Again, I applaud Mr. Marks for his work on trying to rebalance the political system. A sense of being treated unfairly is in out DNA - primate studies. When we feel we are not being treated fairly, anger about the unfairness arises simultaneously – populist appeal left or right. This anger can remain or be replaced by other emotions or rational thought. Empathy gives us the ability to see unfairness from others’ point of view – human thought. If we rationally approach these social/economic problems, fairness can be improved. If we stay in our own echo chambers, we will not succeed. DLS

To assume that Trump is an aberration is naive, and expectations that "democracy" will self-correct are ridiculous. What follows from here is worse, possibly much worse, simply because the financial sector has refused, consistently, to conduct itself responsibly. A 52 percent tax rate? That's the least of your worries.

Howard Marks doesn't get populism Populism is democracy. It's not evil, dangerous or troublesome, Grant. Crikey, lie down and take a deep breath. Populism is a move towards direct democracy to enforce the democratic will upon those who refuse to respect their representative responsibility. The financial sector needs to realise its glory days are over. It's not the populists who are destroying it. It's a consistent track record of bad practice, and a lack of self regulation. Slamming those with alternative political opinions driven by their experience of that malfeasance just isn't smart.

Good interview, and quite a few astute and eloquent comments by HM. Did not like some of his prickly comments in reply to Grant - seemed a bit arrogant - and disagree on...

Enjoyed this interview. There is just one thing that Howard mentions with which I disagree: the mortgage crisis was not developed as a consequence of "funny things going on in Wall St", it was caused by government intervention and subsidies channeled through Fannie & Freddie. Wall St being Wall St seized the opportunity of making easy money and clinged to the free lunch it was provided by those easy-money vehicles.

The centre of democratic party is defunct simply because it abandoned its responsibility to its traditional base and adopted, wholesale, the neo-liberal economic agenda. So the Democratic Party is dead in the water unless it wakes up and shifts in favour of AOC. The real issue is one that once again nobody is discussing. Populism is the future, and things look ugly for those who consider themselves "elite." They're anything but. The question though is, does the future belong to the right wing populists, or the left wing populists? All this whining, along the lines of - "Gosh these people are so stupid. Of course socialism doesn't work" - reveals actually only the profound stupidity of those who think they're so much smarter than anybody else. We confront a future of profound political volatility, with the major political parties demonstrably bankrupt of ideas, integrity and a future. Instead we will see issues-driven allegiance by voters, most of whom what the financial sector destroyed. We're talking the end of central banking, and total disruption. And it's the financial sector who did this, and brought it not just upon themselves, but upon the rest of us. Because they're all a bunch of greedy dicks who refused to conduct themselves responsibly. So don't blame AOC and all those insisting upon change. And don't think that you guys are the ones who are in any kind of role to generate some nonsensical "no label" type of political future. You have no credibility and nobody cares what you think.

The market cycles Mr Marks mentioned had strong sentiment cycles, all the way to euphoria. To me, it appears we are still climbing a wall of worry in the markets today so I expect a lot more upside yet..... Is there any interview on RVTV talking sentiment cycles?

The 800 lb gorilla in the room are the Central Bankers, the academics have put us on Pluto and now cannot get us back. We have seen the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the country!!! Now we have people debating the politics of populism/ socialism/'no Labels'? When the bond vigilantes and China, Japan, and Russia tell us no we are not buying your paper/bonds changes will be made. Ponder the question what if 'no label's' are followed by 'yellow vests'.?

Terrific! Nothing else to say

Fantastic Interview! Keep em coming...

“No Labels” may sound like a well meaning group but the reality is they are Progressives in disguise.

I have liked this video, but feel just 45 minutes with Howard Marks is just not enough when I’ve heard hour plus interviews elsewhere.

Marks: "Something like 80% of Americans think there should be some gun controls And you can't get them. What does that mean? It means that the politics and tactics of division somehow are stronger than the tactics of togetherness" Not quite. It means there is still a few members of Congress and an occasional President who remember the Constitution and their oath of office to uphold it. Marks decries that 80% want to confiscate his wealth (and sadly it just might happen), but he is unhappy that 80% can't get gun confiscation enacted. News flash for you Mr Marks. Democracy is another name for mob rule. That's why America was set-up as a Republic (as you might recall from grade school: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands"). The same [dying] Republic that protects you and your money from confiscatory taxes (i.e. protects your property rights) also protects the rest of our rights including the Second Amendment. If you think destroying some rights based on mob rule won't lead to all rights being destroyed by mob rule, you simply have no grasp of history or even the ability to conduct a simple thought experiment.

Meh. Who hasn't heard all this a million times before, often said just as well if not better? Conventional contrarian wisdom.

This was a terrific interview, Grant. I'm new to your platform, but I'm already very please with what I'm seeing and look forward to past and future content. Thank you!

I found Marks comments on market cycles and his investment approach had quite a few useful tidbits of information - eg, the quality of the available 'deals' themselves tell you whether it's a good time to invest or not without having to second guess where the market cycle is at - when people are greatly risk averse, there tend to be 'load up the boat' investment opportunities, when people are extremely over-optimistic, the quality of the investment opportunities tend to be much worse, more likely to be 'losers' in terms of what they can realistically return. Another was that the economic cycle itself is relatively mild - running from 'good' to 'not so hot', but the boom and bust aspect is due to leverage and psychology. Though, at one level, I was glad Marks is actively trying to find a bi-partisan political solutions, overall, I found Grant & Marks political discussion to be remarkably simplistic and predictable - not that useful. Better to just stick to your great skill set in investing topics guys, or be ready to dive much deeper! Of course, free market capitalism has been a great engine of innovation and massively helped build the global economy, but throwing around labels like 'planned economy socialism' vs. 'free market' capitalism as though what built the US into a great country and economic power was only the free market capitalism aspect of our society or what holds back other countries was 'socialism' just isn't accurate. When they were talking about Ocasio-Cortez being naive and inexperienced enough to push for a 70% marginal tax rate, I thought Grant was going to point out that the high end marginal tax rate in the US was 70% or above for much of the 20th century, and in particular, from 1936 – 1980, the heart of the period Marks (and many conservatives) think America was greatest for most Americans. Well, folks, that was one reason. We had money to build and maintain infrastructure, for GI bill, for education, etc. And if we had it today, we would have at least some of the money needed to keep underwriting that "socialist" program called social security Marks is worried about running out of money. I’d feel more interested in their political conversation if a) they were better informed, b) if they realized the simplistic labels are kind of empty and c) if they proposed some possible solutions rather than just criticizing straw man positions regarding ‘socialist planned economies’ they ascribe to Ocasio-Cortez and others. We already have a planned economy: it’s the massive, planned inequality guaranteed globally by central bank money printing and credit issuance in support of wealthy asset owners, speculators and stock jockeys around the world. Imagine what would have happened if we’d had ‘real capitalism’ – including real failure, real loss, real widespread bankruptcy as a consequence of mal-investment, etc. since the 1980’s? People would care alot more about exactly where they are placing their money at risk, because their next batch if they lost wouldn’t just be handed to them at virtually no after inflation cost.

I think it's silly to suggest that the wealthiest Americans have not shifted the system to their own benefit. They worked tirelessly to cut taxes and were very successful. The alternative to the Libertarian capitalism we're seeing a backlash to is not totalitarian planned economies, it's likely something closer to the Nordic states or Northern Europe.

Grant, is it possible you have been a little nervous on this one? ;-)

Just got the book. Great start

To GRANT WILLIAMS: What a shame! The high marginal tax rate hasn’t worked? Please do your homework. For around 50 years the effective marginal tax rate in the USA was around 65-70%, with top rates reaching at times 90%. It wasn’t until the Regan era that the top rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and only 28% six years later. Now, I’m not leftist but are you going to argue that those 50 post WW2 years weren’t some of the best years in US for overall growth and equality when the true wealth was built across entire nation? Again, do yourself a favor and look up the history. To your honorable guest Howard Marks: the wealthiest individuals unfortunatelly contribute very little to the sociaty and so your „punitive/confiscatory tax” comment doesn’t stand rhe ground. And even if they were allowed to keep „only 20-30%” of what they make that’s still plenty. Now, can they „do smething about it?” Sure, but keep in mind that as a US Citizens they have to pay US tax regardless where they are, that’s the price of „protection” they get. So they are free to renounce their US Citizenship and move elsewhere. I wonder how many other places in the world one can so easily making a killing by milking it’s own nation. Dear Mr Howard Marks: it’s not the punitive/confiscatory tax. It’s a right to do business in the USA, it’s a military protection that no one else will dare to come, invade and confiscate your wealth. And finally, it’s a piece of mind that your own (otherwise extorted) people will not rise up against the so called „elities” and confiscate what they own, resetting the system. French Revolution comes to mind, but that’s another lesson in the history.

Great interview. The clarity of thought and the ability to elucidate in an interview is striking. Thank you!

B. Sanders, E. Warren and AOC are views from the "other side" if one is a proponent of classical liberty and free markets and the US Constitution and its philosophical underpinnings (some of which originate in Grant's beloved England). I hear their views incessantly because they dominate treatment by WaPo/NYT/CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC/NPR/PBS/LaT... Confirmation bias does not resonate with me as part of "the problem" from "my side".

Great interview; Howard’s memos have been fundamental in my understanding of the markets.

Brilliant!

Great interview. Marks strikes the right balance between confidence and humility.

All of us RealVision subscribers desire knowledge. Valuable knowledge. What if everyone thirsted for knowledge? What would be the quality of our society then

I had the good fortune of meeting Howard Marks recently. Not only one of THE great investors of the age, Oaktree's performance is incredibly good, but also a very articulate writer and speaker. I too was somewhat surprised by the focus on politics in this interview, as some other comments reflect. But if Mr. Marks is worried about it, we should be too. His 'memos' are rightly legendary (and free) and he has had an extraordinary record of seeing problems before they become mainstream. One of the wisest and clearest thinkers in our industry, and a very nice man too, as this interview confirms. Nobody got poor investing with this man or following his advice. Forewarned!

I have read his most recent book cover to cover and yet in the book there is almost no mention of Politics, how so then, in this interview there almost a singular focus on this very CNN-ish stuff ???

Whoa....lots of politics...almost 45 seconds on eco cycles...nice work guys !

I expected more insights on investing - too much discussion of politics.

Truly excellent, worth the RV annual subscription alone! Great questions by Grant!

Excellent discussion. Thank you Grant and Howard.

...suffering of the middle class, let alone the poorest among us. Severe wealth inequality, in my view, is a hallmark of a morally bankrupt society...that is how I see the US now as a whole sadly.

...comments regarding populism. While I am a strong proponent of capitalism, I am concerned to see how out ot touch the very wealthy are with the very real and pressing needs and...

loves this guy. even if he says the same things all the time in slightly different ways.

Great interview and I am enjoying the constructive comments! We have seen Powell jawboning. I expect at least one Fed rate increase this year per Mr. Druckenmiller “slip it in when you can.” Employment should remain high, wages will continue to grow, but CPI will not keep pace as corporate margins are eroding. The Fed rate increase and/or selling off the balance sheet will be to attenuate the stock market bubble. If the Fed has a new mandate of supporting the market, it should stop the market from overheating through financial engineering and/or easy money. It is the responsible thing to do. DLS

It strikes me that if capitalism doesn’t have the gut/immediate appeal that populism does, if it only holds intellectual appeal currently, then we know what the root of the issue is. Populism, good or bad aside, appears to be a grasping for agency and ownership. At what point did capitalism cease to fulfill that very normal human need, where did that turn? When/if populism feels like agency/ownership to the majority, my guess is it will also become a more appealing ideology and practice than populism to fulfill that need.

Populism is a sign of problems within the society. Many of the original settlers in the English colonies were populist who were able to improve their lot and provide a better future for their children by immigrating – both economically and religiously. Populism in France took the form of immigration and the French revolution – chop off every noble head. Populism in the USA took the form of President Roosevelt in the depression with the New Deal. Especially governments of the people, by the people and for the people cannot continue by neglecting the interest of the poor, the average or the wealthy. It is always the balance that counts, but difficult to achieve. Balance cannot come from ideologues especially in fear of being reelected. One term limit for the President will promote better focus. In politics hatred is an easier sell than reasoned improvement – on both sides. I value Mr. Mark’s political approach of funding politicians who wish to solve problems and not just get reelected to vote hard left or hard right. Good luck! DLS

Great interview. Grant, you looked genuinely humbled to be sat asking one of the greats such questions at times! As any of us should.

Mr. Marks grasps the situation, in part, but provides no leadership in addressing the inherent flaws in the rigged system that has rewarded him so richly. https://thingsithink.org/2019/02/07/the-wealthy-are-seriously-misjudging-the-situation/ Worse yet, he has far more criticism--and seemingly far less compassion--for the have-nots than the haves who have brought society to the breaking point. All of that said, he's been a wonderful resource for budding investors over the years, although it's less clear he is adept at figuring out what to do in this central bank manipulated market.

Well done RV to get Mr. Marks on as a guest. This interview was much like reading one of his memos or books, filled with subtle comments that will be impactful over time and something you can come back and revisit. I really enjoyed the moments when Grant got Howard thinking of topics he hadn’t done more of a “deep dive” on and hear what his initial reaction and comments would be. He is a very disciplined person in his thought process and comments, which is a great lesson to all.

Wonderful, it would be great to have Howard Marks as a regular guest given that he is one of those legendary investor to keeps active and monitoring the market. It will help to hear from him at least one every six months to listen to his take on current event. Thanks Real Vision!

OK, firstly please enough of the personal petty comments. If the style of ones dress is that important perhaps one should be reading GQ Magazine (if it still exits). On to more substantive items. Populism is an emotion whereby Capitalism is an economic system. I know what Capitalism is, I can read about it, debate it, etc. With Populism I equate it with a "throw the Bums out" concept that is of course if I can't become one. The next question becomes, then what? Here's the thing, anyone who has risked a $1 of capital and has been fortunate enough to have two or more $ returned DESERVES, has the right, etc. to keep it proudly. What is lost on populists' is that $1 had to run the gauntlet of regulations, market forces, taxes, inflation, and on and on to become two or more $. I know the populists' think it was easy but, if so why aren't you doing it? If you believe the Government should take more of it in the form of higher taxes you must believe that they are awesome money managers and oh so efficient capital allocators. I mean every war, battle, government program is of course run with the highest efficiency and with such little waste that we should have more. A most simple plan and thus why it will never come to pass is: a Balanced Budget Amendment, Term limits (8 years), 25% tax rates for income, cap gains, etc. no deductions. No Estate Tax-Sorry death is bad enough! Nothing much to fight over, budget has to balance, argue over how but, you're in for only 8 years max so chop chop-it's not a career. WE CAN'T FUND EVERYTHING-CORRECT. Hard choices, sounds like real life. No time to hate each other-crap we have to work together and get things done. Wow, it's Friday night and this is what I'm thinking about-must be getting old! Grant and Howard got me thinking (which I think is the point).

Excellent discourse....nothing better than seeing two smart men with both experience, insight and humility discuss various topics. Thank you RV

Lover Grant in all he does, but give him a budget for better clothes. He is interviewing one greats and his attire doesn't fit the gravitas of the interview! Love ya Grant (and Howard) but up your clothing allowance Grant!

A great deal of income tax is already collected on SS payments every year. (If you only have SS income, you normally do not pay federal income tax on it. As your other taxable income goes up you pay more and more federal income taxes on SS payments.) As a simple option, Congress could have the increase income tax collected by taxing SS payments added to the SS fund. Not a perfect solution, but a simple and continuous mechanism. SS is not an entitlement for the employees who paid into the SS fund which were matched by employer contributions. Currently this additional revenue is simply part of the government tax revenue. It is possible in a perfect world for the government to reduce expenditures by the same amount funding SS each year. I will not hold my breath. DLS

Agree, a lot of history, behavioral etc. Nothing new. It is, however, instructive for one to hear the themes over and over because tendencies are to forget about history and those that have played it well, like Marks, who can remind us of the cycles of economics/markets ala Bridgewater et al. So, no lack of opinions or experience, just perhaps a lack of understanding of where we have been and where we are going.

One of the best interviews! I often watch while doing other things. In this case, I watched focus on the presentation only. The analogy of the football game and the side bets in the stands hit the mark for me. Political rhetoric focuses on capitalism vs. socialism. It is financial engineering that is giving capitalism a bad name. It is the corporate buybacks that executives use to radically increase their wealth. It is misuse of derivatives that make small bubbles into huge bubbles. It is central banks using QEs - financial engineering again - to bailout the system repeatedly. Instead of blaming capitalism, governments all over the world need to reasonably regulate financial engineering of the system. DLS

I'd really like to hear some discussion on how to play the Universal Basic Income as an individual. It seems to me, that, like QE if you get on the right side of it's implications there's a ton of money to be made. Yet it's also a huge step towards outright socialism - leading to potential wealth confiscation. So does one bet on inflation? Quit working and hide your wealth, so you can take the money? Use the money to get into hard assets? Bet against the currencies of countries rolling it out? Leave the country for a more free market economy? Is it even certain to generate inflation? Will it be rolled back? Will capital flow into countries where it's not rolled out (in the UK we seem a little more distant from the idea)....everyone seems to think it's coming, I think we need to think seriously of the ramifications.

Very interesting discussion. It does seem to me however that compromise is why we have a 22 trillion dollar deficit in the US and continue to kick the can down the road. In addition, most states have so many gun laws that the police don't even know them all. Bad people don't obey gun laws, such laws only punish law abiding citizens.

It's time for a Swiss-like system in America -a BLOCKCHAIN DEMOCRACY. Build a wall? let the people decide let the people decide because the House & Senate don't speak for them and would rather shut the doors then loose their team tribalism.

Resentment is a companion emotion to jealousy and envy. It's the wrong word. Angered by the actions of the elite would be a better sentiment to describe how the populists feel towards the elite. There is a real disconnect between those who swim amongst the titans of industry and govt and the rest of the country. I particularly enjoyed his comment of "80% of the people want gun control laws" and immediately thought of the statistics where gun sales only recently tapered off after a 10 yr or greater run of YoY sales increases. I to read somewhere HC was a 96% shoe-in for the Presidency based on a survey or two. Sometimes we look for the facts/statistics that support what we want to believe. I will continue to enjoy Mr. Mark's ideas. He's still batting .990 with me so take that Ted Williams. He is one of the many patches in the quilt by which I form my own outlooks and I appreciate RV for his and all the other interviews they bring to us weekly.

Great interview with Howard Marks. Sounds like an intelligent and flexible investor. Felt like Grant attempted to press his perma-bear case on a few occasions only to be shot down by Marks.

Unrevealing interview by any measure and almost cut it when Howard mentioned the Social Security issue. Really? Time to be defensive? Good or bad, Stanley set the bar as good.

Epic!!!