The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - September 08, 2026


PREVIEW: Brokenomics | Western Financial Assumptions Are Obsolete


Episode Stats


Length

16 minutes

Words per minute

122.2

Word count

1,992

Sentence count

93

Harmful content

Toxicity

1

sentences flagged

Hate speech

6

sentences flagged


Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 Hello and welcome to Brokonomics.
00:00:24.760 Now, in this episode, I wanted to talk about the fact that the Western financial system
00:00:30.260 is running on a set of obsolete assumptions.
00:00:34.840 And it is doing what I think that the people in the political realm are doing,
00:00:39.640 which is to say they think that if you change the personalities,
00:00:43.360 well, that actually changes something.
00:00:46.540 But all of the arithmetic beneath it is exactly the same.
00:00:51.320 and i wanted to talk um both about the us and the uk in this um because well in the uk well
00:01:00.700 in fact across the g7 uh bond bond yields are moving and i did a little video uh on the daily
00:01:07.280 channel a couple of days ago explaining um basically what that was i i will cover that again
00:01:12.420 in perhaps a little bit more detail here but also the assumptions why everything is wrong
00:01:17.740 and what the underlying picture actually is.
00:01:23.160 And, you know, you can change the, you know, you can put Besson in,
00:01:27.740 you can put Walsh in, you can change Keir Starmer for Andy Burnham.
00:01:34.460 They don't really have any more freedom of movement
00:01:36.720 than they had before the personalities changed.
00:01:39.840 So, I mean, not that I want to discount that something has changed.
00:01:45.880 so you know trump has come in with his tariffs and it's a program of you know reshoring and
00:01:51.900 industrial capacity and well energy defense it's an explicit break with the old globalist
00:01:59.040 consensus and we've got scott besant now and he talks about um parallel prosperity he calls it
00:02:05.900 which is to say well wall street has done very well now it's the time of main street to do well
00:02:11.580 And we've got Kevin Walsh in as well, of course, the new Fed chair.
00:02:17.300 And he's much more sceptical of continuing Fed intervention and forward guidance.
00:02:27.340 He's talked about the 2% inflation target being firm, although he's also kind of said, well, actually, it's the left-hand side of the decimal place that I'm interested in.
00:02:38.800 basically hinting he might go up to 2.9 at some point rather than two but but nevertheless um you
00:02:45.520 know rhetorical uh adherence to the sort of that so there is real ideological change and we can't
00:02:53.060 just dismiss it as cosmetic but then you have to look at what is the system already forcing them
00:03:00.880 to do and the treasurer announced in order august that it was going to be um at least doubling its
00:03:07.100 long-end buybacks meaning that they are buying back debt at the 30-year duration
00:03:16.780 and they're going to be converting it into short date short-dated debt so basically they're trying
00:03:22.540 to change the shape of the yield curve it's too expensive up there we've got a little bit of room
00:03:27.500 back here so we're going to we're going to buy some of those things swap it into those things
00:03:31.340 makes long-term money more affordable, beneficial for corporate loans and mortgages and all that
00:03:37.420 sort of stuff. And the Treasury's current quarter is already envisaging up to $38 billion of
00:03:47.280 liquidity support in these buybacks, plus $25 billion of the short-end cash management buybacks.
00:03:55.740 People are arguing that it shouldn't be regarded as money printing in of itself
00:04:01.020 but it's money printing effectively it's not quite yield curve control but it is liquidity
00:04:08.480 management and you know i i don't doubt that the new administration you know wants prior and
00:04:15.500 stronger markets but is also simultaneously becoming involved in keeping the sovereign
00:04:20.700 bond markets from basically not imploding so the point is this look they inherited facts
00:04:28.740 and you can change the personnel but it's not going to alter 1.9 trillion the federal deficits
00:04:36.740 this year which is almost six percent of GDP is not going to change the fact that the debt held
00:04:43.620 by the public is 101 percent of GDP it's not going to change that the net interest over there to pay
00:04:49.760 out is 3.3% of GDP. And the CDO baseline is of debt reaching 120%, 120% of GDP by 2036.
00:05:03.480 Net interest at 4.6. So getting on for 5%. And so we don't need to frame this as, you know,
00:05:11.580 Trump and Besant and Walsh are the same as the old regime. You know, they may want to change
00:05:18.300 of the regime the problem is is that they inherit all of the liabilities from the old regime so you
00:05:25.600 can change the treasury secretary but you can't change the balance sheet which he inherits and
00:05:32.520 you know the politics has changed but the underlying arithmetic hasn't and Walsh can promise
00:05:39.660 sand money and Besson can promise Main Street and Trump can promise factories but they still
00:05:48.660 have to refinance the debt so what has changed underneath them the old system is built around
00:05:54.660 assumptions that used to be true and so I mean those assumptions I mean assumption number one
00:06:02.280 is that debt is low enough that rates can discipline inflation you know you take 1980
00:06:07.960 when debt was 26% of GDP. Bear that to today. Debt is 101% of GDP. And as I've just talked about,
00:06:18.000 it will be going a lot higher quite soon. But what that means is that Paul Volcker,
00:06:22.780 the legendary Fed chairman who tamed inflation, he could raise rates brutally without simultaneously
00:06:33.400 continuously repricing a debt stock equal to the entire economy. And today's higher rates
00:06:40.520 eventually feed back into government interest costs, especially as they start to shift more
00:06:46.100 debt into the shorter duration. So when you've got 26% debt, rates can fix inflation.
00:06:54.280 When debt's at 101%, high rates become part of the problem itself. Assumption number two,
00:07:01.920 There will always be plenty of workers.
00:07:06.100 And if you look at Social Security beneficiaries,
00:07:10.000 in 1960, it was 5.1 workers per somebody taking out the system.
00:07:19.380 By 2026, today, that's 2.6.
00:07:23.460 You've gone from 5.1 to 2.6.
00:07:26.620 Basically halved the number of workers per person paying out.
00:07:31.920 and by 2035 under the baseline assumptions that's going that's going down to 2.3 but the financial
00:07:41.220 promise hasn't changed the number of workers standing behind that promise that's changed
00:07:48.400 five workers paid for every one beneficiary and now you've got two and a half all right I'm not
00:07:55.300 making an ideological point I'm making a division point this is a straightforward maths problem 1.00
00:08:01.920 Assumption number three, let's go with old people. 1.00
00:08:04.760 The assumption was that old people were a relatively small part of society.
00:08:13.560 Americans over 65 in 2004 would have been 12.4%.
00:08:21.700 Today it's 19%.
00:08:23.640 America already has 61 million people over 65.
00:08:29.440 And the working age population only grew 1.4% from 2020 to 2024, while the over 65s grew 13%.
00:08:41.960 That is a double fiscal hit.
00:08:46.120 Slower taxpayer growth, faster pension and healthcare spending.
00:08:51.500 Assumption number four, globalism.
00:08:53.320 The old assumption was you can continuously get your stuff cheaper
00:09:00.640 by getting somebody else to make it.
00:09:03.280 Ship it abroad, lower energy costs, lower worker costs,
00:09:07.640 move production somewhere cheaper, cheaper goods, lower inflation,
00:09:11.600 therefore you can have lower rates.
00:09:13.980 The new reality, especially with Trump's new politics,
00:09:17.840 is reshoring, plus tariffs, plus redundant supply chains.
00:09:23.320 defense, energy security. Now those might be strategically necessary and I agree that they are
00:09:32.800 but they're not cheap. If you spend 30 years importing deflation from China
00:09:39.380 now you want the factories back fine good but the factories don't come back
00:09:46.420 without the deflation going away either. Sumption number five that your trading partners
00:09:53.140 were not also your geopolitical rivals you know economic efficiency doctrine for 30 40 50 years
00:10:02.980 was let China make whatever it makes cheapest and national security is increasingly saying
00:10:10.620 oh what if China controls rare earths and batteries and electronics pharmaceuticals
00:10:17.980 machine tools, industrial outputs, all of which you need during a conflict.
00:10:23.720 That rather changes the objective, doesn't it?
00:10:27.640 From maximum efficiency to resilience, they are different objective functions.
00:10:33.780 Resilience means duplicating capacity and spare capacity, which means you pay more. 0.96
00:10:41.240 China being your factory works beautifully until China becomes your rival. 0.88
00:10:47.260 Six, the rest of the world will keep financing the arrangement. 0.91
00:10:52.700 And the old loop looked something like this.
00:10:54.320 It was U.S. imports goods, foreigners accumulate dollars,
00:10:59.260 foreigners buy U.S. assets, U.S. treasuries,
00:11:03.680 and U.S. borrowing stays cheap because it's a cycle.
00:11:07.600 They make it, earn it, send it back.
00:11:10.300 China's Treasury holdings are now 633 billion versus 733 only a year earlier.
00:11:22.700 And both of those numbers are well below their historic peak. And the dollar
00:11:28.220 remains overwhelmingly important, sure. Still 57.1% of disclosed FX reserves. So
00:11:36.800 we can't oversell the de-dollarization thing fine but if America wants less dependency on foreign
00:11:44.140 production can it still expect the same foreign capital recycling that accompanies that production
00:11:52.120 I think obviously not I mean it's fairly straightforward that that that's not going
00:11:58.600 to happen if you want China out of the factories fine but if the factories and the financing were
00:12:06.000 part of the same deal well you're not getting that deal anymore so in every case if i can remember
00:12:10.980 what order i did those in um the assumption was low debt now we've got high debt the assumption
00:12:16.520 was many workers now we've got few workers it was few retirees and now we've got many retirees
00:12:22.980 it was we're offshoring and now it's we're reshoring it was okay we've got trading partners
00:12:29.780 and now it's like oh shit they're actually um strategic rivals and we did have foreign financing
00:12:35.640 and now we've got less reliable foreign financing to put it fairly mildly then every assumption 0.77
00:12:44.120 that made the old system affordable is being revised at the same time which brings me on to
00:12:52.760 if those are the actual realities what would we have to do to make the financial system work again
00:12:58.840 what would actually fix it and I suppose more to the point why will politicians not fix it
00:13:06.660 so to stabilize the finances America is going to need some combination of spending less
00:13:13.120 taxing more retiring later reducing entitlement grow productivity much farther faster maybe AI
00:13:22.180 and robotics can help them do that but you need to do that and accepting higher real rates
00:13:28.360 well and the recession and asset losses required to clear the excesses out while you're making
00:13:35.600 that transition so the difficulty in all of that is not the economics it's not the maths
00:13:40.880 perfectly bloody straightforward anybody who knows a little bit of finance and economics can
00:13:45.620 work that out for you the difficulty is deciding who is going to take the loss and the budget
00:13:52.640 is increasingly made of things politicians do not want to touch.
00:13:57.680 Federal spending is $4.5 trillion of mandatory programs.
00:14:06.380 Discretionary spending is only $1.9 trillion.
00:14:09.500 Oh, a net interest of getting on for a trillion.
00:14:12.440 And from 2027 to 2036,
00:14:17.080 Social Security and Medicare are going to account for 81%
00:14:21.020 of the projected increases in that mandatory spending so you can cut foreign aid uh bureaucracy
00:14:29.080 dei programs yeah yeah very good do all of that like it doesn't solve the problem the big money
00:14:36.060 is pensions health care and interest and in the american case a bit of military after that 0.53
00:14:42.740 well quite a lot of military actually so you can fire every diversity officer in washington
00:14:48.100 and your Medicare bill still turns up.
00:14:51.060 That is the core problem.
00:14:55.240 And Social Security is already telling you the choice.
00:14:58.740 Old age Social Security trust fund is projected to deplete in 2032.
00:15:06.180 And at that point, existing income only covers the first 78% of the bill.
00:15:12.280 Combined Social Security, combined the lot of Social Security,
00:15:18.100 And we're at by 2034, only the first 83% is covered.
00:15:26.140 So in reality, once you break out the old calculator,
00:15:30.220 there are only, you know, a few real choices.
00:15:34.240 Cut benefits, raise retirement age, raise payroll taxes,
00:15:38.400 or fund the difference from trying to figure out how to tax more and borrow more.
00:15:48.100 Thank you.