Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to it. Jeez, my voice is totally shot.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, I know.
Speaker 1: Sorry my voice.
Speaker 2: Yeah, oh boy.
Speaker 1: So maybe I'll just let Tracy do all the talking.
Speaker 3: I'm glad we're doing a baseball episode on the day
Speaker 3: that you've lost your voice.
Speaker 1: I did a deadlift one two, Jimmy. Okay, uh barges.
Speaker 1: This isn't after school special, except.
Speaker 3: I've decided I'm going to base my entire personality going
Speaker 3: forward on campaigning for a strategic pork reserve in the US.
Speaker 1: Where's the best in posta?
Speaker 3: These are the important question? Is it robots taking over
Speaker 3: the world?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 4: I think that, like in a couple of years, the
Speaker 4: AI will do a really good job of making the
Speaker 4: odd launch podcast and people to say, I don't really
Speaker 4: need to listen to Joe and Tracy anymore.
Speaker 1: We do have the.
Speaker 3: Until then, this is lots more a weekly.
Speaker 1: Chat about whatever is on our mind.
Speaker 3: And we really do have the perfect guests.
Speaker 1: H Tracy, I'm sorry my voice sounds so terrible today.
Speaker 3: It's okay. It's not like it's a problem for a
Speaker 3: professional podcaster to lose their voice.
Speaker 1: It's not like my entire career in profession is entirely
Speaker 1: premised on my ability to speak.
Speaker 3: How was the show?
Speaker 1: Our band had our first show last night Skinny Dennis
Speaker 1: and Whisburg.
Speaker 2: It was very good.
Speaker 1: I guess I sang a little bit too hard, but
Speaker 1: I was for our first time.
Speaker 2: You know, Taylor Swift was doing this three hours a night.
Speaker 3: Well that's what I did, wondering, like, seriously, you need
Speaker 3: to do vocal exercises. Your voice is a muscle Joe.
Speaker 3: You have to practice.
Speaker 1: How the hell did she do that? I've felt about
Speaker 1: this and like, how did she look? Avoid like getting
Speaker 1: a flu? You know, it's like a whole year you
Speaker 1: get like sick, and like like it's it's honestly like
Speaker 1: the fact that she did that to her like blows
Speaker 1: my mind.
Speaker 3: Show. It sounds so painful listening to you. I hope
Speaker 3: you're okay.
Speaker 1: Well, how do you She almost didn't get to meet
Speaker 1: Travis Kelce because the first time he came to her concert,
Speaker 1: she was like, I can't meet at talk to anybody beforehand.
Speaker 3: Because I'm resting my voice. Do you think they just
Speaker 3: stared at each other from like across the room.
Speaker 1: As our producer Dash, I think for the well Dash
Speaker 1: has been on he's been on and we're also speaking
Speaker 1: to our friend in a Bloomberg opinion contributor and a
Speaker 1: fed watcher and sports watcher Connorson.
Speaker 3: Can I just say there's a supreme irony that the
Speaker 3: day we're talking about baseball, Joe has lost his voice.
Speaker 3: So apologies and advance to listeners. If I am forced
Speaker 3: to carry this episode, and I honestly know nothing about
Speaker 3: the topic, but I will do my best.
Speaker 1: But Tracy, you may not know much about baseball, but
Speaker 1: you understand that if a baseball player sends a seven
Speaker 1: hundred million dollar contract that stipulates that for like the
Speaker 1: first nine years they get paid two million dollars a year,
Speaker 1: and then for the next ten years or something, they
Speaker 1: get paid sixty eight million dollars a year, that's at
Speaker 1: least a financially interesting conversation.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I agree. The other thing I would like to
Speaker 3: say is before this week, and before this contract was signed,
Speaker 3: I had never heard of this particular player, which perhaps
Speaker 3: says something about the state of Major League baseball.
Speaker 2: I feel like you can sort of talk about this
Speaker 2: topic without having anything to do with baseball, which is
Speaker 2: what makes it kind of fun. It's like a seven
Speaker 2: hundred million dollar contract with weird money being deferred, and
Speaker 2: it's just a fun thing to talk about.
Speaker 1: But TRACE's point is really interesting, which is it's kind
Speaker 1: of wild to hear a seven hundred million dollar contract.
Speaker 3: For someone A lot of people haven't heard of.
Speaker 1: It, and in an industry that by many people's accounts,
Speaker 1: as like on scular to climents clearly not is like
Speaker 1: in the media in the public consciousness is NBA clear
Speaker 1: nothing like NFL? Where's this money coming from to pay
Speaker 1: someone seven hundred million dollars?
Speaker 2: TV dart rights deals, local TV money, season ticket money.
Speaker 2: There's a belief that he'll be a marketing machine for
Speaker 2: the Dodgers, and so they know when you're looking to
Speaker 2: sign a big contract, you can come up with ways
Speaker 2: to justify it, just like tech companies can come up
Speaker 2: with their tams and whatnot. People just come up with
Speaker 2: a way to do it.
Speaker 3: Wait, so we haven't actually said his name yet. It's
Speaker 3: shohe Atani who plays for the Dodgers. And Okay, so
Speaker 3: one basic question I have is I've I ask someone
Speaker 3: one of our colleagues, Dave Lika, before we started recording
Speaker 3: the show, like who is this guy and why should
Speaker 3: I care? And he started comparing him to Babe Ruth,
Speaker 3: and I at least know who Babe Ruth was, so like,
Speaker 3: what is the big deal about this guy? Like why
Speaker 3: is he ostensibly worth seven hundred million dollars even if
Speaker 3: it's being paid out on a deferred basis.
Speaker 2: He's arguably better than Babe Ruth. Like it's the sort
Speaker 2: of thing that for people my age, you like baseball's kids,
Speaker 2: you would dream about. Wouldn't it be cool if there
Speaker 2: was a Babe Ruth? But he's like better than Babe
Speaker 2: Ruth because there was a time the summer when he
Speaker 2: was basically leading baseball in home runs and also almost
Speaker 2: leading as a pitcher in strikeouts, and it was just like,
Speaker 2: how is he doing this? Because it's not like there
Speaker 2: are other players who hit and pitch and they're kind
Speaker 2: of okay at both, Like he's the only one doing
Speaker 2: this and he was like the best at both parts,
Speaker 2: and it just doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: Tracy, I, No, you don't really pay that much attention
Speaker 1: to baseball, but that fact that he is like dominant
Speaker 1: on both sides, Like, were you familiar with how rare
Speaker 1: that is in baseball?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I'm familiar with In baseball, people tend to
Speaker 3: do like one thing. Well, yeah, I watched Moneyball as well,
Speaker 3: so I kind of get it there. But yeah, okay,
Speaker 3: it's unusual to be able to hit a bunch of
Speaker 3: home runs, which I take it that's like what baseball
Speaker 3: audiences want nowadays, and be able to pitch really well, yeah.
Speaker 2: There's nobody else who does this. It's yeah, what.
Speaker 1: Is the net present value of otanious contract? Like, how
Speaker 1: do you like if you're like thinking about, okay, what
Speaker 1: is a contract worth that pays you know this? And
Speaker 1: what does it say about his own personal inflation expectations?
Speaker 1: And why does it structure this way? Just sort of
Speaker 1: give us like, wait, don't.
Speaker 3: The Dodgers get the interest because it's deferred?
Speaker 1: Yeah, just to walk the math as you've as you've
Speaker 1: modeled it out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Like I had to obviously google this to prepare
Speaker 2: for the podcast. And it's funny because there are different
Speaker 2: discount rates applied depending on the way that it's being used.
Speaker 2: So baseball has this competitive balance tax, which is basically
Speaker 2: like every team as if they spend more than two
Speaker 2: hundred and forty million dollars, every additional payroll dollar above
Speaker 2: that is taxed and redistributed, and so for the purpose
Speaker 2: of that luxury tax, that discount being applied is four
Speaker 2: point four to three percent, which is based on some
Speaker 2: IRS code and the sort of bond yields as of
Speaker 2: October twenty three.
Speaker 3: But for the is there like a specific IRS baseball
Speaker 3: player clause or something.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, well it's for it's the the federal
Speaker 2: midterm rate as defined in Section twelve seventy four, Part
Speaker 2: D of the IRS.
Speaker 3: Please tell me you had to look this up before
Speaker 3: this conversation, right, like you didn't just know this? Okay.
Speaker 1: I think trade was a little show that a baseball
Speaker 1: topic would be good for on laws, but this is
Speaker 1: no weird now square down the middle.
Speaker 2: We're in the game. Yeah, So for the purpose of
Speaker 2: the luxury tax, it's worth forty six million dollars a year, okay.
Speaker 2: But I guess for the purpose of MLB regular payrolls
Speaker 2: there's a ten percent discount rate being applied, although I
Speaker 2: don't really know what it's like. Okay, who cares? Like,
Speaker 2: what does that mean? And the Dodgers have to set
Speaker 2: aside the money every year even though they're only paying
Speaker 2: in two million years they do have to set it aside,
Speaker 2: so you don't have to have any counterparty risk.
Speaker 1: I was wondering about that. So Otani does not need
Speaker 1: to be like buying credit default swaps against the Dodgers
Speaker 1: to protect against Like he's not facing any counterparty risk exactly. Okay,
Speaker 1: I was wondering about exactly this.
Speaker 2: Will he have to pay taxes on this in twenty
Speaker 2: thirty four. I don't know the answer to that. I'm
Speaker 2: sure lawyers will fight over it in the US or
Speaker 2: the state of California will try to get their money.
Speaker 2: But I don't know why he would agree to this,
Speaker 2: and that actually feels like a very Japanese thing to do.
Speaker 2: Not that you want to kind of dive into cultural tropes,
Speaker 2: but I just can't imagine any kind of American born
Speaker 2: person agreeing to this.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's still seven hundred million dollars. I guess
Speaker 3: it's how much is it in the interim? It's like
Speaker 3: two million a.
Speaker 2: Year two million a year, So he's getting twenty million
Speaker 2: dollars over the next ten years, which for baseball is
Speaker 2: not that much, and then he'll get six hundred and
Speaker 2: eighty million dollars in the following ten years.
Speaker 3: I mean, I do think a lot of people would
Speaker 3: be satisfied getting seven hundred million dollars overall, even if
Speaker 3: it was paid out on a sort of ten year basis.
Speaker 3: But I take the point that it's kind of structured weird.
Speaker 3: What did the Dodgers get out of this? So my
Speaker 3: understanding is that similar to football or soccer in Europe,
Speaker 3: there's like a cap on the amount of money that
Speaker 3: they can spend on players. And so presumably if they're
Speaker 3: not paying out hundreds of millions of dollars on a
Speaker 3: yearly basis to a star player, they have additional money
Speaker 3: that they can spend on other people.
Speaker 2: Right, so the headline number is seventy million, but for
Speaker 2: the purpose of that competitive balance tax, it's only forty
Speaker 2: six million, So it frees up twenty four million that
Speaker 2: they can spend on other players.
Speaker 1: So he was on the Angels before, and the Angels
Speaker 1: might understand and he has like had amazing players, but
Speaker 1: we're somehow just terrible and not competitive. He presumably wants
Speaker 1: to win a World Series. How much more is this
Speaker 1: sort of like create the opportunity that the Doggers can
Speaker 1: spend enough to build a championship caliber team. Around him.
Speaker 2: Well, in theory, So the way that people think about, well,
Speaker 2: how much money should you spend on free agents is
Speaker 2: there's this baseball stat called wins above replacement or war
Speaker 2: And you know, obviously past performance is not indicative of
Speaker 2: a future, but in general, the thought is people will
Speaker 2: pay eight million dollars per war per year. That's sort
Speaker 2: of like the going rate for an expected win above replacement.
Speaker 2: So if you're saving twenty four million off the tax
Speaker 2: in theory that lets you buy three extra wins somewhere else,
Speaker 2: it's not that much, yeah, but it's it's small margins
Speaker 2: in baseball.
Speaker 3: Right, just on the deferred aspect of all of this. So,
Speaker 3: I mean, could you get to could you get to
Speaker 3: a state where like lots of baseball teams just start
Speaker 3: doing this and like start building up I guess, like
Speaker 3: their deferred liabilities in order to do these future deals
Speaker 3: or did you say the money is held in trust?
Speaker 3: I can't remember.
Speaker 2: It is held in trust. So I think for the
Speaker 2: purpose of the competitive balance tax you could do it.
Speaker 2: But yeah, from a team accounting standpoint, the money is
Speaker 2: still has to be set aside for him. They can't
Speaker 2: just kind of ride on that. Maybe they're earning interest,
Speaker 2: though I don't know if I think they are.
Speaker 3: I think the interest accrues to the Dodgers. But is
Speaker 3: there any future in which like this kind of contract
Speaker 3: could be replicated by other teams? Or is this such
Speaker 3: a one off, given you know, Otani's unusual abilities, and
Speaker 3: given just how weird the structure is and your point
Speaker 3: about like, who else would accept this in professional sports?
Speaker 2: Well, baseball obviously has a union, and there's nothing restricting
Speaker 2: this sort of deal in the current union deal. It's
Speaker 2: something that the players could revisit in the next deal.
Speaker 2: But yeah, right now, there's nothing stopping even a three
Speaker 2: hundred million dollar deal from being structure this way if
Speaker 2: the player and team agreed to it.
Speaker 1: So I mentioned obviously you know Otani thinks the dollar
Speaker 1: is going to be worth something, or you know that
Speaker 1: inflation isn't going to destroy the value of that when
Speaker 1: in ten years when the big balloon paymented. So, speaking
Speaker 1: of inflation, big week for the Fed. You sorry, that
Speaker 1: sound terrible. You've been on team March for a while now,
Speaker 1: and now the street is coming around to your view,
Speaker 1: it looks like.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so it's really interesting because I feel like and
Speaker 2: I talked to Neil dud and Tim Dewey. We have
Speaker 2: a little kind of group chat that we've been working
Speaker 2: on this for a while, and it's been very obvious
Speaker 2: to us that this is what was going to happen,
Speaker 2: But obviously the Street disagreed. And I don't feel like
Speaker 2: we have access to any data that nobody else does.
Speaker 2: And so I'm curious, from your perspective, why is it
Speaker 2: that something that seems so obvious to us was being
Speaker 2: fought by the Street and bank economists and people like that.
Speaker 1: Why was it so obvious to you in the first place?
Speaker 2: Just because the FED had talked about this view of
Speaker 2: as realized inflation came down, that means that real interest
Speaker 2: rates were going up, and so policy was getting more
Speaker 2: restrictive and eventually would make sense to make an adjustment
Speaker 2: to account for that. And to me, it was just
Speaker 2: this is what they told us they would do. But
Speaker 2: I felt like other people were coming up with their
Speaker 2: own views of what the FED should do rather than
Speaker 2: just listening to the stated fed reaction function from the Fed.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think that's that's basically what happened. The
Speaker 3: other thing, the other thing that I saw on Twitter,
Speaker 3: which was kind of shocking to me was a bunch
Speaker 3: of people talking about loose financial conditions and how because
Speaker 3: stocks are up so much, crypto is up, the FED
Speaker 3: has to cut and they weren't joking, I know, like
Speaker 3: Fed's got to cut has been a joke in the past,
Speaker 3: but that that always seems super weird to me, given
Speaker 3: that I know, we had old Cashcari on the show
Speaker 3: last year and he did push back against the rally
Speaker 3: in stocks at that particular time. But this is a
Speaker 3: totally different environment where inflation is falling and to Connor's point,
Speaker 3: like real rates are going up, So that just seemed
Speaker 3: like very strange to me that anyone would try to
Speaker 3: mount that particular argument.
Speaker 2: And I think people were holding on to FED speak
Speaker 2: from twelve eighteen months ago, which, to your point, reflected
Speaker 2: a very different environment. And yeah, like if it were
Speaker 2: August twenty twenty two, they weren't happy. But inflation has
Speaker 2: come down and it's not quite it too yet by
Speaker 2: some of their measures. But it's sort of in a way,
Speaker 2: it's like there was some reason for like loosening in
Speaker 2: FED speak just because inflation wasn't at five anymore, it
Speaker 2: had come down.
Speaker 1: Just to push back a little bit though, on this
Speaker 1: like idea of like real rates going up. I mean,
Speaker 1: it feels to me like there's sort of academic macro
Speaker 1: and then maybe real world macro. So what we're talking
Speaker 1: about here is real world macro. Oh, inflation is going down,
Speaker 1: rates starting the same, Therefore policy is getting tighter. Whereas
Speaker 1: my sense that academic macro looks more forward expectations of
Speaker 1: inflation rather than past and they say, well, look, we
Speaker 1: already knew that inflation was forecasted to be x. It's
Speaker 1: already taken into account. Therefore we're not getting implicitly tighter.
Speaker 1: Do you sense that's sort of like that being the divide.
Speaker 2: I think so, And like to be clear, I don't
Speaker 2: necessarily agree with the framework they're using, but it's sort
Speaker 2: of like my job is to figure out what framework
Speaker 2: are they using? Right, this is what they've told us
Speaker 2: they're going to do, and so it's our job to
Speaker 2: figure it out.
Speaker 3: Were you surprised at all by how dubvish the meeting
Speaker 3: actually was, because I mean I guess consensus, well, consensus
Speaker 3: was like very one way going into this, but I
Speaker 3: think it's still kind of surprised on the dubbish side,
Speaker 3: and for what it's worth, I thought I thought they
Speaker 3: would lean slightly more hawkish.
Speaker 2: But I thought the statement and the SEP would be
Speaker 2: more hawkish just because it's more of a bureaucratic sort
Speaker 2: of deliverable that everybody has to sign off on. There's
Speaker 2: probably some lags in that, but the PAL would use
Speaker 2: the press conference to kind of reorient people into this,
Speaker 2: you know, maybe cut in march type framework, but the
Speaker 2: fact that you know, the median dot for twenty twenty
Speaker 2: four suggested three cuts. And then they had adjusted their
Speaker 2: core PC forecast for twenty twenty three to a number
Speaker 2: that you really have to be in the nitty gritty
Speaker 2: and focused on it almost day by day to get there,
Speaker 2: suggested that you know, the committee got there a lot
Speaker 2: sooner than than certainly I expected.
Speaker 1: The NASDAK is now forty one percent on the year,
Speaker 1: which is pretty wild. That's a consane year, five hundred
Speaker 1: up nearly twenty three percent. Dow Jones at all time highs. Like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, cliche is as good as it gets,
Speaker 1: but like what is the upside from here? Is usually
Speaker 1: like you know, what are you what are you looking
Speaker 1: for for the next putting on your investor cap what
Speaker 1: do you what?
Speaker 3: What do you?
Speaker 1: What are you watching for in twenty twenty four?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I'm actually working out a column on this
Speaker 2: right now, because it's like the stock market's expecting this
Speaker 2: boom driven by right sensitive cyclical things, and then the
Speaker 2: bond markets expecting six cuts in twenty twenty four, and
Speaker 2: it's like, is that an internally consistent dynamic? And my
Speaker 2: gut is no, But it's sort of like it kind
Speaker 2: of makes sense today, but when you put yourself in
Speaker 2: the shoes of how will things feel in the middle
Speaker 2: of the next year when they've already maybe cut a
Speaker 2: few times and housings taking off, well, they still want
Speaker 2: to cut three more times with more to come in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five. I don't know if that'll be the conclusion,
Speaker 2: but it's sort of people are off side, and so
Speaker 2: they have to buy bonds and buy stocks, and it's
Speaker 2: mid December and everyone's just kind of running around with
Speaker 2: their heads cut off for now.
Speaker 1: Tracy Kri Regional Bank ETF up thirty eighties. Yeah, since
Speaker 1: October twenty fifth.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and contrast that with what was going on in March, right,
Speaker 3: like so many things have happened this year that I
Speaker 3: think we kind of forget about the banking crisis in
Speaker 3: March now. But Connor, you mentioned the bond market and
Speaker 3: what it's forecasting, and I always come back to this
Speaker 3: idea that like, maybe maybe the economic information that you
Speaker 3: can pull out of the bond market isn't as useful
Speaker 3: or as accurate as it used to be, because there
Speaker 3: are all these different reasons that people hold bonds now,
Speaker 3: especially big players like banks, you know, they have to
Speaker 3: hold bonds for regulatory capital, reasons, for liquidity buffers and
Speaker 3: things like that, and I often wonder if that's sort
Speaker 3: of skewing the data.
Speaker 2: And I think in March, like you know, there was
Speaker 2: that moment where Powell was sort of suggesting they could
Speaker 2: hike fifty basis points at one meeting and then maybe
Speaker 2: fifty at the next, and people were positioned for that,
Speaker 2: and then Silicon Valley bank field failed, and it's like
Speaker 2: everybody who had made those bets on the hikes had
Speaker 2: to cover just because from a risk management standpoint, and
Speaker 2: so flexively just push shields way way down. And then
Speaker 2: people like us who are trying to say, well, the
Speaker 2: bond market's now pricing cuts in August, well sort of,
Speaker 2: but it's also just people had to make this positioning
Speaker 2: move and then once the positions were clear, then the
Speaker 2: data could take over again. And I almost wonder if
Speaker 2: we're doing that right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, speaking of we're in one of those environments where
Speaker 1: like you just look at charts and you say, like, oh,
Speaker 1: we're so back. Vornado the realty Trust of one hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty percent since and this is like New York
Speaker 1: real estate, so you know, talking about New York office
Speaker 1: real estate of one hundred and sixty percent since May twelfth,
Speaker 1: and up another eight percent today. So every chart we
Speaker 1: pull up is just like, we are so back.
Speaker 3: You know. How I know that we're back. I heard
Speaker 3: a trader slash investor that I know last weekend went
Speaker 3: to not just one, but two gentlemen's clubs to celebrate
Speaker 3: twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Two gentlemen's clubs, which is.
Speaker 3: Like a blast from maybe like two thousand seven.
Speaker 1: Yeah, wow, we really are we We've really put the
Speaker 1: zerpiera bon.
Speaker 3: But I also think one of the weird things about
Speaker 3: this week in particular and the FED meeting is it's
Speaker 3: kind of like a rorshock test for people's previously held opinions, right,
Speaker 3: and so you have people who are celebrating an ostensible
Speaker 3: soft lending, so inflation's coming down without unemployment going up massively.
Speaker 3: And then you also have people who are looking at
Speaker 3: the forward pricing of rate cuts and going, oh see,
Speaker 3: there is going to be a recession next year, and
Speaker 3: so it kind of feels it's a weird environment at
Speaker 3: the moment.
Speaker 2: Something else interesting about this environment is that usually when
Speaker 2: you're about to get rate cuts, it's like at the
Speaker 2: end of this big investment cycle, so in two thousand
Speaker 2: with tech stuff, but we've had this, like you know,
Speaker 2: housing in the good sector have been in a recession
Speaker 2: really for eighteen months because of the rate cuts, and
Speaker 2: so arguably you're easing at a time when these sectors
Speaker 2: are poised to rebound, which is I think next year
Speaker 2: is going to be another one when traditional patterns don't
Speaker 2: work so well because people are going to be looking
Speaker 2: for the rate cut playbook and it might not work
Speaker 2: out the way that the past two or recycles.
Speaker 1: Have You mentioned that you don't necessarily agree with the
Speaker 1: FITS framework, Like your job is, you know, your job
Speaker 1: is to pay attention to it and to know what
Speaker 1: they're seeing and to listen closely, not to you know,
Speaker 1: say what they should do. And that being said, do
Speaker 1: you think there is a risk of reacceleration of inflation
Speaker 1: given loosening financial conditions, surging stocks, people probably wanting to
Speaker 1: buy homes and buy furniture for the homes again when
Speaker 1: they see you know, headlines about oh, sub seven percent
Speaker 1: mortgage rates, et cetera. Like, is there some risk here
Speaker 1: that they get off sides?
Speaker 2: Again, I think so, And I think it's more of
Speaker 2: like home depot. I could see, say they're seeing price
Speaker 2: pressures in qs who of next year as demand comes back.
Speaker 2: But the core PCEE data, which is, you know, it's
Speaker 2: an index that's constructed based on stuff like that's probably
Speaker 2: going to be pretty soft through at least the middle
Speaker 2: of next year as a lot of sort of accumulated
Speaker 2: disinflation works its way into the data. And so I
Speaker 2: think there could be a period where if you're following
Speaker 2: corporate earnings and looking at the stuff that I look at,
Speaker 2: it looks like inflation is coming back, but the actual
Speaker 2: data that we get once a month is still going
Speaker 2: to show that inflation is not a problem. And so
Speaker 2: I don't know what the bond market will do with that,
Speaker 2: But that's something I'm thinking about.
Speaker 3: Just going back to baseball for a second. Joe, I
Speaker 3: know you like minor league games, specifically going out to
Speaker 3: Coney Island and Connor. It sounds like you're you're a
Speaker 3: fan as well, But have either of you ever been
Speaker 3: to a Japanese baseball game?
Speaker 1: Oh my god, no, I want to.
Speaker 3: They are so much fun. That sounds so fun, yes,
Speaker 3: And like because the crowd is so intense and everything
Speaker 3: is kind of coordinated, Like all the chants and stuff
Speaker 3: are very coordinated. So there's like, you know, let's go
Speaker 3: Sacamo and like clapping and stuff. It's amazing. It's so
Speaker 3: much fun.
Speaker 1: Now, that's definitely like a bucket list thing is to ye,
Speaker 1: go to some go to see baseball games in Japan.
Speaker 1: Absolute budget list.
Speaker 2: My hope is that since sports broadcast rights seemed to
Speaker 2: moving to streaming, it's like maybe Apple and Amazon and
Speaker 2: Google will have all the global rights in ten years
Speaker 2: that like the Asian audience actually will matter to Major
Speaker 2: League baseball, and so they're going to look for more
Speaker 2: ways to integrate the leagues.
Speaker 1: That would be really cool. I mean, like maybe we
Speaker 1: can get I mean, I was gonna say, maybe like
Speaker 1: the way US sports fans have become fans of like
Speaker 1: F one and European soccer over the last decade for
Speaker 1: various reasons. But I guess those are like sports that
Speaker 1: we didn't really already have here. But yes, I want
Speaker 1: more aware, I want I just really want to go
Speaker 1: to a Japanese baseball game.
Speaker 3: Well, if we ever make it out to Tokyo for something,
Speaker 3: we should definitely go.
Speaker 1: Let's do it.
Speaker 3: There's a chance, Connor, you should come to Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Lots More is produced by Carmen Rodriguez and dash Ol Bennett,
Speaker 1: with help from Moses Anda.
Speaker 3: Our sound engineer is Blake Maples.
Speaker 1: Sage Bauman is our head of podcasts.
Speaker 3: Catch you next time for lots More.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening.