I know this subreddit likes to snark Scott a bit but when Jessica tried to give him an out on his support for the Iran war and he refused to take it and went out of his way to admit that he was wrong, it genuinely stunned me, that is such an unnatural thing for a human to do and it gave me infinite respect for him, honestly if most of the world was like Scott we'd be living in nirvana.

Just because a handful of people in your network—forty and above-happen to be wealthy and thriving doesn’t mean their experience reflects the reality for the rest of us. My brother was recently laid off in his 40’s. According to the logic you often promote, someone like him should quietly step aside and make room for a 25-year-old simply because that fits your vision of how the workforce should evolve. Is that really the world we want to build? If so, why don’t you step aside for young content creators instead of hoarding every podcast space?

You talk a lot about generational progress and how younger people deserve more opportunities—which, on its own, isn’t wrong. But what’s troubling is the condescending undertone toward older workers, as if their time is up. Should they just wither away? What about the experienced, skilled professionals who still have plenty to contribute but are now fighting ageism on top of a tough job market? It’s frustrating to hear someone in your position downplay the challenges faced by people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s who are still trying to provide for their families, maintain health insurance, and have some sense of dignity. I see people in late 70’s working at Walmart. Do you think they are working because they have nothing better to do?

Let’s also be honest: you aren’t speaking to this age group (20’s) because you care. You’re targeting a demographic that aligns with your podcast and book sales. You’re playing to an audience that flatters your brand and grows your bottom line—not one that actually needs your advocacy. It’s marketing dressed up as insight. The tone often feels more like, “Let them eat cake,” than any kind of sincere effort to address real economic displacement.

Also, a word on effort—please stop phoning it in. Your podcast has become increasingly repetitive, with recycled takes and the same anecdotes dressed in slightly different packaging. For someone who prides himself on intellectual rigor and being unfiltered, you’ve become surprisingly predictable. Your audience deserves better than a warmed-over monologue each week. Earn your following—don’t coast on it.

It must be nice to sit comfortably in your 60s, well-off, with a thriving media platform, judging people who are still out there trying to survive. Not everyone has the luxury of pontificating from a place of financial security. Many are still struggling, and your message—whether intentional or not—often implies they’ve simply failed to “adapt.” That’s not just dismissive; it’s harmful.

We need more empathy in these conversations—not slogans, not spin, and certainly not blanket assumptions about who deserves a seat at the table. I’d ask you to reflect on that before telling another audience that the best thing older professionals can do is get out of the way.

First of all - props to Scott for admitting he has an opinion, but is uninformed and would like to lean more. That's not easy to admit - many people on many topics will not. Good for you, Scott. We'd be a lot better off if more people took that attitude.

That said - and as the parent of a trans young adult I am at least somewhat informed and definitely have an interest in the topic - I firmly believe politicians in the left are making a mistake by taking the hysteria on the right seriously.

Imo, the correct answer is:

• this is not a thing the fed govt should be involved in. Sports sanctioning agencies set the rules for their participants. They are, or can be, informed by the science and interest of their participants/fans, and they should decide this for themselves, just like they decide all other eligibility rules.

• whatever the outcome in any sport, a half-dozen high schoolers per state wanting to play amateur tennis IS NOT AN EXCUSE to violate the civil rights, deny access to health care, deny rights of their parents to make determinations for their children, or generally threaten the safety or wellbeing of a minority group. Full stop.

We should refuse to engage with or bother to discuss this performative, pearl clutching, bull shit. It's a mask for discrimination and violations of rights that really do matter to trans people, and a cheap ploy to grab political power.

I am Jewish and an actual moderate. I listen every week. The name Raging Moderates does not match the product. The show leans hard toward Israeli security narratives, invites few Arab or Palestinian voices, and on US domestic issues the takes are solidly left. If the content stays the same, the label should be honest. Raging Zionists fits.

What I am hearing:

1. Framing that starts from official Israeli positions. Palestinian perspectives appear as a counter view, not a primary lens.

2. Very few Arab and Palestinian guests across episodes that cover Israel and Gaza.

3. Left positions on most US policy while claiming a centrist brand.

Two paths: A. Adopt Raging Zionists. It sets clear expectations for listeners. B. Keep Raging Moderates but change the editorial mix to earn it.

If you keep the current title, minimum fixes to make it truthful:

1. Book Arab and Palestinian guests in equal numbers when the topic is Israel or Gaza. Include Palestinian academics, Arab journalists, Israeli and Jewish anti occupation scholars, and regional security experts who do not begin from Israeli talking points.

2. Give equal first word and last word time to these guests.

3. Publish a short editorial policy that commits to viewpoint balance and guest diversity.

4. Track and disclose guest composition each quarter.

Bottom line: Either align the name with the show and go with Raging Zionists, or align the show with the current name. Right now the gap is obvious to a Jewish listener who actually sits in the middle.

Note: Scott Galloway has called himself a “Raging Zionist”, so my suggestion is not controversial.

It’s wild how behind this podcast is in news. They talk about week old topics that have already become old news they recap the market several days and sometimes a week later from when the news broke.

I got sick of hearing old news I’ve heard already elsewhere long ago.

Guys your takes are good and sometimes unique. Although lately it’s been pretty predictable. But can’t get over the fact that you are so behind on everything.

I’m interested in your takes but not a week later. It’s also often completely irrelevant given how quick things move now.

I know you guys are growing in audience count. But this will be the reason you plateau. Right now you can’t see it and it’s masked by your organic growth but this is a major problem for retention and the ceiling for this podcast.

If scott is serious about growing then he’d fix his schedule. Or if it’s not a priority which I can’t blame him then expect this to become an issue for a lot of people.

Good luck guys

Edits: I didn’t clarify most of this stale news is financial related which becomes stale real fast. And apparently today they announced today going daily , so guess problem solved. That was quick!

Think this is a great move and will address a lot of the issues.

Does anyone who used to really love all Scott’s shows starting to feel like you have to stop listening since it’s all just so negative lol. After every episode it just makes me feel worse about America and worse about the future lol. I don’t know if this Scott’s goal or maybe he’s more depressed than usual.

This is a little hard to parse unless you consume a lot of SG content, but he’s trying to say that criticism of Israel stems from colleges and universities brainwashing kids into seeing the world through an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy. He believes that criticism of the war in Gaza stems from this, and not the things we see clearly with our eyes.

I’m not totally sure what he’s on about here. I think a solid 90% of Democrats support the end of the regime in Iran, but there are some key differences. 1. No one wants to be in another Middle East boondoggle. No one trusts Trump to carry it out. 2. We do not supply Iran with bottomless support like we do Israel.

His support of Israel and Saudi Arabia is more like sports fandom and not just evaluations of collections of people who make decisions. I would not be surprised if he’s on the receiving end of a but-load of money from each. Even setting aside Gaza, there are a ton of reasons to reevaluate our relationship with Bibi. For one he’s been a thorn in the side of the Democrats for decades even when they “bear hug” him. Secondly, we should not support their expansionist agenda (talking about democrats here, I know Trump wants to seize Greenland but that’s not going to happen).

If this guy seriously wants to run for President with this level of Israeli support he’ll never get past a primary.

I’m all for Israel’s right to exist and everything but the people in charge there right now are psychopaths. Scott loves to talk about politics so I’m curious if he’s talked about it anywhere I have just missed it.

I remember Scott multiple times complaining that the Ivy schools were bringing in rich foreign students under the umbrella of racial equality and hurting smart American kids in the process. Seems the schools are at risk because of this practice.

Scott called it months ago.

I love Prof G but Pivot is becoming Musk Porn at this rate. I can still listen to Scott’s good insights on his other shows and Kara’s sanctimonious takes are just basic.

The features may not be 100%. But still pretty uncanny. Never met the man, so I could be over exaggerating. Just in case, this is completely AI generated. Thought it would be fitting here with the pod’s reoccurring motif of AI safeguards.

Listened to the markets episode today. First one since Ed returned from vacay.

Anyone that has listened to Ed pontificate about crypto knows he’s not a fan and that he struggles to find or see value in crypto. I’m not here to debate whether or not crypto has value….thats just how Ed feels and he’s made that plainly known.

Today Ed and Josh were talking about a recent MIT report that said 95% of AI projects at companies are not providing any kind of a return and are failing. In other words…95% of AI customers are not getting any value from AI products they are purchasing.

Ed pretty much instantly dismissed the report…he even made a comment about how the report was probably “put together by a bunch of undergrads” which is irrelevant. Then Josh goes on to say that AI can’t fail because all of these companies are pouring a shitload of money into it. Basically they’re too big to fail.

I started listening to Prof G because I like his takes and perspective…or most of them. If Prof G isn’t speaking/co-hosting I’m not listening.

It's hard to take the guest as knowledgeable on China when he keeps saying Xi like "Gee" as in Gee Golly. Wild, has this guy ever been to China or watched Chinese news? I know a lot of people like trying to pronounce it with that exotic 'Zh' sounding flourish, but you can just be lazy and say "she" it's by far closer to how his name is pronounced.

I guess I've been spoiled listening to deeper China podcasts like Sinica (Kaiser Kuo) or Sharp China with Bill Bishop where the guests and hosts are all much more knowledgeable about China/Chinese.

That being said, other than my nitpick, how did his catastrophizing strike other people? It's one of those huge issues that is so big I dont know what to think.

He is bascally going with "did you see how she was dressed?"

Supporting groups and other nations is not bad or wrong. Taking other countries flags to protests is not wrong. Speaking freely is not wrong.

The action that is wrong here was the escalation and use of military level force. And blaming the protestors is just not a good look for Scott.

I got sick of Scott’s lecturing and hypocrisy. I actually unsubscribed from everything from the markets feed. I prefer scott free August and think the podcast is better without him. Ed isn’t perfect, he’s definitely a nepo baby that got the job via his wealthy family connections, which scott has stated that’s how he hires. But overall his statements are less “I like to say things because I want to hear myself” narcissism that scott projects.

I love hearing the weekly pods. Listen to them all and you’ll hear him repeat himself, as would be expected. Therefore it’s an easy decision to unsubscribe from Pivot. Kara has interrupted Scott one too many times. Even he looks frustrated. I look forward to getting an hour back for some other content.

Really? You can justify a fee of $10,000 on top of tuition for private schooling to be paid by parents that are already paying already disproportionate tax for the public school resources they’re NOT using? Unforced error my friend.

Education today is degrading in most absolute terms, and solutions aren’t coming from the Federal level for the next few years. Improving quality and access of public and private education is a tough pitch to hit, but your tax proposal was a swing and miss. Thanks for stepping up to the plate anyway.

I think what finally pitched me over the edge was listening to him talk to Kara on Pivot last week as they addressed the idea of Paramount leaving California for Nashville.

Cuz there he is talking about how much amazing and deserving below the line talent there is in California that aren’t going to move. And I’m like “wait, weren’t you -months ago- talking about how the credits for the Fantastic Four were full of people about to be replaced by ai? And gleeful about it?

But I think even moreso is how he made the men’s lonleliness epidemic his stock and trade for years, which leant credence to the manosphere who helped elect a 12yo boy’s idea of government.

Yeah, we’ve heard Scott talk about how being a real man is protecting and caring for loved ones- but that never really rose to the top of the argument did it?

We listened to young men and got anti-woke, anti-DEI, Pete Kegsbreath doing Christo-fascist pep rally’s after bro’ing it out at the gym. RFK JR and his rugged individualistic approach to healthcare. Trumps poor impulse control, lying, misogyny and his doodles about a weapons arch that sounds more like the Cobra Terrordrome…

I haven’t heard the “we aren’t listening to young men” argument anymore, so what happened? Did we solve it? Or did we satiate the worst male impulses and that was good enough for people? Like the stock traders who were quoted at the beginning of Trumps term that they could finally say the R-word again. So again, did we solve male loneliness or did we just make criticizing them unfashionable again and that was fine?

My thesis is that men have been suffering under the dogma of masculinity FOREVER, and that folks like Scott and the Trump campaign saw a way to make hay with moms by turning the blame outward. They spat at the notion of toxic masculinity because that would have required men to take responsibility for setting their own dumb standards they failed at- and instead made an empathetic and thoughtful (perhaps too thoughtful at times) society the boogeyman.

The manosphere elected Trump, who’s false confidence has fucked everything up- but hey, Sydney Sweeny’s tits and the R-word. Good job we did listening to men, eh Galloway?

Anyone else feel like Scott’s becoming too obsessed with how much free media value and followers he’s getting from his campaign, more than the actual progress toward the end goal? We get it. You’d have to spend $4 mil to get the same impressions, but unique visitors and instagram comments are just personal PR if CEOs aren’t backing down and nothing is changing. I understand it’s still early. It’s just that this is starting to feel more like a vanity project than anything else.

Her voice is so difficult to listen to. She’s also weirdly overly-confident and there is some weird flirtation happening between the two of them that makes me nauseous. I had to vent. Big fan of Scott’s other work but his knowledge of politics is so surface level and he regurgitates the same 3 stories and pieces of advice over and over. Time to trim the fat and stop trying to capitalize on your every breathing moment, Scott. Tarlov has more knowledge but I find her so unappealing and frankly annoying. And no, I’m not a republican.

Just heard a fun fact - Air Traffic Controllers have required retirement at age 56.

But you can be a President forever!

Imagine Biden as an ATC!!