Trump Fires Fed Governor Cook, Eli Lilly’s Weight Loss Pill & How to Not Get Replaced by AI

This episode is brought to you by On Investing, an original podcast from Charles Schwab.

I'm Kathy Jones, Schwab's chief fixed income strategist, and I'm Lizanne Saunders, Schwab's chief investment strategist.

Between us, we have decades of experience studying the indicators that drive the economy and how they can have a direct impact on your investments.

We know that investors have a lot of questions about the markets and the economy, and we're here to help.

Join us each week as we explore questions like how do you evaluate corporate bonds and what sectors of the stock market are outperforming?

So Kathy will analyze what's happening in the bond market and at the Fed, and I'll give you our latest analysis of the equities market and the U.S.

economy.

And we often interview prominent guests from across the world of investing and business.

So download the latest episode and subscribe at Trop.com slash oninvesting or wherever you get your podcasts.

To remind you that 60% of sales on Amazon come from independent sellers, here's Scott Scott from String Joy.

Hey y'all, we make guitar strings right here in Nashville, Tennessee.

Scott grows his business through Amazon.

They pick up, store, and deliver his products all across the country.

I love how musicians everywhere can rock out with our guitar strings.

A one, two, three, four.

Rock on, Scott.

Shop small business like mine on Amazon.

Tuesday on NBC, Jimmy Fallon and Bozema St.

John host the highly anticipated new competition show.

I hired 10 creatives from all walks of life.

They will be battling it out to see who can impress the world's biggest brands.

This is a huge opportunity.

This is the battle for the next big idea.

This is not play play.

We're spending millions of dollars.

I'm so excited to embark on this adventure with all of you.

Maybe the best idea win!

On brand with Jimmy Fallon, series premiere, Tuesday on NBC.

Today's number, 400 million.

That's how many tons of plastic are produced worldwide every year.

Roughly 40% of that is used up for packaging, 20% for construction, and roughly 2% for Christy Gnome.

Welcome to Property Markets.

I'm Ed Elson.

It is August 27th.

Let's check in on on yesterday's market vitals

all three major indices rose slightly as investors awaited nvidia's earnings which will come out later today meanwhile long-term treasury yields rose and short-term yields declined after trump said he was firing the fed governor lisa cook more on that in a moment following the news the gap between those yields reached its widest level in three years that indicates the market is betting on rate cuts in the short term and inflation later on we'd also add that as of yesterday, following this Cook news, the chance of a rate cut in September rose to 89%.

Okay,

what's happening?

As I said, Trump is trying to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud.

In a letter posted to social media, Trump claimed authority to remove Fed governors, quote, for cause, including malfeasance or dereliction.

But Cook rejected the claim, saying he has no power to remove her and that she intends to stay in her post.

For context, no U.S.

president has ever tried to oust a sitting Fed governor.

Okay, the first question we have to answer, if Trump is firing Lisa Cook, the member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, first question, is this even legal?

Is this even allowed?

Can Trump simply fire a governor of the Federal Reserve?

And the answer is actually, yes, he can.

The president can fire Fed governors.

That is within the president's power, but only,

and this is important only if the firing is according to the Federal Reserve Act for cause

now what does for cause actually mean

well the Federal Reserve Act actually doesn't define it which isn't very helpful but you know it's a pretty common term in business and and in employment the way we generally understand for cause is that there is a real

and indisputable justification for the firing.

That's a little bit vague, but sort of generally speaking, it means it's not just that they're not very good at their job.

There's something like misconduct or a breach of policy or some sort of criminal activity.

It is a distinctly serious reason as to why the employee had to be fired.

Now, is there a serious reason here as to why Lisa Cook must be fired?

Well, according to Trump, Lisa Cook engaged in mortgage fraud.

She committed a crime.

And that does sound like a serious reason.

The problem is, though,

nothing's been proven.

Nothing's been brought to the court.

Nothing's been reviewed by a judge or a jury.

In fact, she hasn't even been formally charged yet.

So as of today, these are purely...

allegations.

This is Trump and his allies saying that she's a criminal and then using that claim as the cause to fire her without having even brought her to court.

So

that's what is apparently for cause here.

The next step, of course, is she's going to contest this.

And in fact, that is exactly what she said she's going to do.

Put another way, this dismissal, this firing is

far from over.

I mean, it's going to go to the courts now.

It might even go to the Supreme Court.

It's a very big deal.

And it will be up to the courts.

It will be up to the justice system to decide whether an allegation of fraud meets the definition of cause.

That's where we are in terms of the legal proceedings.

My prediction, no, no court's going to say that just a claim meets the definition of firing for cause.

But then there are all of these other questions beyond the legality of this.

You know, what does this mean for Jerome Powell?

What does this mean for the independence of the Fed, which has been a massive question recently?

What does this mean for markets?

What does it mean for treasuries, for interest rates?

Lots more questions here to be addressed.

So let's bring in our first guest of the day.

Let's bring in Sarah Binder.

She is a senior fellow in governance studies at Brookings and a professor of political science at George Washington University.

Professor Binder, thank you very much for joining us on Prof Dew Marketers.

It's great to have you.

Sure.

Thanks for having me.

So we wanted to get your reactions to what's happened with Trump, the president, and Lisa Cook, one of the governors of the Federal Reserve.

He has fired her, threatened to fire her.

Maybe she's gone.

She says she's not gone.

Your initial reactions to what's happened, and then we'll get into some of the specifics.

Sure.

So the president has the authority under the Federal Reserve Act to fire governors if there is what we call cause.

What's unusual here,

first of all, it's never happened.

But second, what's unusual is that there's really been no demonstration of cause and no opportunity for Governor Cook to make her case about whether or not she's guilty for what they discharge her.

There's been no formal charges at all.

And that's then quite unusual and leaves this in a bit of legal limbo over precisely whether or not she's actually been fired.

Right.

Yeah,

this is just an allegation.

As you say, there has been no formal charge that has been brought.

Is it possible for an allegation to qualify as cause?

Is that enough?

Is there a world where a court would say, you know, they have a little bit of evidence here to suggest that this is mortgage fraud or that she engaged in some criminal activity?

It hasn't gone to court.

They haven't proven it, but whatever, that's enough.

That's not typically how cause is litigated.

Politically, it could work that way.

The president says, you're fired.

I have this allegation.

And a governor could say, I'm out of here.

I don't want to deal with it, even if I didn't do anything wrong.

But Lisa Cook has said, I'm going to file a suit, and I didn't do anything wrong.

And how cause is typically then decided, it's litigated in the courts.

It's a legal process.

It's not a political process.

It's not up to the president of the United States.

So we've seen some reaction in the market, but it's been a little tepid, I would say.

I would assume maybe the markets are reacting basically in response to what you just said, which is that the grounds here to actually fire her

are not very strong.

And perhaps the markets are saying we don't think that

she will actually be fired.

And perhaps the independence of the Fed is preserved.

I am just trying to speak on behalf of Mr.

Market.

I have no idea.

But any thoughts on the reaction from the market, your reaction to what we've seen from the market so far?

Well, it does seem that markets have just sort of shrugged, right?

And the danger here, right?

The danger is that we're underestimating or Mr.

Markets are underestimating the enormous political power of President Trump, right?

Backed up potentially by the Supreme Court eventually, right?

Yes, for sure, a lot of legal uncertainty here, but think about what the president has been doing, right?

He has one vacancy already.

He's been bullying Chair Powell to step down.

When that wasn't working, he came up with a new one.

Oh, look, I'm spending a lot of money on reconstructing the Fed.

And that didn't seem to work.

He's looking for openings everywhere, and he's pushing and pushing.

And he's made it quite clear that what he wants is a Fed, a board that's responsive to his demands for interest rates to be lower, regardless of what the economy demands.

And the risk is that the markets are losing sight of what the president potentially can do as he gets his footprints and his toe holds into the Fed, if not his claws on the board, on the board of governors.

Right.

Yeah, it's almost if even if he doesn't fire her successfully, he's certainly sent a message to the existing governors and certainly any future governor.

If you don't agree with me, you're going to be in trouble.

Absolutely.

And yes, absolutely.

And there is a risk, as people are beginning to realize, there's a risk to the presidents of the 12 reserve banks, who, by chance, calendar-wise, they are up for renewal.

All 12 of them come

early winter here, and their jobs depend on consent and agreement by the Board of Governors.

That's a risk if President Trump holds a majority of the Fed.

Yeah, so break down for us a little bit how

these boards of the Federal Reserve, and then you have

these regional boards as well.

How does all of that really work?

I mean, we know that there are these governors, and we know that there's this guy, Jerome Powell, who's the main guy, but what is the complexion of

the board?

What happens, say he does get rid of her?

How does that affect the board itself?

Well, when the Congress created the Fed in 1913, that was remade a bit in 1935, for lack of a better word, this is the craziest, weirdest federal institution on the books, right?

As you said, look, there's a board in Washington.

There's spread out across Main Street, 12 other reserve banks in really today, kind of crazy places, right?

Two in Missouri.

So look,

and then at the same time, they have different appointment powers.

And certainly the reserve banks who are generated and selected first by the board of directors who are themselves elected by various constituencies and appointed then approved by the board in washington the bigger point here like when they make the fed they didn't want any single interest to dominate the price of money right so they ended up with all these conflicting groups um working against each other and making it harder to work in concert And so, look, it means that at the end of the day, the president has enormous power here, but not unlimited unlimited power, although he's certainly trying to muscle and bully his way into getting more power than the framers of the Fed certainly ever envisioned.

Yeah, we wanted to get you on to talk about this because, you know, the topic everyone's talking about is the independence of the Federal Reserve, which

is new to me as a concept.

I've had to sort of study up on this myself.

But you've been talking about this for a while and you actually wrote a book.

And I'll just read the title, which sort of tells you what you said.

It's called The Myth of Independence, How Congress Governs the Federal Reserve.

So it sounds like

the independence of the Federal Reserve, in your view, has always been kind of a question.

And it sounds like perhaps this is calling it into question even more.

For sure.

So I co-wrote a book with a buddy, Mark Smendel, who's a finance person.

And what we did is to go back into the history of the Fed and to ask this question, is the Fed really independent?

And the short answer here is that the Fed needs political support in order to meet its goals and its mission that is given to it by Congress, right?

Low inflation, booming jobs market.

It needs political support.

And we can see that today,

right?

And if Cook wants to keep her position, she needs the Supreme Court to back her up.

And Powell, like, diffused all the pressure from the Trump administration, really?

Because the Supreme Court gave a nod to the Fed and said, said, whoa, Fed, you're a little special here, right?

Same thing with the bond markets.

Like, think about Liberation Day over the tariffs when the bond markets really sort of sent a message and the administration walked back the initial tariffs, right?

That's really what the Fed needs.

It needs this strong expression of support for the Fed.

And if the Fed is dependent on courts, on Congress, on the markets, and a less aggressive president, then that's not independence, right?

Their ability to do their job is kind of conditional on basically having respect from all these different audiences.

And if it's conditional, it's not independent.

And in what sense does this action now from the president change things?

If it was always the case that there was at least some level of dependence in the Federal Reserve,

in what sense does this change things?

Well, maybe it doesn't.

Well, to the degree it's changing things is that the president is kind of exploiting that one one provision in the act that says you can remove governors for cause, but cause means malfeasance, neglect of duty, like failure to faithfully do the duties of your office.

And I don't think anybody has said that that's that Governor Cook is guilty of that.

And so he's reaching into the law.

He's stretching it to meet his demands here.

And, you know, it may be that he gets his way.

Granted, we don't know.

But again,

the fact that he's pushing and pushing the Fed and Congress doesn't seem to be standing up for the Fed.

Markets aren't standing up.

So it does seem that this is yet another episode that's kind of like directly going after the authority of the board.

Well, a lot of concerning stuff there.

We appreciate your time.

Professor Binder is a senior fellow in governance studies at Brookings and professor of political science at George Washington University.

I'm sure this is going to be an ongoing issue, Professor Bender.

And so my guess is we're going to have you on again in the future.

Thank you very much for joining us.

Excellent.

Thanks for having me.

Well, you heard it from the professor.

This is

not very good.

I mean, this is sort of the culmination of the politicization of the Fed, which just isn't going to work if it isn't independent.

I mean, by the way, this is

very similar to what we've seen happening with the Supreme Court, which has itself become a highly political entity.

I mean, perhaps the most consequential action you can take as a president today is to install someone into the Supreme Court whose views align with your own.

And we've seen what that has done in terms of the politicization of the justice system.

It's less and less about

your qualifications and your sense of justice and your sensibilities, more and more about where you land politically.

Do you agree with me?

And now the Federal Reserve is basically in the same position.

I mean, it's, are you pro-Trump or are you not?

Are you MAGA or are you woke?

I mean, those are the questions that are beginning to determine interest rates in America and therefore the price of money in America.

It is increasingly moving away from an objective question about economics and it's now becoming a political question.

Are you with me or are you not?

And that is very dangerous territory that we are walking into.

After the break, a look at Eli Lilly's new obesity drug.

And if you're enjoying the show, hit follow and please leave us a review on Profit Markets.

Support for Profit Markets comes from Found.

Does it ever feel like keeping up with your business finance is a whole second job?

That's where Found can help you out.

Found is a business-making platform that makes it simple to track expenses and manage invoices.

You can even stash money for specific goals and keep spending in check with customizable virtual cards.

Found doesn't just bring your finances under one roof, it also takes repetitive tasks off your plate.

You can even automatically spot tax write-offs.

And the best part, there are no hidden fees, no maintenance costs, no minimum balance, and signing up is completely free.

With Found, your financial world is streamlined and your time is freed up so you can put your energy into growing your business.

Oh, and by the way, other small businesses are loving Found too.

This Found user said, Found is going to save me so much headache.

It makes everything so much easier, expenses, income, profits, taxes, invoices even.

And Found has 30,000 five-star reviews just like this.

You can open a Found account for free at FOUND.com.

Found is a financial technology company, not a bank.

Banking services are provided by Pyramont Bank, member FDIC.

Don't put this one off.

Join thousands of small business owners who have streamlined their finances with Found.

Wish you could become a morning person?

You know the type up before the sun, early morning runs, first one to the office with donuts and a smile?

How do they do it?

Easy.

With a new Galaxy Watch 8, sleep tracking and personalized insights from Samsung Health help you improve so you can wake up to a whole new you.

One who, dare I say it, skips the snooze?

It's possible.

Train your sleep with Galaxy Watch 8.

Learn more at Samsung.com.

Requires compatible Samsung Galaxy phone, Samsung Health App, and Samsung account.

When your investors, customers, and workers demand more from your business, make it happen with SAP.

The AI-powered capabilities of SAP can help you streamline costs, connect with new suppliers, and manage payroll, even when your business is being pulled in different directions.

To deliver a quality product at a fair price while paying your people what they're worth too.

So your business can stay unfazed.

Learn more at sap.com/slash uncertainty.

We're back with Profit Markets.

Eli Lilly announced the results of a late-stage trial for its new obesity drug.

The drug is called orphaglypron.

Crazy name.

It's designed for people with type 2 diabetes who are also overweight.

And in the most recent trial, it helped participants with diabetes lose an average of 11% of their body weight over 72 weeks.

However, the more impressive news here isn't the number.

It isn't that 11%.

It is the delivery format because you don't inject this drug like you do Ozempic or Wagovi.

You swallow this drug.

That's right.

This drug is a pill.

No needles.

no injections and also no keeping your drugs cold in the fridge.

That's what you have to do with Ozempic.

So you literally just take this like you would take a vitamin or you would take an Advil.

Huge news for providers, huge news for distributors, and also huge news, of course, for patients.

Now, to be clear, this isn't the first update that we have gotten on this new drug.

We have seen several other trials of this drug in the past several months, but none of them elicited this level of positivity from the markets.

Shares in Eli Lilly immediately jumped and closed up 6%,

6% rise in one day.

Huge jump, especially when you consider this year they've been having, which so far has been a little bit tough.

So for more on what makes this trial so important, our producer Claire spoke with Jeff Meacham.

He is the head of healthcare equity research at Citibank.

The very first data set in diabetes, there were fears of, you know, theoretical liver toxicities.

And there were worries, you know, that the weight loss may be as low as, you know, maybe 5%.

It came when it came out, there was no liver tox whatsoever.

The discontinuation rates, which is a marker of kind of overall tolerability, look very compelling.

They're sub 10%

and the weight loss was a little bit higher than kind of the kind of the Wall Street bogey.

Fast forward to the next trial, the obesity trial, it was a really, really kind of a bad setup.

Investors were expecting, you know, 12 or 15% weight loss, you know,

good tolerability, no liver toxicity.

They got all of that.

But it just happened to be that, you know, the weight loss was 11 and change versus 12%

as the

bottom end.

So you're seeing today with the third trial, I think you're seeing a little bit of a makeup of that, you know, that trade, you know, half a point, for example, of

under expectations, weight loss, it was not worth 100 plus billion in market cap, right?

That was a really kind of a silly move.

So I think today you're seeing with the third trial, you're making up some of that discount, right?

In valuation.

It essentially de-risks the whole program because now they can file with these three trials.

How does Eli Lilly's oral GLP-1 pipeline stack up against Novo Nordiscs?

Yeah, so it's interesting.

For

Novo, if you look at their oral ribelsis, it was, you know, high-dosed ribelsis.

The data look very good.

The drug has been available for a while as an obesity drug, but it's just capacity constrained.

You know, Novo can't make enough of it.

But even if they could, one of the kind of drags on the profile is there's a food effect.

And so a patient has to fast the night before.

It's just doesn't, it doesn't really,

you know, it's not seamless.

Let's put it that way.

And that is one of the, you know, differentiation points of orphaglypron.

You know, I think the weight loss is,

you know, at 10-ish%

with a 10-ish percent discontinuation rate.

The efficacy looks very solid.

The tolerability looks very good.

And there's no food effect whatsoever.

And so, you know, and there's no sort of random safety events.

And so I think Lilly is much better positioned when you think of the oral, you know, what's up, you know, coming up next.

And they obviously have the capacity to make a lot of the drug when you look at the investments that they've made.

you know, over the past couple of years.

So, I mean, I would, you know, put Lilly at definitely an advantage over Novo among the orals.

I'd also say the same thing really among the injectables as well if you compare trzepatide to sumaglutide right so earlier this year eli lily surpassed novo in the lead for glp1 prescriptions and i've heard that that is basically because doctors just like it more there are fewer side effects and they prescribe it more so

It sounds like the same may be true for Eli Lily's oral drug, if approved.

If Eli gets to market with this option, do you think that they'll just run away with this lead?

I think when you step back, say, two years ago, as these drugs were just, you know,

being,

you know, kind of launching and reimbursement was becoming

a little bit more seamless.

I mean, it was 50-50 in terms of share, maybe 55, you know, 45 and slightly in favor of Lilly.

Just how aggressive Manjaro launched in diabetes.

But now I think that number is, you know, it's sort of moved to, you know, to 60, 40.

And even in the future, it could be 65, 35.

I don't know if it's going to be a full 70 plus percent of the market in terms of share for Lilly.

But I would say, though, that, you know, Lilly's done a better job.

The oral looks more competitive.

So I think that the edge will continue to, you know,

will have continue to have an edge in market share in both diabetes and obesity.

That was Jeff Meacham, head of healthcare equity research at Citibank.

So clearly, this is big news for Eli Lilly, especially against the backdrop of what's been a pretty meteoric rise for the company.

I mean, the stock is down so far this year.

We've had this big pop, but it's down around 5% year to date.

But you just consider their most recent earnings their their q2 earnings report 15 billion dollars in revenue up 40

from the year before you've got manjaro sales up 68

to 5 billion dollars and you've got zetbound sales nearly tripling year over year to three billion dollars the world just loves GLP1 drugs and Eli Lilly is positioning itself as pretty much the best in class.

But this could be a new chapter in the GLP-1 story.

I mean, I can't put a number on it, but I would bet you that there is a significant percentage of the population who wants to lose weight, but who also doesn't want to stick a needle in their leg every week.

And Eli Lilly just solved that problem.

They're now going to go towards the regulatory approval.

They need to file with the FDA.

But as soon as this hits the commercial market, it is worth asking this simple question.

How many of us would take that pill?

How many of us would take a pill that reduced our weight by more than a tenth in 16 months?

I don't know the answer, but is it 20%?

Is it 30%?

Is it more than half of us?

I don't know.

But what I can tell you is that whatever that number is, it's going to be huge.

That's the only thing I know about this.

Taking it as a pill versus injecting it with a needle.

That is a huge difference.

And that will define the next chapter of the GLP1 story.

Researchers at Stanford released a study that used detailed payroll data from the ADP to see how generative AI is reshaping the job market.

The data they used covered millions of workers and included details like age and occupation.

They focused on jobs where AI can automate tasks like software developers, translators, receptionists.

And what they found is that entry-level workers aged 22 to 25 in occupations most exposed to AI,

those workers have seen a 13% decline in employment since 2022.

The report also states that employment levels have remained stable or even increased for more experienced workers in the same fields.

In other words, AI

is taking your job.

Or to be more specific, it's not just taking anyone's job, it's taking young people's jobs.

That is what the report told us.

It is our clearest evidence so far that young people are losing out to AI.

This is probably the most important trend.

for young people to keep track of right now.

I really think this is kind of going to define the next several years for us young people.

The ultimate question that every young person has to be asking themselves today is how do you not get replaced by AI?

If we are living in a world where AI is replacing us, and that is literally what this report has told us, then how do you make yourself AI proof?

Now, to be clear, this is a huge question

and we're probably going to have to do a full hour-long episode that breaks down this topic because, you know, we can't answer this in just a few minutes.

But, you know, while we're here,

now that this report has just come out, I do want to point you to some research that our team put together in our property markets newsletter last month, because they did answer precisely this question.

How do you not get replaced by AI?

By the way, shout out to Mia Silverio and Bella Kinsel who put this report together.

So basically, to summarize the report, they came up with three skills, our team came up with three skills, that you can employ to make yourself AI proof.

And the skills that they came up with are curation, curiosity, and connectivity.

Now, I'm just summarizing the newsletter for now, but I do encourage you to go read the full thing.

You can read it at profgmarkets.com slash subscribe.

But I just want to go through those skills now because I think they are helpful and important for young people.

So let's start with curation.

The great thing about AI is it basically means that anyone can create stuff, whether it's art or videos or writing or even code, as we've been seeing.

Now, the bad thing about AI is that anyone can create stuff.

Because if you've spent years learning how to write or to code or to make a video, well, you're less valuable now.

Because with AI, the marginal cost of creating is basically now zero.

And we're already seeing this play out.

75% of new web pages in 2025, they now contain AI generated content.

Everyone is using AI to create stuff.

So in a world of infinite content, then you need to find an edge.

You need to find a new skill.

And the best skill that we could come up with is curation.

That means developing an opinion, developing a level of taste, such that people will go to you not because of how much you can create, but because of your ability to discern what makes a great product versus an okay product.

We really try to do this at Prof G Media.

Trying to figure out what are the great stories?

What are the things that really capture people's attention and really engage people?

What are the things that really matter?

Those are the questions that we are asking ourselves.

Yes, we are content creators, but we are also curators.

And that can apply to many different fields.

It expands far beyond just media.

Now, the second important scale that we highlighted is curiosity, because to curate, you need to be curious.

You need to have a large, diverse base of knowledge to pull from, and you need to kind of get into the weirder stuff.

You know, some of the greatest inventions, some of the greatest companies have come from chasing strange ideas.

Just a few hilarious examples.

Studying snails was what led to the discovery of non-opioid pain medication.

NVIDIA was created because Jensen Huang was super into video games in the video game market.

So in a world of constant distractions, this skill is only going to become more important.

The share of people who read for pleasure has dropped 40%

in the past 20 years.

But if you're the person at work who is down to read for pleasure, who is down to be curious, to ask questions, to learn, to use that knowledge to come up with unique ideas, that gives you an edge.

You are probably the one who won't get replaced by ChatGPT.

Now, the final skill we highlighted, and this might be the most important one, is connectivity.

If there is any one skill that will absolutely make you more employable, it is this one.

And this is especially important for people who are entering into the job market.

Your ability to connect with other people and create relationships.

That trumps everything else.

As I said earlier, AI brings with it the ability to mass produce content.

And that includes, by the way, job applications.

And reportedly, hiring managers are completely inundated right now with AI generated resumes and AI cover letters.

Just last year, the amount of applications submitted on LinkedIn surged nearly 50%.

So if you want to get a job, you need to be able to connect with the people who can make it happen for you.

And it doesn't mean spraying applications all over LinkedIn.

It means establishing relationships, real relationships, meeting people.

Just look at how I got a job at ProfG.

Yes, I had a nice degree from a nice university, but there are plenty of people like me.

What made me stand out was who I knew.

It was the fact that my roommate's mum was friends with Scott.

And so when I asked her to go put in a good word, and thankfully she did, thank you, Joanna Coles, Scott said yes, because he respected her opinion.

We had a degree of connection.

Look at how Claire, our producer, ended up here.

She went to college with our former producer who liked her a lot.

And so she hired her.

Knowing people is everything and AI cannot know people for you.

And this goes beyond just getting a job.

Emails can be mass produced.

Slack messages can be automated.

Even calls can be taken with AI.

If you want to stand out, you need to create relationships.

You need to show up face-to-face.

You need to be human.

And that's something AI certainly cannot do.

So there you have it.

The ProfG guide on how not to be replaced by AI.

That was just a quick summary.

But again, I encourage you, go read the full thing and subscribe to the newsletter.

It's profgmarkets.com slash subscribe.

This is a huge topic.

We're definitely going to be discussing it a lot more.

We will be revisiting it, but for now, that would be my recommendation.

Curation, curiosity, connectivity.

Okay.

That's it for today.

This episode was produced by Claire Miller, edited by Joel Patterson, engineered by Benjamin Spencer.

Our associate producer is Alison Weiss.

Our research team is Dan Shallan, Laura Jayner, Isabella Kinsell, and Mia Silverio.

And our technical director is Drew Burroughs.

Thanks for listening to Prof G Markets from the Vox Media Podcast Network.

If you liked what you heard, give us a follow.

I'm Ed Elson.

I'll see you tomorrow.