Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we consider whether things like the busyness of brothels and beer sales and other non traditional measures may be able to tell us more about where the economy is going than even the stock market. And later on, we look at some new research that suggests that one small diet tweak may be able to give you a comparable health boost to intermittent fasting.
Hello, welcome to the Car Like I See it podcast. I'm James Keys and joining me today is a man who to this day yearns for the minds.
Tunde, you ready to build something today, block by block?
[00:00:49] Speaker B: Of course, man. I was a Lego. I was a Lego king in my youth, so.
[00:00:53] Speaker A: Oh, okay.
[00:00:54] Speaker B: So you can build block by block.
[00:00:56] Speaker A: Legacy, legacy. Yes, I got you. I got you. Now we're recording this on April 15, 2025. And Tunde, we recently saw an article which suggested that trends in the business at brothels or strip clubs may actually be a predictor for what's coming from an economic standpoint.
And also that suggested that it may be time to start worrying. But setting that part aside, the idea of leading indicators in the economy is something that many of us are familiar with and one of the most well known ones being stock market. And we hear about that all the time. But what we're seeing here suggests that other things that are going on or things that can be measured could also give us information, either supplementary or better information about what may be coming than even the stock market. So you're a wealth manager. So I mean, I would look at you as a great person to talk about this. That said, I think you can give us your caveats as far as you're not giving financial advice and so forth, but could you give us your thoughts on leading indicators, generally speaking, and then the idea that maybe vice industries or kind of these non traditional things could serve to give us warning on what's on the horizon at times.
[00:02:06] Speaker B: Yeah, no, I appreciate the intro and lead in because wealth manager sounds very prestigious. I feel like I've been like a therapist and a psychologist in recent times as relates to helping people stay off the ledge type of thing, but no therapist, man.
[00:02:24] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:02:27] Speaker B: Well, yeah, I mean, you know what, it's interesting, I didn't think to get into this topic like this, but the concept of a leading indicator is psychological. And so what a leading indicator is really is it's an indicator within some sort of economic data point or metric which helps us forecast future economic activity.
And it predicts leading inder can predict upcoming changes in economic activity and it helps those who are Real quick.
[00:03:00] Speaker A: Which a key piece of that is what people are going to be doing economic activity.
[00:03:04] Speaker B: That's what I'm saying people are doing.
[00:03:06] Speaker A: So there is a cycle.
[00:03:07] Speaker B: That's why economics has never been able to be classified as an actual science like a natural science. And it's because of the.
Even though you can get into predicting herd kind of the herd mentality, when you have large groups of people like in markets and how they may react to greed and fear and other kind of stimuli that can be put into the ecosystem of said market, you still have the reality of also outlying behavior from individual humans. So that's why the psychological aspect is why economics can be classified as a natural science. And that's what I'm saying is it's interesting to even again not thinking of that coming in just with the joke about being a psychologist maybe more ago from my economic left brain math side to like. Yeah, actually this leading indicator stuff.
[00:04:00] Speaker A: So you didn't pull out spreadsheets yet?
[00:04:02] Speaker B: No, no, not yet.
You know what, you might have by introducing me like that, you may have saved the audience from a spreadsheet moment. So they should thank you as they listen to this and watch us. But no, no but, but, no but then just, you know, and I'll pass it back. But that's what I mean is, is that the leading indicator really is. It's, it's a collective forecast or let's put it this way, the indicator helps us as individuals in participating in the marketplace, let's say to be able to somewhat forecast what may be coming.
But because it's collective behavior is to me the part that gets interesting. Sometimes the collective perception creates the reality. So if everybody believes everything is going to be bad and they all behave the same way by let's say hitting a sell button in their investments, then their perception that it's going to be bad and then their behavior against those perceptions leads to the market actually going down because everybody behaved a similar way at the same time. So that's where the psychology gets interesting.
[00:05:04] Speaker A: No, there's a self fulfilling kind of thing. And actually I think that what's interesting to me about this kind of vice industries measure, you know where you're looking at these things is that it kind of like the stock market serves as a leading indicator in a way that I think has a middleman. And then whereas these vice indicators gets more cuts, more cuts the middleman out, so to speak. Not to say that it's better because as you said, I mean it's important to realize economists Will tell you different, or at least some will. But economics is not a science, you know, like, it is something. It's. It's more of astrology than astronomy, you know. But there are things that we've observed that seem to be relatively reliable. And one of the things a lot of times with economic success and economic activity is that most things are demand driven. You know, what, what's. Are people going to spend money on this? A lot of times with the stock market and with corporate investment and stuff and so forth. The middleman is the fact that you have corporate investment and you have high expectations in a stock market because they think demand is going to be high. They think that we'll be able to sell a lot of stuff because people are gonna be buying a lot of stuff. Well, when this kind of these vice measures, what you're looking at really is discretionary spending. It could be specific vices and some of those that may be more basal human instinct vices, but that's the direct demand right there. How much demand is it for these things that people have wanted for thousands of years? You know, like, there's no, like society to society. There's a lot of demand for these things that tends to, that could, I should say, indicate there's a lot of demand in the society. There's a lot of people with discretionary money that they're planning to spend, which could benefit a lot of industries. And then if that's getting real tight, it could seemingly indicate that, hey, man, like even for the stuff people have been trying to buy or get in other ways for thousands of years, they were not really doing it that much. Right. Now then they, that might indicate that, yeah, they might not also be going to buy a new pair of shoes either, or they may not also be going and buying this and that. And so it's, it's kind of like indications of demand, which are direct as opposed to not just what the demand is, but what someone, what, what a business person's expectation of what the demand is going to be. So that, to me is the interesting piece about this, is it kind of cuts out a middleman in this, but it all still does go based on this kind of perception on how much money are consumers going to be spending.
[00:07:27] Speaker B: No, so here's the thing, James. It's very interesting the way you said it, because it made me think of. I want to discuss the concept of a lagging indicator, as you mentioned, because.
[00:07:35] Speaker A: Well, that's a good, like a lagging, that'd be a good contrast in terms of this.
[00:07:39] Speaker B: So that's what I'm saying, because as you were talking, it made me realize we should contrast that for the audience. But I just want to finish up on conceptually because I think this. You make a good point that the stock market does definitely have a lot more kind of middleman in between. I mean, just the fact that it's a market and exchange and has a.
[00:07:55] Speaker A: Not to mention even the. The amount of automated trading that goes on now, you know, which.
[00:08:00] Speaker B: Well, just the fact that it's a regulated marketplace. Right. We know it's going to have more than, like you said, just walking into a store and buying a beer. That's. That's a very direct.
[00:08:07] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:08:08] Speaker B: You know, information about a direct purchase from a consumer. So just for the audience, though, the leading indicator concept. Right. Because I'm thinking about what's been going on. Anytime there's, let's say, a scary headline, whether it's tariffs or recession looming or a war somewhere, and the market reacts quickly. And sometimes people would ask me, well, why is the market doing this? And the stuff hasn't hit the system, like, whatever. The headline was clearly a pandemic. Things pandemic, you're right. So we get scared about it in late February. The public gets wind of it late February of 2020, and within a month, the stock market's down 40%. But none of the economic slowdown, the loss of jobs, all that started happening like April, May and June. So the idea of a leading indicator is because what we're talking about, the psychology of investors in this example, that once the bad news hits, they react. Everyone's kind of like, I want to be first out of the door. I don't want to wait, because if I wait, other people will sell first and all my stuff will go down. So the idea is that that's an indicator, something that can indicate to the rest of us that might be looking at that ecosystem of, let's say the stock market as an example here to say, wow, that's indicating. The stock market's indicating that bad things may be coming.
[00:09:30] Speaker A: Well, on the analogy that I just want to throw out there with you, is that along those same lines, then the thinking would be that then this other person who may have been considering opening a second restaurant location, or this other person who may have been considering starting to manufacture a new line of socks, or those people, same people that'll be like, whoa, whoa, whoa, I don't want to do anything new right now. So you're going to. The stock market gives kind of this Indication that broadly in the economy, people might start pulling back on things they might have planned to do, because it's like, okay, so that's how it kind of coincides. Because it's not the stock market directly that indicates this kind of economic activity. It's a reflection of. And that's why we're calling this an indicator, so to speak.
[00:10:13] Speaker B: Yeah, no, it's great, because then you have something. I mean, they actually measure some of these things. Many, many people listening or watching may have heard of the consumer confidence index. Yeah. So they measure these things by polling people and saying, how do you feel? And generally when people feel good, something called the wealth effect, which is that feeling when the markets generally are going up and there's not a lot of volatility and, you know, your house price has gone up and you kind of look at your statements or you go online, everything looks good. To your point, James, people feel good. The kids want to go watch a lot of money.
[00:10:46] Speaker A: Brothels, apparently.
[00:10:47] Speaker B: Yeah, well, that's where we're going.
[00:10:48] Speaker A: Right.
[00:10:49] Speaker B: Like, if the kids want to watch a movie is my example. Because we all know how Joe can say. Of course, we all know popcorn at movies and hot dogs are way overpriced. So if you want to go spend $40 for two hot dogs and a bag of large popcorn and soda when you're feeling good, you don't mind spending 40, 50 bucks on something you know, that's way less. But let's say the market's going down and you hear about layoffs and all this other stuff, it's kind of an opposite. And what it does is it'll cause people to contract their spending. So maybe if my kid wants to watch a movie next weekend, I'm telling them, hey, let's just watch it on Netflix, because I don't want to go spend 50 bucks. And like you're saying, that reverberates through the. The economy. And you're right. This is where we're going at that. This kind of, I'll call it device index. But it's not just vice stuff. I mean, they had beer, they had cosmetics, makeup. These direct consumer purchases, including brothels and strip clubs. Those are what we call discretionary spending, unlike spending on your light bill or your cell phone or food. Right. Those are kind of mandatory. We have to eat to live.
I guess some people have to go to a strip club to live. That wouldn't be me and you, James. And definitely our wives would agree with that. Right. But. But the idea is that some men may feel that it is life or death. So I guess they're the ones that would be like, they're the ones that.
[00:12:05] Speaker A: Are there anyway no matter what.
[00:12:06] Speaker B: Yeah, so I was going to say it's like, it's like a cigarette smoker. No matter how much the pack goes up, they keep buying. Yeah, but, but most people, you know, that's the, that's the thing is that. Yeah, so, but I think from what.
[00:12:16] Speaker A: You'Re saying though is that these are inputs that you can derive some measure of, of information as far as what may be coming from.
[00:12:26] Speaker B: Correct. And as opposed to like. Now let's go into something like lagging indicators obviously leading being something that's ahead of us, lagging being something that's behind. So something like unemployment figures. Yeah, that would be an example of a lagging indicator. Meaning the data has to, you know, be generated like the events have to happen first and then it has to be unemployed. Yeah. Then the government has to go ask businesses how many people.
[00:12:50] Speaker A: But interestingly enough, then, then that then become, that is the kind of thing that can become the new input into some other kind of. Oh no, now that unemployment's going up, people will further contract what it is that they're doing and that can actually put us. And that's, that's the psychology. That's, that's like the self perpetuating thing. And that's where like for example, the pandemic gave us a lot of examples of this because you had that initial drop in the stock market and so forth and then the government starts printing money and drops the interest rates down to zero and you know, all this other stuff and, and what that does is that itself in the same way that the occurrence of the pandemic wasn't the actual bad stuff that everybody was worried about from an economic standpoint, it was all of the lack of commerce that was going to happen. Because of that, once the government starts pumping all that money in and once the government drops the interest rates down to zero, the goal being then is to change people's minds and to then say, okay, the environment is so conducive to, you know, it's easy money. You know, the environment is so conducive to, to commerce that we're going to override our hesitation that we're seeing from these other factors and then go back in and say, hey, we're going to start spending money again. Because we think with the government pumping all this money into the system or with these interest rates so low economic activity is bound to pick back up so how these psychologies are played, and that's the economic game and that's why it's astrology more than astronomy, because it really is. You're trying to figure out ways to one, measure what people are thinking and how they're going to react. And then two, when you're looking at it from kind of a state standpoint or a market standpoint, managing that stuff, how to then push that in directions that are helpful. In contrast, in the Great Depression, for example, it's famous that the government constricted the money after that happened, after the initial shock happened. And they said, hey, we're going to tighten everything up, which self perpetuated the, the, the downturn even more, you know, because then it's like not only are people feeling bad, but they actually see a tighter supply of money and a tightening up. They see everything tightening up and it's like, oh well, I'm definitely not going to go try anything new.
[00:14:54] Speaker B: Or you know, it's an interesting, remember the pandemic. An interesting point for the audience is those that might not be, as, you know, economically inclined and follow stock market. I think we all remember, remember the reports of when the shelves are going empty and people were hoarding toilet paper.
[00:15:08] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:15:09] Speaker B: And that's an example. I mean I wouldn't, I don't know if I can say that's a leading indicator, but it's the psychology. I'm talking about psychology. Once people saw that couple people were taking toilet paper, you know, and the shelves are looking, and then other people start going. And again the perception that maybe we're going to have a scarcity of toilet paper, then the behavior of the individuals created the actual scarcity. So it, it is amazing how much more like psychological some of this stuff then is then mathematical. And to your point, I just want to look on a chart here with the S P500, it bottomed, it looks like on March 23rd of 2020. And to your point, that's what I mean, like, because that was, that was the very beginning. Yeah. And. But that's when the federal government around that, you know, that week when they announced, okay, CARES Act, PPP loans, EDEN Loans. So to your point, and that's what I was saying earlier, it was really April, May and June that remember like 7 million jobs this week, 6 million jobs next year. I thought we'd be in a great Depression. The market thought otherwise because the market being a leading indicator, had already started rising and recovering because of the stimulus and all that. So those kind of, who knew the system Better than the rest of us like those on Wall street already realized, okay, we're just going to start buying in because the worst appears to be over. We are forecasting now that this.
[00:16:31] Speaker A: No, I don't even think it was that the worst appeared to be over and but it was just that the trajectory was going like if the government continues doing what it's doing, remember, because it was still at April, May, June, it was still economic performance wise was going down. But they already saw, hey, the bottom of this is. We already see that the bottom is already where the bottom is going to be and then it's going to go up. And so leading wise, they were like, we're going to get ahead of this because we see.
[00:16:57] Speaker B: Well, you called it already. It was because of this shutting of business, like literally for the first time in world history where the government said, okay, everybody's stopping at the same time. You had this lack of velocity of money in the global economy. And you're right, once the money was flowing from the central banks, it greased those wheels and the system knew that the opposite now would happen than what happened after 1929. Meaning that things wouldn't constrict with all this liquidity out there thing. Almost like spilling a buck of water. Now we've got all this liquidity out there and you know, at least the economy, the wheels will be greased. And to your point, maybe we can't predict how great, how quickly or whatever we come out of this, but we know that commerce won't stop.
[00:17:41] Speaker A: No, that's a great thing.
The government dumped a bunch of water onto the floor and they do. Somebody's going to stop that water up.
[00:17:46] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly.
[00:17:48] Speaker A: So hey, let's start getting it ready to start stopping that water up because there's a lot of money on the floor right now.
[00:17:54] Speaker B: Yeah. And that's the interesting thing because in the end that's another example of the psychology. But on the way up, right, like once the bucket got spilled, lack of a better term, right, all of us pigs go to the trough. Oh shit, we got to, I got to get this before the next guy. And so it creates now a demand and the market starts going up. And then that's the sad part to me as a quote unquote wealth manager or financial therapist is the sad part is the emotional effects that these ups and downs create. That usually it's the retail investor that's last to be comfortable to get in. So that's what I mean is that. Yeah, the retailer aggressive risk takers.
[00:18:32] Speaker A: Well, they Come after the, the, the automated stuff, remember like auto, all the automated trading that happens with the computers. And then you got the, the, you know, like you talk about the, the, the, the, the professionals and then you know, the retail people come after all that. And so you, you know, it's, it's the stock market. It's, it's an interesting, it's a casino, you know, to many people, you know, like they talk about it like that. So there's last piece I want to get to before we get out of here.
[00:18:54] Speaker B: It's a casino where the house doesn't always win stock market too.
[00:18:59] Speaker A: That's true, that's true. But the, the piece like so when you're, when the, the premise of the article that we're talking about which will be in the show notes talked about how some of these indicators that the, these non traditional indicators are starting to wobble or starting to look and say hey, maybe we need to be worried about this. Do you think right now, because our information environments now are a lot of these kind of factors that we talk about kind of imply that we're all getting similar information as far as what's going on around us. But our information networks now aren't like that. And so we have very. Some people think that based on what's happening that everything is going to be okay. Some people think that the worst stuff is about to happen because of everything that happens because of the information network. So do you think that these types of measures, you know, where that you're measuring directly, you know, can, should we be worried? Are there things troubled on the horizon based on what we're seeing here or you know, are we entering a new world, so to speak, with the fractured information networks that we're all living in and how some of us may be operating on a high confidence because hey, I just, I just believe whatever the guy who's in charge says. I believe that. So I'm going to roll with it. And then other people might be saying hey, I don't like what the guy in charge is doing or you know, whatever. And so what do you think about that?
[00:20:17] Speaker B: Yeah, man, interesting questions because you packed a few things. So let me see if I can tease them out a bit. One, at the last point you made, I think the information networks, I've noticed that actually in my practice in the last 10 years or so that you know, I've been doing this 25 years. So 20 years ago people were less inclined to tell me how they feel about the economy or how they maybe would ask Me to deal with their investments based on, let's say, who's in political power.
But as the country's got more polarized in the last decade, unfortunately, that. That happens, you know.
[00:20:54] Speaker A: You know, interestingly enough, by the way, that was a feature that wasn't a bug of our system is that one of the reasons our system became so big and so strong was because whoever was in power at that moment mattered less. There was a general American kind of way of doing things that businesses locally and businesses abroad kind of could set their watch by. And so that bred a lot of confidence and stability. Whereas now, you know, we're kind of. That's starting to wobble a little bit, but I'm sorry for that.
[00:21:23] Speaker B: Well, that's, that's. That's what I mean by the partisanship. And look, the participants in, let's say, from our political electorate standpoint, not necessarily participants of the stock market, for the purpose of this conversation, as I said, you asked a few interesting things there. So the participants in our political landscape have become conditioned to believe that men can affect things more than the actual overall system. And so I think that is taking effect into the psychology of some. Then you've got, like you said, the information networks have caused a lot of different behaviors. Like we talked, we just had a show, what, two weeks ago or three weeks ago maybe, about. On the unfortunate thing of young men under 30 who are having a hard time having intimate relationships. So if, if maybe they're staying home more. Right. Maybe young men under 30 aren't frequenting strip clubs like they would have in our generation, you know, 20 years ago when we were younger.
[00:22:23] Speaker A: And there's been reports that bars and, you know, like, meeting places and stuff like that are not doing the business that they were 20 years ago, so to speak, with the current generation.
[00:22:33] Speaker B: Yeah. So is that an indicator of economic stuff or is it just an indicator of where culture's gone because of things like the Internet being proliferated that didn't exist, you know, 50 years ago. So young men had less things to do and had more of a reason to go out and go to a brothel or strip club than they do today. So I don't know. That's why, to me, that's why the marketplace.
[00:22:53] Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, Sony and PlayStation might have gotten all that money or, you know, whatever else.
[00:22:57] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, exactly.
[00:22:59] Speaker A: And.
[00:22:59] Speaker B: And even things like they had things. That's what I mean. It wasn't just vice stuff. They had things like cosmetics as a symbol. They had. Gave an example from 2008 and again, today is interesting, right? We have a trade war going on. I, like, my brain is already thinking like, well, I'd have to go look at where these cosmetics are. You know, are they coming from countries with tariffs on them? Maybe the inflationary nature of that type of stuff has just caused people to buy less cosmetics. But maybe it doesn't, is it's not a factor in the overall economy that matters. Or maybe it does. And so to me, that's what makes the stock market stuff interesting, because you're never going to be able to point to one thing and say this means 100%, certainly this or that, because if it was that easy, we'd be retired already.
[00:23:46] Speaker A: But the thing is that despite that fact, you'll never find a shortage of people that that'll sell that and say that with 100% certainty. Here's what's about to happen because of blank, you know, here's what just happened. And so, I mean, to me, I think that the perception is really what. Because what we're talking about so many times is a, is human confidence and human perception. I think that the perception kind of divergence is really a new factor that we're going to be dealing with here with this connected economy. There can be a. If you go 200 years ago, there's a perception difference amongst people, but their economies weren't so directly related, you know, like what they did in this town just wasn't that related to what they did in some town thousand miles away. Whereas now that's just not the case. And so I'm really interested to see how this divergence in perception of what's happening and whether what's happening is good or bad is going to play out. Because I think that it does kind of things that we've taken for granted in this conversation. Like, okay, yeah, these behavioral things, like things that, again, I think those things tap into something base basal in humans, you know, like, okay, yeah, they've been humans. The oldest profession, you know, like, so it's the oldest profession because there's been a demand for that.
[00:25:04] Speaker B: As long as we know that being a human or being on your back, which one just want you to clarify.
[00:25:10] Speaker A: But I mean, just in general, you know, like, so. But these vices, you know, tap into something that's very deep, you know, so that it's not trendy, so to speak. And so. But will those still serve as leading indicators when you have some people, because of what they're seeing, thinking that everything is on the up and up or, you know, everything is about to take off, and then other people thinking that everything is, is going to, you know, going into the toilet. And so that divergence, to me, creates a really interesting kind of test case. One of the interesting things about economics and why economics, you can, you can't look at it as a science and is because it can't be tested as a science. We can't, like, have a control group that's going to do blank and then a test group that's going to do something else, and then we can replay it and then switch the groups and have the control be the test and then test be the control. We can't run those kind of simulations in real life. And so all of this stuff is we can kind of guess what may happen. And then after things happen, we put some kind of logic on top of it and say, okay, well, this happened because of this, and, and then hope that that same kind of thing plays out the next time. So it's very unscientifically.
[00:26:16] Speaker B: Let me, let me stop you there. That's great. Because, I mean, you, you, you used to say, you know, people look at the stars and see constellations. Another one would be, you know, we can look at the clouds, See order, see shapes. Yeah, exactly.
[00:26:28] Speaker A: Disorder. Yeah.
[00:26:29] Speaker B: So. So I think.
[00:26:30] Speaker A: Which is the human tendency. That's, like, how our brains work.
[00:26:33] Speaker B: No, of course. And that's why I'm, I'm going here, because it's a great point where, where you say when we have a fractured information system, like, we've obviously developed more and more over the years as technology has advanced, that's kind of what we see, man. Like, first of all, all this stuff's complex. You know, I've had a conversation with a friend of mine recently about the trade deficit, and it's just like he's trying to, like, tell me all this stuff. And I just, just stopped him and asked him, like, can you explain to me why having a trade deficit is bad? And he couldn't. And I was, I didn't want to show him up, but it was kind of the point of saying, like. And that's the thing. Like, I'm not here to say I was an expert during COVID about what a vaccine meant or not. Like, our life is so complex now in the world that we do want to find patterns and kind of simplify things. Like you said that from an evolutionary standpoint, it's just too much going on. And so when I look at a bunch of clouds, my brain wants to already pick patterns that are. That I Can your brain will see a dog, you know, jump? Because if not, then my brain's got to figure out what this new pattern is. And it's, you know, just doesn't want to take that energy most likely. So I think, I think it's very interesting, James, that you're, you're going this direction as relates to the information networks and the fracturing of them because I think most of us can appreciate, you know, listening or watching us, that we've seen this in the last few years. I mean, think about the contrast based on what you consumed in the media, based on maybe what the algorithm sent you in your political leanings, how you felt about, let's say the economy a year ago. Right. And we did the discussions where the stock market's hitting all time highs, but some people would swear it's the worst economy ever. Now we're going to have a contrast where we have new leadership and some people who support this leadership will feel one way, others that don't, won't, you know, they'll feel an opposite way. But the reality is the facts are all the same. It's just the who, where you're getting your information from. And that source is directing kind of the confirmation bias as to people that's.
[00:28:36] Speaker A: Going to affect your confidence in what's happening, in what's going on. So are you within, are certain segments of society going to be more inclined to hey, let's open up this new factory or in other segments be like, oh, we better do nothing? And it's, they're all, they're sitting right next to each other, you know, and, but they're, they're, because they're information networks. There's less overlap in information networks. I just, like I said, I'm raising the question more than I have an answer, you know, because again, this is interesting.
[00:29:02] Speaker B: So here's your thing, man. Like based on, for those, the audience. Two weeks ago we did a show on a book called Revolt of the Public. So based on the concept of that fifth wave, I do think you're onto something that just the change in the way we all receive information could end up in the long run. I'm talking like a generation or two from now begin to really change how we do economics and a lot of other things. And I just think it's very interesting to your point that the perception of the individual at an individual level, the psychology really does.
[00:29:33] Speaker A: POD level though is kind of what I'm saying. Like you're, you're, you're, we're grouped into these Pods based on kind of what. What information the algorithms decide to send to us, you know, and then we are. We further diverge because of the way the algorithms treat us. And so. And there doesn't seem to be any pushback against this, you know, so it's just like, yeah, we're. We're going into a different place where it's not a given that we're all going to observe the same thing about the economy that's going on in a given moment. Because I might be aware of things that somebody else has never seen, never heard of, you know, like. And it's like, wow, that's for all the things that are supposed to take measures of our society, you know, broadly. I just wonder how effective they'll be once as we diverge from like, some people think it's daytime, some people think it's nighttime. And it's like, yeah, like, how can you take a. How can you summarize that sentiment? You know? But the other thing, the last thing I want to mention, I want to get out of here, is just that you brought up the complexity of these things. And one of the things that, that, that brought to mind is that historically, you know, like, throughout human history, we've used religion to kind of fill in those gaps when the world around us was more complex than what we had the tools to understand. You know, so before we could understand why it rained and why it didn't rain, it was the gods, you know, like, that was how we understood it. It was the gods, and you had to sacrifice a virgin or, you know, you had to do certain things to make it rain. And then if you didn't do it right, then it wouldn't rain. Then we understood rain, and then we no longer needed religion for that, you know. And so I wonder, as these things get more complicated and more complex, what's going to fill in that gap, you know, so to speak, is some people suggest that economics itself is becoming a religion and that the way it's operated a lot of times is with this kind of faith, that it's like, hey, here are these tenants, and you got to just follow these and hope it works out. And if it doesn't work out, then it's not the problem of the tenants, it's the prize. Just, you know, that was just God's wrath, so to speak. And so the complexity, though, piece does kind of put us in this. In this bind, because humans don't like walking around feeling like they don't understand stuff where we're going to have to generate something to make all this make sense at certain point. And to some people, that's already there. That's economics, that's the stock market. That's all this other stuff. But in any event, it's going to be something where what exists now and where we are right now isn't necessarily going to be the way it's going to is not going to necessarily be an acceptable way maybe in 20 years. So, you know, it's exciting times. We get to see the evolution of some new kind of norms and or else how society is going to figure this stuff out or. Well, my concern would be is that it gets to a certain point where enough people are just saying, hey, this stuff's too complicated. Let somebody else deal with it. You know, we'll just have some leader tell us what to do and we don't have to worry about the complexity anymore because that's what happens sometimes in times of complexity also, you know, is.
[00:32:22] Speaker B: That first of all, I think we're there, but that's a whole nother show that we can have down the road. But I'll make a I'll have some fun with you at the end here that the sacrificing of the virgins so that it will rain was a real thing. So I'm wondering if they couldn't find any virgins in the town, did that mean that they had a good economy in the village? I'm just based on our prior conversation about leading indicators. So, hey, that's how I'm going to tie a bow on this discussion.
[00:32:48] Speaker A: And you well, if it wasn't raining, man, you know, that the economy wasn't good, you know, so that's the answer to your question right there.
So. But no, I think we should wrap from there. We appreciate joining us on this, this part one of our show today. Check out part two as well, and we'll talk to you soon.
All right, Tunde, our second part today. Now, many people, you know, especially people that are health conscious and conscious, are trying to really take care of themselves, have heard of intermittent fasting. That's been something that's been very popular and popularized over the last, you know, five, ten years or so, and the, you know, the benefits that it had brings from whether it be weight management, health, you know, overall health, lots of things. Now, we saw recent research, though, that suggests that one small diet tweak relatively, you know, which is just avoiding carbs on certain dates, you know, maybe take a couple of days and you don't have any carbs those days or Very low carb those days, but not all days. You know, people have heard of low carb as well, but low carb diets typically were just a permanent fixture. You know, you're just low carb for a long time, whether, you know, whatever that amount that is. But this is suggesting, instead of being low carb all the time, you're just, you know, out of seven days, a couple days, you don't have any carbs those days. And that doing that on itself can have this, a similar benefit, beneficial effect to, to. For your body from a metabolical standpoint, you know, weight loss and, and health and so forth as fasting. So what, what do you make of this? You know, like, this seemingly seems like some kind of, you know, pretty substantial breakthrough as far as being able to get some substantial benefits without either not eating at all or avoiding carbs indefinitely. But we've also kind of fallen for this before where we've seen these simple tricks to do this and that, and then there's all these negative side effects or it just doesn't work. So what do you make of this new research?
[00:34:36] Speaker B: Man, all this stuff is always interesting to me, and it reminds me of what we talked about just in the first part of our discussion today about economics. I mean, this food stuff. And where I'm going is complexity.
You know, it's not simple anymore just to eat food. You know, you don't just go kill a rabbit, cook it, and then just consume it and be done with it.
[00:34:57] Speaker A: Hey, man, I don't know how simple it was to just go kill a rabbit, but, yeah, go ahead.
[00:35:02] Speaker B: You get what I'm saying. And so.
And so, yeah, it's simpler to go.
[00:35:06] Speaker A: Shopping at the grocery store.
[00:35:08] Speaker B: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I know it's simpler to go get that processed potato chip at a grocery store than to. Yeah, yeah, go, go. If you really want to go chip the flint, you know, and go find the twine to wrap around the stick, you know, and go make it. But Mr. Boy Scout over here. But, but, but no, it's. And that's kind of what I'm saying. Just the fact we just, you know, got done with the part one of today's discussion and talking about the complexity of things like macroeconomics and trade policy and all that. It's like you're talking about this processed food, and it got me thinking about. I was just looking up on my phone because I was thinking about the dyes, yellow dye, number five, red dye, whatever, and how they have all these side effects and how difficult it is to try and get clarity on what's in these things. Because when I look at the ingredients on the back of the food package, I get it, what the sugar is and what, you know, certain things are. But when I see like caramel color and then I'm like, okay, well what's in that? And then I might go Google caramel color. And I see it's red number five and then I go look up red number five. And it's like, you know, you got to keep going. It's like, man, all this stuff is just complex. And that's why I thought about when you said that us as the public, a lot of us just feel like now we just want to throw our hands up and it's like, you know what? I'm tired of all this. It's too much. And so this is another one profitable.
[00:36:28] Speaker A: Mindset for food companies.
[00:36:30] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think, look, that's a great point because we've had discussions not to get in the weeds again. Listeners and viewers can go to our library. But we've done discussions specifically about how entities like the European Union, let's say, and the United States government both behave differently on how they protect their consumers as relates to what food companies can put in food or how they can process them. That's.
[00:36:56] Speaker A: Well, you expressed your amazement when you went to Europe and you saw the same restaurants cooking things very differently because of the regulations over there versus what they're allowed to do here.
[00:37:05] Speaker B: And that's what I was saying.
[00:37:07] Speaker A: We're much more.
[00:37:07] Speaker B: That's my diplomatic way of saying it. But yeah, James, that's where I'm getting at is, I mean it's, I guess that's all part of it, right? Like, like our regular regulatory authorities, what they allow companies to put in the food, how they're lobbied, things like that, and then us as consumers. And that's why I don't blame the consumer as much because number one, like we're talking, these things just become more complex. I look at like when I did the yellow diet and they start showing a molecular structure and I'm like, I need a chemistry degree to understand this. And so. And so, yeah, I think that the idea of how to eat like you're saying about whether it's intermittent fasting or not, consuming some of these high processed, high carb related foods for maybe a 24 hour period, but you can consume other things. I think that's where the science is probably going to continue to evolve. Because remember five years ago, intermittent fasting was it? Everybody's talking about it now. Now somebody comes up with this five years later, someone might poke. Poke a bit of a hole in this one, you know, that we're talking today on the article.
[00:38:10] Speaker A: No, I mean, I think that. Well, all of that, I mean, that's. That is science, is that you come up with something, you test it out, and then you have other people trying to poke holes in it. I mean, that's. And then that's your man. Progress, so to speak.
[00:38:21] Speaker B: That. That sounds like Fauci. Like people that aren't with true conviction that they know exactly what's going on and everything.
[00:38:27] Speaker A: Right?
[00:38:28] Speaker B: Yeah, immediately.
[00:38:29] Speaker A: If you don't know immediately what's going on, but right away, those scientists, like.
[00:38:34] Speaker B: Nah, they don't sound credible, but nonetheless, they should. I think what they're doing. You.
[00:38:37] Speaker A: You raise an interesting point. As far as all of the stuff that's going on, as far as our food supply, what I take away from that is that we're kind of on our own, at least in the United States, from a regulatory standpoint. The government's not going to help us out. You know, like, it's. The companies define whether they decide what it is they can do to us. They can. They. It's not. It's not people in the kitchen, you know, against us. It's people in a lab against us, trying to figure out ways to addict us to food and then make us unhealthy so that we crave more food. I mean, you sent me the thing, you know, the other day, talking about how the artificial sweetener that makes you three times more hungry, and it's like, actually, sir, four.
[00:39:11] Speaker B: What is it, four times?
[00:39:13] Speaker A: Four times, yeah. And it's like.
[00:39:15] Speaker B: I read it again, that is completely.
[00:39:17] Speaker A: Consistent with Big Food like that. I didn't expect that from them, that they would come up with a sweetener that makes you more hungry, because that's how they operate. They're pure, profitable.
[00:39:24] Speaker B: I don't blame the consumer, because think about it. Someone is giving.
[00:39:27] Speaker A: Oh, yeah, it's their willpower, right.
[00:39:29] Speaker B: An alternative to sugar, which they're being told is bad, but then they don't know that this sweetener makes them four times more hungry.
[00:39:35] Speaker A: Oh, well, we saw this movie already. We saw this. The trans fat, Remember Trans. Everybody had to switch over to trans fat, you know, margarine, all this other stuff. And it's like, oh, yeah, my bad. We gave all these people heart attacks from that. But nonetheless, my point being is that we're on our own. And so I think it's a positive that, well, what we're on our own one, and then two. From a metabolic standpoint and just from an overall health standpoint, what we're doing now isn't working. So we need more ideas, more people coming up with things as far as what to do. This, this seems like a solid intervention. What this reminds me of now I'm a person that's been interested health exercise for 20 something years. So this reminds me of carb cycling, you know, which is a thing, you know, like bodybuilders, you know, going back to like, you know, I think like the 90s, you know, 90s where you know, like what, what carb cycling was very similar to this is that you have your low carb times and then you have refeeds where then you eat a bunch of carbs and you refeed you, you refill all your carb stores in your body and then you go for some days without carbs again. And then you're doing that in conjunction with training and all that. And that was supposed to do very well for your body in terms of gain, still being able to gain muscle while also leaning out and so forth, which, you know, that's what bodybuilders try to do. So I actually have found over the years that a lot of things that the bodybuilders figured out a long time ago, once they kind of got maybe, you know, flattened a little bit and brought into the mainstream, they were able to help and create some kind of, you know, like to help people. You know, even the low carb thing was something that, you know, I remember seeing in Muscle and Fitness well before I saw it in People magazine, you know, like so, you know, but again, all of these things generally speaking will have trade offs. And so that's where it gets to, you know, with the intermittent fasting, for example, it's very hard, you know, even if it's, if you're doing a 24 hour fast or if you're just doing the, the kind of a 16 hour, 8, 16 hours of not eating, 8 hours of eating each day or anything. Those things are hard, you know, especially not just physiologically, but socially. So all of these things have their pros and their cons, so to speak. If they're effective, then we may want to kind of hold on to those as options. But having more options is better than having less options as far as different things you can do to help manage yourself, particularly again metabolically, all that kind of stuff inflammation wise because our habits are killing us. And I'M not talking about vices, I'm just talking about food.
[00:41:47] Speaker B: Well, remember in America, the food companies are allowed to kill you as long as it's slow.
[00:41:53] Speaker A: Well. And as long as you didn't have to plug into the big health, then the big pharma.
[00:41:58] Speaker B: Big pharma has the answer to all.
[00:42:00] Speaker A: Of the problems that big food causes.
[00:42:02] Speaker B: Listen, if you took a bite out of the burger and then you drop dead within like five minutes, then, yeah, they're going to have a problem with that.
[00:42:08] Speaker A: Yeah, correct.
[00:42:09] Speaker B: But you start, you keep taking bites of burgers and you slowly waste.
[00:42:12] Speaker A: And then you eat, too.
[00:42:13] Speaker B: And then you eat.
[00:42:13] Speaker A: Then all of them are like, hey, it wasn't me. Wasn't me.
[00:42:16] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, exactly. That's the thing too, the plausible deniability. We're not sure which of the ingredients from which manufacturer killed you. So we all just. Yeah, it wasn't, it wasn't red number seven.
[00:42:26] Speaker A: It was yellow number 18.
[00:42:28] Speaker B: Yeah, but it's, but now that's why it's between the complexities and it's just kind of everything we're talking about.
It confuses me now just thinking about all this. And so I think part of the, one of the things that we also don't recognize because again, I don't want to even want to beat up our system. And this isn't a conspiracy theory, but it's just the way that we consume media, the way that Obviously you got 350 million people in this country, and so, you know, not everything can be tailored to each individual. Remember, part of this discussion, I can't help but feeling that things are different also in different stages of your life. So think about it like you're talking about the intermittent fasting versus the carb cycling and all that. And I, I, I think I accidentally ended up doing intermittent fasting during the shutdown of the pandemic, because I wasn't, we were all stuck at home and I was just working out of my garage. So I, I ended up defaulting to having, like one big lunch and that was it. So I barely ate breakfast. I might have had a juice, had a massive lunch, and I really didn't have dinner because I wasn't doing anything. I'll just sit down and, you know, watch TV with my wife. And I kind of realized after a couple months of it, I was like, wow, this is intermittent fasting, unintentionally. But I'm wondering like, I was 43 or whatever I was back then. Now I'm wondering if an 83 year old, if that's healthy for them. Or a 12 year old. Right. Like intermittent fasting or the carb cycling or whatever it is. It's also about where is our metabolism. Our metabolism changes at different stages of life. You and I joke about, you know, I'll say this, I'll pick on me. We joke about my low T because I'm tipped into my late 40s. And my point is, so as my Testosterone goes down versus when I was 30, the way I consume food and all that, my body is going to digest a different thing. So that's why this is even more complex where we read things like, oh, intermittent fasting, I should do that. But I don't know based on what age I am, where I'm at in life, what my other health issues are, should I be doing that or not? So I think for a lot of us in our society, we take advice from these news feeds, magazines and social media and that probably is not the best way for us. We're all kind of experimenting as we're going in a sense. So that's the answer though.
[00:44:49] Speaker A: I mean, now, and I think part of this though, maybe it should be said more. But all of this stuff doesn't. We're not talking about stuff for kids. I mean, so you take the outliers of 12 and 83 then. Yes, but if you take the, if your outer bounds are 22 to 65, then I think generally speaking a lot of these things can be applied. But the key piece you said is we're experimenting, you know, like it is about trying to find some type of wellness that works for you. Like I'm always trying to figure out, like part of this is because I work with my brain. I'm always trying to figure out what habits work for me where my brain, I'm not sitting here like super groggy in the middle of the day and all that. Like there are certain foods I just won't eat in the middle of the day because I know that if I do that I'm not going to be able to really function at a high level for the rest of that afternoon, you know, and that, that's different now for me in my 40s, in my 20s. Say it again.
[00:45:38] Speaker B: Yeah. No, but that's the sad part. If you had pasta in Italy at noon, you'd be able to run a marathon by 2:00. Pasta in America, you'll be asleep by 2. You're right. It's, it's. And obviously the preservatives and the ingredients are different. At a micro level. But on the surface, it's the same type of food. We think pasta is possible. Yeah.
[00:46:00] Speaker A: Visually. Well, that's the whole point of all these colorings. Because visually, we're such visual creatures that because it looks the same, then we kind of deal with it mentally the same. Whereas if something looks different, then it affects us and how we would perceive it.
[00:46:15] Speaker B: You know what, man? Now you're making me sober and I'm glass half empty Tunde today because I'm thinking about what the joke we had in the first one about sacrificing the virgin so it could rain and figuring out if the leading indicator or not if we can find one in the town. Right. It's true, though, man. Like you're saying just us talking about this food. So it is so complex that I'm like, in my head because, you know, think about. We're all feral. You know, we're still at. From an evolutionary standpoint, we still want the simplicity. I'm over here thinking, like, yeah, man, I might just have to do a rain dance about this food stuff because.
[00:46:46] Speaker A: Well, yeah, yeah, it just feels too.
[00:46:48] Speaker B: Much, you know, like, too complicated.
[00:46:49] Speaker A: No, I mean, I get you, but I. I actually think it's as complicated as you want it to be. And in the sense that we have the perception of endless options, and that's really where this complexity starts from. If all you had was a rabbit, then it wouldn't be complex. You just eat what you had. But because we have endless options when we go to the supermarket or whatever, then we feel like we have complexity, but we don't have to engage with that except as our own kind of decision. Now, where it becomes complicated, is that from a capitalist standpoint. And again, I'm not here to just demean capitalism, but capitalism has certain strengths. Capitalism has certain weaknesses. And balance and moderation is not a strength of capitalism. And so we have to work against that if our health outcomes are going to be more tied to balance and moderation. So if you see what I'm saying, basically is that one of the weaknesses of capitalism is it would lead us into this life of excess, of endless options, overwhelming, because that's what. That's how you drive growth. Whereas. But I guess growth in more than one way, because it's also how you drive growth in our bodies, you know, like, out. And so if we are. If we have either the. The. Some of it is you have to opt out in the same way that your newsfeed is probably messing with your. Your. Your emotions. You have to not, not just buy chips because you see an advertisement for it. So yes, there's complexity in that, but you also, you can simplify it for yourself. And that's kind of the point of some of these things, like intermittent fasting is an attempt to simplify it for yourself. Hey, eat whatever you want, but only eat during these hours, you know, and then. And don't eat out. That. That's a simple answer. Or even this car, I call it carb cycling because that's what it resembles. But they're not calling it that in the peaceful share in the, in the show notes. But this thing like, hey, do what you want, but on these days, don't you know your choice, but don't eat carbs on these days and you'll get marginal or substantial improvement in your outcome. And so I think that's kind of the trick here is that when we have all this complexity is to find ways for our own selves that work for us, that we don't feel miserable when we do that are not overly complicated, but allow us to improve, to marginally improve what it is that we're doing. And some of those have other benefit, like the fasting thing, you know, I've looked at that for a long time just because that has other benefits beyond weight management and metabolic stuff, because that actually helps your body go and clean itself out and so forth. And so this new intervention may not allow you to do that, but it still can improve what you're doing metabolically, which can have a lot of other effects. So I think the point though is to give you something simple. If the point was, is you had to walk this tightrope every single day, we're all going to fail. That's just kind of the thing. And so what can we do that is simple, not just physiologically, but again, socially as well. So much of social interaction is, is eating stuff, you know, and, and so forth. So what can we do to. To improve ourselves? Because again, where I started, what we're doing now is not working. You know, like most of society has metabolic issues, like, so that is a clear indication that something is, is a myth and art in my standpoint. It's just like, let's get this information out there. Here's another, here's an approach, you know, like, it seems, okay, check it out, you know, if it works for you, great. If it doesn't, you know, try to find something else else if you're going to try to do better.
Yeah, but I think we can wrap from there. We appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Carl. Like I see it. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think. Send it to a friend. Till next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:50:15] Speaker B: I am Tumbe Romano.
[00:50:16] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk soon.
