the same thing, wouldn't it. It's in the same vibe, Yeah,
1:24
Speaker 1: the same old money for nothing vibe.
1:27
Speaker 2: He certainly combines two of our fine bases MMT people
1:30
Speaker 2: in cryptop people in one life.
1:31
Speaker 1: That would be so great. They could write their hate
1:34
Speaker 1: mail in a single email too, not required. Okay, listen,
1:38
Speaker 1: we're tangenting again. And then maybe some people out there
1:41
Speaker 1: who don't know about trump coin, they won't know what
1:44
Speaker 1: we're talking about. They might know abou Davos. We're not
1:46
Speaker 1: going to dwell on that, as you know we are.
1:47
Speaker 1: We're going to come back to that. But why are
1:51
Speaker 1: we talking about meme coins? And why am I upset
1:54
Speaker 1: that I haven't taken the opportunity to be one of
1:56
Speaker 1: the twenty five riches people in the world.
1:58
Speaker 2: I guess this is all of Trump's mean coin. Of course,
2:01
Speaker 2: this is something in an episode. If I get news
2:03
Speaker 2: for you, it's yeah, Trump Trump misty launches on crypto
2:09
Speaker 2: currency just before he got inaugurated, and it went up
2:14
Speaker 2: a lot, and then it went down quite a bit
2:16
Speaker 2: whenever his wife launched her own crypto currency and stole
2:19
Speaker 2: some of the money from his. Basically, you've got.
2:24
Speaker 1: To stop right here because you're you're using that way.
2:26
Speaker 1: You're calling it a cryptocurrency. It's not a currency. It's
2:30
Speaker 1: not a thing, it's not anything. It's totally intangible. There's
2:34
Speaker 1: no way to catch hold of this. It is a nothing.
2:37
Speaker 1: It is a nothing.
2:38
Speaker 2: It's a it's a vibe, it's a token, it's a way.
2:42
Speaker 2: I don't know. Actually, I mean, the mean coin element
2:45
Speaker 2: is the stupidest bit of crypto currency. And I realize
2:48
Speaker 2: a lot of people will think that that is really
2:51
Speaker 2: saying something. But the meme coins are basically I mean,
2:55
Speaker 2: the very first mean coin, or the most famous mean
2:58
Speaker 2: coin at least, is dodge Coin. And dodge Coin was
3:01
Speaker 2: literally set up as a joke. It was meant to
3:03
Speaker 2: be poking fun at the whole coincept, the crypto currency
3:07
Speaker 2: and of course the joke.
3:08
Speaker 1: John. I have to interrupt you here to say that
3:10
Speaker 1: I'm conflicted here because I do own doge coin.
3:13
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, okay, yes, conflict of interests.
3:18
Speaker 1: For a long time I called it doggy coin until
3:20
Speaker 1: some young cousin corrected me.
3:23
Speaker 2: Doggy coin's good as well, because it's got a picture
3:26
Speaker 2: of a very cute shina EBox exactly.
3:31
Speaker 1: Anyway, sorry, doggie coin was the first one, as you said.
3:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, And the point is the founder sort of said
3:37
Speaker 2: this is a joke, and he basically said this is
3:39
Speaker 2: a joke to point out what annoyanceance all of this
3:41
Speaker 2: crypto stuff is. And the problem is the joke really
3:44
Speaker 2: is on him because doggy coin or george Coin is
3:48
Speaker 2: basically the top meme coin. And at one point everyone
3:51
Speaker 2: was getting kind of excited because it looks as if
3:53
Speaker 2: trump Coin might, you know, close the gap between it
3:56
Speaker 2: and dodge coin. Let me try and explain the difference
4:00
Speaker 2: between it and Bitcoin for people who buy into at
4:04
Speaker 2: least some of this. So like that too, by the way, yes, yes,
4:08
Speaker 2: but I know, well done again, none of these things.
4:10
Speaker 2: I am so lazy. Sorry. Bitcoin is limited in supply
4:15
Speaker 2: as long as you believe the mass et cetera, et cetera.
4:17
Speaker 2: It's limited in supply. You need computers to do the
4:21
Speaker 2: curvalent of mining in the cloud. To get out of
4:23
Speaker 2: there by doing very hard sums, you actually need to
4:26
Speaker 2: spend a lot of money these days to dig out
4:28
Speaker 2: a new piece of bitcoin. And so the idea is
4:32
Speaker 2: that it's kind of like digital gold in that it's
4:35
Speaker 2: a limited supply and it's it's like a bearer asset,
4:40
Speaker 2: so if you if you hold it, you can pass
4:43
Speaker 2: it to someone else without going through any kind of
4:45
Speaker 2: middle person or anything like that. So that's the idea.
4:48
Speaker 2: Bitcoin's kind of like digital gold or digital cash or
4:51
Speaker 2: something like that. It's not as used as a currency
4:53
Speaker 2: because the price is very volatile, but if you were
4:56
Speaker 2: in Venezuela and you want to get money out somewhere else,
4:59
Speaker 2: then it's probably a better thing to you own for
5:02
Speaker 2: that short period of time than something like gold, which
5:04
Speaker 2: you would have to physically smuggle out. So I can
5:06
Speaker 2: see that there's a there's a point to it. Those coins,
5:10
Speaker 2: the main coins are just I mean, there's no there's
5:13
Speaker 2: no limit to the nuther you can print, there's no
5:17
Speaker 2: there's nothing. But there's literally nothing behind it except betting
5:20
Speaker 2: that it will go up because someone else will pay
5:23
Speaker 2: more for it. It's kind of like greater full theory.
5:26
Speaker 2: In practice, no one's even pretending they've got a purpose.
5:30
Speaker 2: It's just it's basically pure gambling. But not even gambling
5:37
Speaker 2: with a kind of game behind it.
5:40
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it is it also a live opinion poll.
5:43
Speaker 2: I mean you could, you could, although I suppose the
5:47
Speaker 2: thing with that is you're kind of then that's like
5:51
Speaker 2: trying to find a bolt on use after it's launched.
5:54
Speaker 2: I mean, no one's getting an opinion on Sena a booze.
5:57
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, do they? It could be quite good.
6:00
Speaker 2: You're right if Trump had had a mean coin, and say,
6:04
Speaker 2: but I didn't had the mean coin, or whoever takes
6:06
Speaker 2: over his Democrat after him had the mean coin, that
6:11
Speaker 2: could be quite interesting. You know, people are willing to
6:14
Speaker 2: put their money behind the idea that someone's going to
6:16
Speaker 2: become more popular enough so that their supporters are going
6:20
Speaker 2: to back them, and then it becomes a guest like
6:22
Speaker 2: football scarfs or memorabilia or something like that. But beyond that,
6:27
Speaker 2: it is it's very it's pure belief based. And not
6:31
Speaker 2: only that I don't I may be wrong about this,
6:36
Speaker 2: but the issuer, I believe, can just issue as many
6:38
Speaker 2: as they want, so then there is not much control
6:43
Speaker 2: on what happens to you as a minority shareholder in
6:46
Speaker 2: these things.
6:47
Speaker 1: Yeah, So there we go mt M and MMT. The
6:50
Speaker 1: connection is clear. Thanks John, And by the way, everybody,
6:53
Speaker 1: this time next year, John and I we will have
6:55
Speaker 1: our own meme coin. Right. Although I used to say
6:57
Speaker 1: that about an ft IS. I used to say we
6:59
Speaker 1: were going to launch our ound NFT and everyone we
7:01
Speaker 1: give a lot of money for that. We didn't do
7:02
Speaker 1: that either. We're just going to stay poor, aren't we. Yeah? Yeah,
7:09
Speaker 1: definitely having fun. Right onwards to something real, something very real.
7:13
Speaker 1: Yesterday or other earlier this week, should I say, was
7:16
Speaker 1: the first vote in the Saba saga. Now, if you
7:19
Speaker 1: don't know about the Saba saga, please go back and
7:21
Speaker 1: listen to earlier podcast about this. But in a nutshell,
7:24
Speaker 1: American actress investor Boas Weinstein, who is CIO and founder
7:29
Speaker 1: of cyber Capital, has come into the UK investment trust market,
7:32
Speaker 1: bought big stakes in seven Trust Miserable seven as he
7:36
Speaker 1: calls them, and has called emergency general meetings to try
7:39
Speaker 1: and ouse the bords and take over the assets to
7:41
Speaker 1: run in his own way whatever that way. Maybe this
7:45
Speaker 1: week was the first vote Herald Investment Trust and it
7:48
Speaker 1: didn't go quite as planned for Weinstein. He lost the
7:53
Speaker 1: vote very decisively and it was interesting. Actually one of
7:55
Speaker 1: the things about this whole saga is will retail investors
7:59
Speaker 1: will ordinary people turn out to vote either way? Either way?
8:04
Speaker 1: And when we've been talking about it, John, we haven't
8:05
Speaker 1: obviously been encouraging people to vote either way. What we
8:08
Speaker 1: have been saying is get out there and vote. There's
8:10
Speaker 1: a great test of shareholder democracy and if you want
8:14
Speaker 1: this trust to continue to exist, get out there and
8:16
Speaker 1: vote for that to happen. And that is exactly what
8:19
Speaker 1: they did. So Sholder. Turn out was around double what
8:22
Speaker 1: it normally is, and well over sixty percent of the
8:25
Speaker 1: votes went to the Herald board and things will now
8:29
Speaker 1: carry on as before. Is that a reasonable summary? Yep?
8:32
Speaker 2: Is there reasonable? So many? And yeah, is this really
8:36
Speaker 2: really good to see that people tundo? Because it does
8:40
Speaker 2: you know, it would have been really depressed and if
8:43
Speaker 2: such a consequential vote had seen the kind of usual
8:46
Speaker 2: tun note for these things.
8:49
Speaker 1: And so the vote was actually it was sixty five
8:51
Speaker 1: to thirty five. So that's it's quite a defeat if
8:54
Speaker 1: you think that man design holds. I think I can't
8:57
Speaker 1: remember it quite how much of that trust twenty nine percent? Yeah,
9:00
Speaker 1: and I mean around there, so pretty much everybody who
9:03
Speaker 1: wasn't with Saba who was part of Saba voted with
9:07
Speaker 1: the vote.
9:07
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I mean that made sense because I mean Saba,
9:10
Speaker 2: I mean boys Weinstein himself is pointed out that no
9:14
Speaker 2: vote as a vote for Saba. I mean we pointed
9:17
Speaker 2: that out in the podcast, which I thought. I have
9:19
Speaker 2: thought that Saba's tactics here are sort of interesting and
9:26
Speaker 2: if I was relying on and shared hold a apathy
9:29
Speaker 2: played when going to public quite as much as they have.
9:33
Speaker 2: But then I guess if you're you know, haven't they
9:36
Speaker 2: kind of retort to the things coming out the investment
9:39
Speaker 2: trust themselves, then you can't really avoid it. But it's interesting,
9:43
Speaker 2: it's not It's not the way to make apathy work
9:45
Speaker 2: in your favor, I don't think.
9:47
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I think he should be admired with that.
9:49
Speaker 1: I mean, when I was muttering about it on social
9:51
Speaker 1: media yesterday, I said that, you know, we should be
9:53
Speaker 1: grateful to all parties here. You know, a lot of
9:55
Speaker 1: people will be pleased that have been defeated. They see
9:58
Speaker 1: them as you know, American and they etc. But I
10:01
Speaker 1: think that we should be very pleased. And he's drawn
10:03
Speaker 1: attention to a lot of the problems with the Investment
10:05
Speaker 1: Trust made boards start having a new type of conversation,
10:08
Speaker 1: but also crucially gone out there and drummed up the
10:12
Speaker 1: retail vote. He hasn't won them over. He didn't make
10:14
Speaker 1: a good enough case for Harold investors to want to
10:17
Speaker 1: move over to him. But he got them going, he
10:20
Speaker 1: got them out there and he got everyone voting, and
10:22
Speaker 1: I think that's a triumph for him. It's a trump
10:25
Speaker 1: for Harold, and it's a tryumph for the platforms who
10:27
Speaker 1: facilitated the retail vote. So you know, I'm pretty happy
10:30
Speaker 1: with this. It's interesting to look at what's going to
10:33
Speaker 1: happen next. There's six votes to go, and Katie Pots
10:36
Speaker 1: who runs Harold, obviously has a great support based lots
10:40
Speaker 1: of fans. She's done really well for thousands and thousands
10:42
Speaker 1: of people over many, many years, so she's got a
10:45
Speaker 1: strong personal support base and it'll be interesting to see
10:49
Speaker 1: if the other trusts have quite the same thing going
10:52
Speaker 1: for them. So there's that to watch, and then of
10:54
Speaker 1: course the other thing is to watch what happens now
10:57
Speaker 1: to the SABA stake because they are still hold a
11:00
Speaker 1: lot of distrust. What do they do next? So thanks
11:03
Speaker 1: to watch all coming up in the next couple of weeks,
11:05
Speaker 1: and John and I are completely obsessed with this story,
11:08
Speaker 1: so you will be seeing us talking about it again
11:11
Speaker 1: and again and again.
11:13
Speaker 2: There's just one thing I would add is that I
11:15
Speaker 2: think it's also really good that people have tuned it
11:18
Speaker 2: for HAIRLD because then if the vote does goes up,
11:21
Speaker 2: as we with the other trusts, they can't just point
11:24
Speaker 2: to leezy vtil she had hold us. What does that
11:27
Speaker 2: If it goes against some of these trusts, then there's
11:30
Speaker 2: a reason, and it's a more fundamental reason.
11:34
Speaker 1: No, that's very true, and that was one of the
11:36
Speaker 1: one of the reasons I was so pleased there was
11:37
Speaker 1: such a big turnout because nobody, as you say, no
11:40
Speaker 1: one can stand back and go, well, that wasn't fair,
11:42
Speaker 1: that wasn't fair. The turnout was so low, etcetera. You know,
11:45
Speaker 1: like we did and things like well pretty much every
11:46
Speaker 1: actual election that happens, everyone loses. Well, that doesn't count.
11:50
Speaker 1: Turnout was so low. You know, if you don't vote,
11:52
Speaker 1: it effectively a vote for blah blah blah. Everyone disagrees
11:54
Speaker 1: with every result for everything because not enough people turned out.
11:57
Speaker 1: Now you can't do that. Yeah, good job everyone, right
12:01
Speaker 1: onto people who aren't doing a good job. Well, hello,
12:04
Speaker 1: Rachel Reeves. Rachel sat down with our editor in chief
12:07
Speaker 1: John michel Fod in Davos this week, and they're quite
12:10
Speaker 1: an interesting conversation. Actually we both watched it, didn't we
12:13
Speaker 1: because just to be clear, we are not in Davos.
12:16
Speaker 1: We are not in Davas. Hey, John, next year, take
12:19
Speaker 1: us with you, Take us with you. We like skiing,
12:21
Speaker 1: don't we We like skiing. We like no, I like skiing.
12:24
Speaker 1: We like private jets, we like hobb nobbing with important people.
12:27
Speaker 1: Oh god, they're not there anymore. Most of the important
12:29
Speaker 1: people are there. I think, you know, Donald Trump isn't there.
12:31
Speaker 1: What's the point anyway? So John's there and I'm sure
12:34
Speaker 1: he's having a lovely time and he's been in viewing
12:36
Speaker 1: Rachel Reeves where we're sitting over here in the UK
12:38
Speaker 1: waiting for the storm to come in tomorrow. What did
12:44
Speaker 1: you find most interesting about their conversation.
12:46
Speaker 2: John, honestly, I think well there was two widen is
12:50
Speaker 2: that Rachel Reeves came dangerously close to hinting that bregsit
12:53
Speaker 2: might have some benefits. My favorite bit too, Yeah, that
12:58
Speaker 2: was great halfway through the conversation too, So they said that,
13:01
Speaker 2: or we can be more nimble or in artificial intelligence
13:03
Speaker 2: and financial regulation.
13:05
Speaker 3: There are opportunities outside of the European Union, opportunities for
13:09
Speaker 3: example in AI, where we have a very different regulatory
13:12
Speaker 3: approach to AI compared to the European Union's approach. That
13:16
Speaker 3: makes Britain a more attractive place for AI and tech
13:19
Speaker 3: companies to invest than in other European countries. We could
13:23
Speaker 3: take advantage of that. We just should shout about it
13:25
Speaker 3: and we should get that investment in.
13:28
Speaker 2: And I thought, wow, that's that is the first thing
13:32
Speaker 2: we've probably had ad like that from a mainstream politician
13:35
Speaker 2: since those in sixteen. Well that's unfair because Nigel for
13:39
Speaker 2: that is a mainstream politician.
13:40
Speaker 1: Note yes he is, he is. I mean she was
13:42
Speaker 1: talking about AI in that context, wasn't she? And that
13:44
Speaker 1: was interesting because yesterday were not yesterday?
13:47
Speaker 2: Was it was? It was? The rules are in finance
13:50
Speaker 2: riggs as well.
13:51
Speaker 1: Yes, that's true too, that's true too. And this week
13:54
Speaker 1: as well, the conversation has come up not not there
13:56
Speaker 1: but actually a little bit there, but in other conversations
13:59
Speaker 1: about the UK possibly rejoining some kind of customs union, etc.
14:02
Speaker 1: And she's been relatively clear so found that that's not
14:05
Speaker 1: going to happen. So maybe, finally, finally, finally, we have
14:08
Speaker 1: a political class that is beginning to see that there
14:10
Speaker 1: is a whopping great Brexit premium, and in particulation particular,
14:15
Speaker 1: no regulation premium attached to Brexit. So yeah, I agree
14:18
Speaker 1: with you. That was my favorite bit too.
14:21
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I mean, other than that, I thought they
14:22
Speaker 2: were all. I think the interesting kind of big picture
14:26
Speaker 2: thing is the tone shift. It's pretty clear in me
14:31
Speaker 2: the chul the US is going from sort of feeling
14:35
Speaker 2: secure in her position and feeling really quite worried about
14:38
Speaker 2: it and worried about it to the point where she's
14:40
Speaker 2: willing to kick off some really difficult conversations with elements
14:45
Speaker 2: are owned cabinet because also elements of deck cabinet, because
14:50
Speaker 2: you know, runways versus net zero is going to be
14:53
Speaker 2: a hell of an interesting conversation. It was actually a
14:56
Speaker 2: Bloomberg scoop that they were looking the the runways. And
15:01
Speaker 2: I suppose what it's interesting is that's quite obviously, that's
15:04
Speaker 2: pretty political and quite controversial. But at the same time,
15:07
Speaker 2: it's not like Rachel Reeves pushed back when that she
15:09
Speaker 2: didn't say there's no way, we're going to approve a
15:12
Speaker 2: third run at Heathrow instead. She was very much right,
15:16
Speaker 2: we can't keep blocking this stuff, and actually cut stam
15:19
Speaker 2: looking out this morning and said something very similar in
15:22
Speaker 2: a slightly fast at away on Twitter. You know, we're
15:25
Speaker 2: for the builders and not the blockers. So we'll say
15:28
Speaker 2: how much of that translates any actual action, but it's
15:30
Speaker 2: definitely a torn shift.
15:32
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, the phrase that's been reported all over the
15:35
Speaker 1: places when she said the answer can't always be no.
15:39
Speaker 3: And that's been the problem in Britain for a long
15:41
Speaker 3: time that when there was a choice between something that
15:44
Speaker 3: would grow the economy and sort of anything else, anything
15:49
Speaker 3: else always won.
15:51
Speaker 1: Which is interesting given that, certainly in opposition, I felt
15:53
Speaker 1: that from labor the answer always was now.
15:55
Speaker 2: Well yeah, now twenty eighteen, they all voted again not
15:59
Speaker 2: Rachel reeves to be for Yeah, she's probably one of
16:01
Speaker 2: the more constant members of the cabinet, but down and
16:04
Speaker 2: looked against it.
16:06
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, interesting, Okay, So the really interesting bit there
16:10
Speaker 1: is going to be if a lot of these projects
16:12
Speaker 1: come up against the net zero problem, and AI in particular,
16:15
Speaker 1: and one of the things that ks Stammer has been
16:17
Speaker 1: talking about and has talked about a third amount in
16:18
Speaker 1: this interview again is AI. And we know how energy
16:22
Speaker 1: intensive AI is, and we know that the UK teachers
16:25
Speaker 1: and all sorts of difficult energy breaks at the moment.
16:28
Speaker 1: So you add in that, and then you add in
16:30
Speaker 1: talking about new runways and infrastructure projects and all these
16:34
Speaker 1: kinds of things. They are all in direct conflict with
16:37
Speaker 1: the idea that we can reach net zero by twenty thirty,
16:39
Speaker 1: which of course we can't. But you know, there is
16:41
Speaker 1: part of the political class that continue to pretend that
16:43
Speaker 1: we can. So you look at all this and you
16:46
Speaker 1: begin to think, at some point we are going to
16:48
Speaker 1: have to dial back.
16:49
Speaker 2: On this net zero business. I think it depends on
16:53
Speaker 2: how muge potation she's on that. I mean, I think
16:54
Speaker 2: that she's no in fear for her job and she'll
16:57
Speaker 2: see what it takes whether or not she'll get the back.
17:01
Speaker 2: And but I mean, I think the other key point
17:03
Speaker 2: to remember, because a lot of people kept talking about
17:05
Speaker 2: who you know, she'll get kind of you know, she'll
17:07
Speaker 2: get kicked out or reshuffled. The problem is if Kirstarmer
17:10
Speaker 2: does that, then it's kind of on him and the
17:12
Speaker 2: precedent for prime ministers getting rid of the chancellors is
17:16
Speaker 2: not good for prime ministers, so she does have that
17:20
Speaker 2: very strong safety net underneath her. So yeah, I mean,
17:25
Speaker 2: I think that this is going to represent quite a
17:28
Speaker 2: big fight as far as the net zero stuff goes.
17:31
Speaker 2: The only question I've got in my mind is whether
17:32
Speaker 2: we need to end up having some kind of energy event,
17:37
Speaker 2: which is kind of a nice world for blackout before
17:41
Speaker 2: the mood actually shifts and they can, you know, and
17:46
Speaker 2: it gets to the appointment it's no longer tenable. But
17:48
Speaker 2: I don't know.
17:50
Speaker 1: I don't know either. I mean, I think you're right
17:52
Speaker 1: an event of that type would do it, But also
17:54
Speaker 1: the miserable grind of having the highest electricity industrial electricity
17:59
Speaker 1: prices the developed world in the end, that has to
18:02
Speaker 1: make if growth is what you want, If growth is
18:04
Speaker 1: what you want, and growth is as she keeps saying,
18:06
Speaker 1: on number one mission, it's all we want. I'd like
18:09
Speaker 1: her to say growth per her head, by the way,
18:10
Speaker 1: but maybe we'll go to that one day if that's
18:12
Speaker 1: your overall mission. You know, she knows, she's not stupid.
18:15
Speaker 1: She knows that is impossible with energy prices as high
18:19
Speaker 1: as they are. So I think that's that's the thing
18:21
Speaker 1: to watch. The interaction between Rachel Reef's insistence that growth
18:26
Speaker 1: is her number one mission and these incredibly high industrial
18:31
Speaker 1: electricity prices. They cannot work together. It's not possible. Thanks
18:39
Speaker 1: for listening to this week's Marin Talks Money debrief. Do
18:41
Speaker 1: get in touch. If you're launching a mean coin of
18:43
Speaker 1: some kind you'd like us to help you promote it.
18:45
Speaker 1: We are all over that. If you like us, show, rate, review,
18:48
Speaker 1: and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts. Also be sure
18:51
Speaker 1: to follow me and John on ex or Twitter. I'm
18:53
Speaker 1: at marinas w and John underscore Steppeic. This episode was
18:57
Speaker 1: produced by some Mesidi production and sound designed by and.
19:01
Speaker 1: Questions and comments on this show and all our shows
19:03
Speaker 1: are always welcome, as I say, particularly about your meme coins.
19:06
Speaker 1: Our show email is Marimoney at Bloomberg dot net. Brandan
19:10
Speaker 1: isn't in there. We're gonna get complaints. Put Brendan back