April 30, 2020

If Ray Dalio Were President…

He’s not running. But if he were? The hedge fund billionaire and philanthropist says he would put bipartisanship above all else. Sounds great, Ray, but is it realistic?

He’s not running. But if he were? The hedge fund billionaire and philanthropist says he would put bipartisanship above all else. Sounds great, Ray, but is it realistic?

On this episode of Morning Brew’s Business Casual podcast and part two of our interview with Ray Dalio, we try our best to figure it out. 

Dalio expertly describes the intersection of markets and politics in today’s crisis, making the intricacies of Fed policy, Wall Street psychology, debt cycles, and more make perfect sense. Plus, Dalio gives a master class in...

  • What’s wrong with capitalism (there are some strong contenders for best pie metaphor of the year in that part)
  • How we should interpret the markets which constitute our broader economy as machines that sometimes need tune-ups

If you missed part one of our conversation with Dalio, go check it out. In this second part, he expands on his thesis that students of history could’ve seen this pandemic coming. Are you sold?

Listen now and let us know.

Plus, enter our giveaway to win one of three copies of Ray Dalio's book Principles. To enter, review the show and send us a screenshot at businesscasual@morningbrew.com.


Kinsey Grant, Morning Brew business editor and podcast host [00:00:06] Hey, everybody, and welcome to Business Casual, the Morning Brew podcast, answering your biggest questions in business. I'm your host and Brew business editor, Kinsey Grant. And now, let's get into it. 


Kinsey [00:00:17] Today, you get part 2 of my conversation with billionaire hedge fund manager and celebrated philanthropist, Ray Dalio. In part one of this conversation, Ray and I talked about how business leaders' principles change in times of uncertainty like today. Ray explained the historical precedent for, well, everything, even what's going on now in the midst of both a pandemic and a recession, because as Ray sees it, history could have taught him a good lesson in investing through a pandemic like COVID-19, if only he paid a little more attention. Now, I don't want to give away all of the hot takes because this was can't-miss podcasting, if I do say so myself. So if you listened, I hope you learned something. And if you didn't, I hope you'll go listen. 


Kinsey [00:00:58] Now on to today's episode. Ray and I get a little bit more granular. How should we approach both market moves and economic policy reactions given the massive shifts that we've experienced in both throughout this pandemic. Before we get into that, we left one big question unanswered in part 1 of this conversation. So, Ray, we were just talking about how the billionaire class should or should not be tasked with responses in this situation we find ourselves in today. And you brought up this idea that you benefited from an equality of opportunity. You came of age in a time that that seemed a lot more likely than it might today. So I'm curious if you think capitalism, as you've experienced it, can survive for the next generation? 


Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates [00:01:39] Well, before there was this crisis, I wrote a piece—I hope people read it—and it's called "How and Why I Believe Capitalism Needs to Be Reformed." 


Kinsey [00:01:51] Right. 


Ray [00:01:51] And I wrote that and I explained I could only limit my embellishment on it to the time that we have in order to describe it. But there is mechanical things that are going on that mean that I don't think it achieves its goal. I'm a capitalist. I believe effectively in—but that's a misnomer, because what it has to do, above all else, is [indistinct] a system that maximizes the potential of everybody and it's got to provide, in my opinion, a common goal. What is our common goal? I believe it's equal opportunity. 


Ray [00:02:40] The closest we can get to equal opportunity. And that I believe that if that's done in a way where that produces the most productivity around, so that then you will have a system that is fair and productive, that history has shown that that happened over and over again. And when you don't happen that, the system is vulnerable. And so I get into the mechanics of it and why profit doesn't do it all. But it does a lot of it well.


Ray [00:03:09] It doesn't do it all because it won't get that equal education. Well, if you don't have the equal education, because we have a constitution that makes it a state issue, education state issue. And then you have within a state, you have tax districts. And if you look at the tax districts, the ones that have more taxes and better education systems, and then if you look at the poverty that exists within those areas and realize that there are mechanics to that, or when a central bank does what a central bank does to, let's say, buy financial assets, then those with have financial assets benefit relative to those who don't. 


Ray [00:03:55] And so there's mechanics behind this. And I believe that we can increase the size of the pie. And divide it better. We can increase the size of the pie. What worries me is that we damage the machine in the wrong way. But you can do that. And it must be in a bipartisan way. It must be in a way that brings people together who differ on each other, who don't fight with each other, but instead realize that there are different perspectives and different things, so that we can both increase the size of the pie and divide it well. Yes, that's what I believe. 


Kinsey [00:04:35] OK. This idea of bipartisanship is frankly a novelty at this point [laughs] in my lifetime and my experience with politics. And I've heard you and [indistinct] right before that I think most capitalists don't know how to divide the economic pie well. And most socialists don't know how to grow it well. So, if we're trying to achieve this bipartisan unity of both growing the pie and splitting the pie fairly among all invested parties here, what comes next? Is it realistic to expect that we can get someone like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump to agree on something? 


Ray [00:05:15] That's the juncture that we're at and the choice that we have to make. And if we can realize that the normal path is the bad path. The normal path is that people demonize each other. There's a progression. You start off pretty much together. And then the next step is resentment. And then when you get to resentment, you go beyond that to demonization of the other. It can be any group. Demonization. Yeah. Could be demonization of poor people or rich people or one religion or another religion, or whatever. 


Ray [00:06:03] But there's a tendency when there's stress and economic stress to demonize the other side. And to make it a battle of one side against the other side. And that becomes emotional. If I was elected president of the United States and made king, by way of example, I would have a bipartisan cabinet. I would have Republicans and Democrats in that together. I'd pick just the best who want to work together. And I would solidify the center and try to have it radiate out from that center. 


Ray [00:06:43] I would lock them up in a room or lock them up in a hotel resort for six months. And I would bring in the best experts who understand mechanics of things. Because when you change taxes and money changes in certain ways, well, you got to know how the mechanics work. And say we have to come out with an agreed-upon plan. I think to some extent they achieve that with the distribution that happen. In other words, when I looked at that, that was not a distribution where just the Federal Reserve goes in and buy [indistinct] financial assets. What they looked at is—is that socialist or is that capitalist? I don't know. 


Ray [00:07:30] They agreed on how they could get money to people who were unemployed or all the people they got it to. I won't reiterate all the parts of that. And that was a good thing. So if we can come together—and we have to not only do it here, but we have to realize there is a geopolitical thing going on in the world with China. Because now we have a rising power, challenging existing power. And I know both sides well. I'm in the middle of both sides well. And I really do believe that that can be approached in a way. 


Ray [00:08:09] But you still have to realize there's a competition, and there's a global order, and you still have to work it. And so we're at a juncture where we have that choice. And I'm not saying it's a difficult choice. And if you say, what is it probable? Probably we won't handle it well, but it's not impossible. And it's necessary. 


Kinsey [00:08:33] OK. Well, Ray, it sounds like the logical answer to the question of what comes next is you run for president. 


Ray [00:08:40] Absolutely not. That's not [Kinsey laughs] logical extension of — 


Kinsey [00:08:44] So that's a no. 


Ray [00:08:45] Well, actually, I'm serving my role the best I can, which is sometimes I'll extend some thoughts and I'll pass them along, and others can take them or leave them. And I'm just trying to do my best and others can consider them. And I do speak with policymakers and whatever. And they could take it or leave them. 


Kinsey [00:09:10] Take it or leave it. I like it. All right. Ray, I want to talk more about the tangible market reaction. But first, let's take a short break to hear from our sponsor. — And now back to the conversation with Ray Dalio. So we spent some time in the first part of our conversation talking about the big picture fallout of COVID-19 and the economic fallout. I want to shift gears a little bit here to talk more granular. Let's understand what's going on in markets. 


Kinsey [00:09:40] To start, do you think that the initial reaction to social distancing measures that were implemented in the United States from Wall Street was justified? This sudden, sudden panic, followed by a lot of volatility, followed by a lot of bullishness surrounding the policies that were being made in D.C.? Has this trajectory of reactions been justified, in your view? 


Ray [00:10:04] Yes, very logically. Because if you look at history, the same thing has happened over and over again. And let me explain why that is. As a result—I'm talking about the economic part—as a result of the economy, people's earnings, lot of earnings, companies' earnings, fall. And their balance sheet—their savings, in other words—went down in value. So there's a credit problem, very similar to the 1929 to 33 credit problem, and so on. 


Ray [00:10:45] So there are holes, financial holes. And then, the administration and Congress announced that we're going to fill in these particular holes. This happened all the time. So like I'm saying, 1929 to 32—big holes. It took him a while to get going, but on March 5th, President Roosevelt says we're going to fill in the holes. And they print money and produce credit. And then the stock market and the economy go up from that bottom. And [indistinct]. 


Ray [00:11:25] So, yes. Now you look at who has what holes in their financial situation, and you realize that the United States now produces the world's main currency. So 70% of the world is dealt with in dollars. That's what you buy with, you sell with, and most people save in. That's dollars. The only one who can produce dollars is the U.S. Federal Reserve. And who are they going to give the dollars to? They're going to give the dollars to Americans. And how they'll distribute those dollars, they'll figure out how they get distributed, but they've targeted for those particular—they ain't going to go much beyond Americans. 


Ray [00:12:09] So now there are others in the world. They don't have dollars. So now who are they? They are the Europeans. They have they have a central bank, Europeans. They have central governments. They have a money that works. It's not nearly as important as U.S. money. But they have a bank and somebody will take that money, and so they'll do their version of the same thing. They'll borrow a lot of money and give money to people. They'll do that. Then the Japanese will take care of the Japanese and the Chinese will take care of the Chinese. 


Ray [00:12:40] And most of the rest of the world won't have money, won't have it filled in. That was like 1980 to 1991 that happened. And we can go back because everything's happened, but over and over again. So that's what the world today at the moment looks like. And so the reactions to the "I will print money and I will buy things" in the United States makes sense, in Europe, to the extent it happened, makes sense, in Japan the way it happened makes sense. And it not happening so much in the rest of the world makes sense. So is that logical? Yeah, that's logical. And then we can begin to imagine where we might go from here. 


Kinsey [00:13:24] So where do we go from here? 


Ray [00:13:26] Well, I think we're going to decide on we'll stabilize things in this way. And just like in the '30s or before that, many, many times in many, many countries. Then there'll be discussions of how do we divide the bill? And who should have what? 


Kinsey [00:13:49] OK. 


Ray [00:13:50] OK. And how will that work? And that'll be a political discussion, which we will either do well or we won't. So how we do this mechanically so that we increase the size of the pie and we make good investments and we do things. 


Ray [00:14:10] We each have our own preference for ways of thinking the best way. Like, I believe the basics. Education, like there can't be a better investment than in education in terms of return on investment and so on. So I have my own things, but that's what we're going to go through. We're going to go through those kinds of discussions. And that'll change the world order. It'll change the world order. 


Kinsey [00:14:34] Do you see a reality in which we can figure out a way for everybody to win here? And at what point do we understand how that decision is going to be made? I guess my question is timing. 


Ray [00:14:48] Well, I think that your question is what and timing. 


Kinsey [00:14:50] OK. 


Ray [00:14:54] In terms of what, there has to be a redistribution to improve productivity. You can't give up productivity because if you don't produce stuff, you don't eat stuff, you don't use stuff. You have to produce more in order to raise your living standards. So in order to do it well, you have to redistribute productive, and you have to, I think, establish that there is a bottom that you can't let anybody go below. In other words, a certain level of poverty, civility, healthcare. 


Ray [00:15:45] Healthcare for children. I mean, certainly, can't we agree on children and education and all of those things. And that takes money. But it's a hell of a good investment. And it makes for a fairer system. So there's got to be a redistribution in order to achieve that. But a redistribution in a way that does not mess up productivity, because if we mess up productivity, we're going to all suffer. So, how to do that well, and that's what I'm saying is, it's an engineering exercise. 


Ray [00:16:23] And so if people are not too ideological and more just sort of agreeing that, look, this is a system which has to work well for the majority of people and it's productive to [indistinct] these things happen. And then how do we do it and enhance productivity without undermining productivity? That's what we need to do. 


Kinsey [00:16:43] What do you think is at stake to be lost if we don't solve these mechanical or engineering problems? Aside from the well-being that we've been talking about of the American people and the global population, what is at stake besides that? 


Ray [00:17:01] First, a decline in wealth and power of the United States and other places, but we're talking mostly about the United States. And in which, when that has, it'll be most painfully felt by those at the bottom. And so if you keep the dispersion the same and you go down, those at the bottom is going to get worse, and they'll be justifiably angry, and they will then fight, and the production will get worse. And history has shown this. 


Ray [00:17:39] So if you go back in World War II, that you found four democracies chose to become dictatorships—autocratic government—because why did they do that? Because the people were fighting at each other so much about left and right and all of that, which is fighting over money. They fought so much that there was disorder, strikes, and lack of [indistinct] and people killing each other and all sorts of things. And so they said democracy doesn't work. What we need to have special powers and we need an autocratic leader. 


Kinsey [00:18:16] So would it be good for the democracy that we practice in the United States to become something else that is not democracy? Is that what you're saying? 


Ray [00:18:25] I treasure democracy. But the democracy at the same time has to be somewhat similar, probably, to the way democracy happened in the United States, in England, during that time. And that was a time where, first of all, it was more of a command economy that they did. Profit-making system is not going to work as well in a war. 


Kinsey [00:18:52] What's the war in this situation? Just can we reiterate that a little more clearly? 


Ray [00:18:55] Well, there's two types—let's call it conflicts. 


Kinsey [00:18:59] OK. 


Ray [00:19:00] OK. There are two types of conflict. There's — 


Kinsey [00:19:02] So what's today's conflict? 


Ray [00:19:03] Well, they're all about wealth and power through history. And they get worse in a downturn. 


Kinsey [00:19:12] OK. So the coronavirus pandemic has opened us up to a recession and this economic downturn, which has in turn laid bare the disparity at play. 


Ray [00:19:24] Yeah. You have an economic downturn. As another principal, when there's a large wealth gap and there is a economic decline, people will fight over how to divide the pie. 


Kinsey [00:19:43] I want to tie this in a little bit more to what's going on today as well. So we're talking about the comparisons and being a student of history and understanding these cycles that are consistently at play in both the economy and geopolitics and our everyday lives. Is that why we've seen people, including you, make comparisons more to the Great Depression than to the 2008 financial crisis? Is this just because we are on that trajectory instead of, say, an economic downturn that was essentially manufactured by financial markets themselves? That this is something that was theoretically out of our control? 


Ray [00:20:22] No, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not how I'm thinking about it at all. 


Kinsey [00:20:27] OK, explain to me how. 


Ray [00:20:27] I can only describe how I'm thinking about it. 


Kinsey [00:20:29] Yeah, yeah. I want to hear that. 


Ray [00:20:32] OK. What I'm thinking about is that there's a long-term economic debt cycle. And I'm thinking the mechanics. And so when you hit zero interest rates, which we did in 2008, and the last time that happened was 1932, 31, 32. The mechanics are the same. And so to produce debt, you can no longer lower interest rates to do it. And so then you have to print money and buy financial assets. 


Ray [00:21:16] So that's what they did in 1933 with the announcement that I said was made. 


Kinsey [00:21:21] Right. Right.


Ray [00:21:21] So 2008, they bought financial assets and that's what happened. And then we had the bounce since then. And now we came down again. And buying financial assets was not going to be enough because it would only get into the hands of people who have the financial assets and it wouldn't get to the people who need it. And so mechanistically, we had the downturn again and we did what was done in the 1930s period in terms of what Roosevelt did, in terms of changing. And we could look at other cases of other countries as example of alternative ways of doing that. That's what's going on. 


Kinsey [00:22:01] OK. OK. But in the '30s, unemployment was a lot higher than it was in the 2008 financial crisis. Correct? 


Ray [00:22:11] Yes. Because in the 2008 financial crisis, what happened is they didn't wait so long to do the thing. In other words, — 


Kinsey [00:22:21] To take that action. 


Ray [00:22:22] To print the money and make the move. 


Kinsey [00:22:25] OK. 


Ray [00:22:25] But they only are able to make the move that printing money will count for. At some point, we're gonna have to deal with what is the value of money. What is the storehold of wealth? That'll be the question that we're going to have to answer soon. Pretty soon, we will be answering that question, because you can't produce wealth by producing money and credit. 


Kinsey [00:22:51] So how should you produce wealth? 


Ray [00:22:54] Well, the only way you can produce wealth is by working and working effectively and producing productivity. But what we do is we improve people's accounting income because they give them money, but they didn't [indistinct] — 


Kinsey [00:23:10] Cash money? 


Ray [00:23:10] Well, yeah. Like they'll send you your check for $1,500 or you'll send somebody else. You can do small business, you can go get money and you'll go get your money. But that's just make-believe stuff. That's just digital entries and pieces of paper and so on. It's not productivity, so it's not real wealth, but you just change the accounting. 


Ray [00:23:41] So now because you change the accounting, what you're doing is you're shifting wealth. There's real things that we produce. And then there's this paper money and accounting for it thing. Real wealth is in the stuff. 


Kinsey [00:24:02] So do you think that—let's take the example of this $1,200-ish that most Americans will be getting from the government in the coming weeks—is that not enough then to stoke the economy? We've gone back and forth on this broadcast before. 


Ray [00:24:17] What it is, is, what it's doing is filling the financial hole. 


Kinsey [00:24:24] Right. 


Ray [00:24:24] OK. But if there was not that financial hole, people could produce and whatever, you'd have a barter economy. So I'm trying to distinguish that what they are giving is something like an illusion, or it's a half-illusion, that you could then take that money and then you buy something else with it and so on. And now we get back to employment. But if it wasn't for this financial system—let's just imagine you had a barter economy. People would still want to produce more to get more. 


Kinsey [00:25:02] OK. 


Ray [00:25:02] So there's a financial component to it which makes it look confusing to most people. 


Kinsey [00:25:08] OK. We're going to take a short break to hear from our partner, because I think people might need a second to chew on that one. — And now back to the conversation with Ray Dalio. Ray, we've been talking about the difference here between filling holes, creating productivity, creating real wealth. What waits for us on the other side of this—this big action? We've been talking about how the government has taken these big actions in history before. 


Kinsey [00:25:37] What do you think is waiting for us in reality today, on the other side of this pandemic and recession that is headed our way? Is it real wealth? Is it productivity, or is it just people using the check they're getting from the government to, I don't know, spend $1,200 and then not create any of their own wealth? 


Ray [00:25:55] Well, it's bigger than that. What comes next will be a discussion on who will pay the bills and what the new system should be like. And we will have a restructuring. But there are four ways you can have a restructuring. And those ways are that you can cut your expenses, but that doesn't work, you know, if you have a debt restructuring. The second way is that you can transfer wealth. The third way is that you can print money, and I won't get into the fourth way. But just for an interest of time. 


Kinsey [00:26:41] OK. 


Ray [00:26:41] So I would say that what you will see is a transfer of wealth and a printing money combination, and then we'll get past it. We'll either get past it the difficult way or the easy way. The difficult way is we fight each other until there's some winner and there's a bloody mess of a situation. Or we will get past it because we can work well and we can work it out. And we will come back to believe that we have a system that is a fair and productive system. We'll have a new beginning. And it won't take many years to do that. And we'll have a new beginning in which we are in it together, and we will be productive and so on. Now, where that will leave the United States or China or other countries will depend on how well they do it. 


Kinsey [00:27:37] OK. And in the process of this restructuring happening, this combination strategy of a transfer of wealth, a printing of money, the creation of a possible new world order. You've said that you expect the U.S. corporate losses to climb to $4 trillion. Is that still what you believe? 


Ray [00:27:55] Yeah, but that won't matter much because the government will give those [indistinct] had the losses. I mean, I'm sounding very big picture. It'll matter —


Kinsey [00:28:07] We like big picture. 


Ray [00:28:08] It will matter different to somebody. There'll be some beneficiaries and there'll be somebody who won't be. 


Kinsey [00:28:16] OK. 


Ray [00:28:16] I'm talking about those kinds of things which mean then the accounting part of it will not be as much a problem. So then what now happens is, can you get back to work and produce things? OK. And if you get back to work and produce things with that new adjustment, OK, that's good. Now, human creativity will be the greatest force. Inventiveness. You will see inventiveness of how do we deal with the coronavirus. 


Ray [00:28:46] You'll see little entrepreneurs come up with clever ideas—whatever the need is. You'll see human creativity and potential come and create a great adaptation and you'll see a new world that'll come from that, that will flourish with that creativity and so on—if people can work well together. 


Kinsey [00:29:07] Is it your view that human creativity, that entrepreneurial spirit that waits for us on the other side of this economic downturn, isn't more important than, say, the stock losses that the [indistinct] are going to sustain? 


Ray [00:29:23] Far more important. If you go to the piece I write there, that's on LinkedIn, there's a chart that shows output per man-hour starting 500 years ago. And you look at that and it looks pretty much like a straight line. It has very little wiggles in it. And then it goes up and it goes in a straight line. It's always inclining. And then what I do is I zone in on the worst bump. So I took the Great Depression, for example. You can't even see it on the chart that I show. 


Ray [00:30:01] But when you look at it, that's the Great Depression. Now you have this debt problem, and you have the things I'm describing, and the fighting over wealth and power. But you get past it. They last typically like 15 years, roughly. A financial crisis, fighting over it, lasts something like 15 years. And then what happens is you get past it and that giant thing to us—because when we're going through it, it's giant—is very small in relation to that other human inventiveness and creativity, adaptation force, because it doesn't even show up on the chart. 


Kinsey [00:30:42] OK. I kind of like thinking about that as our last big thought here, that there is something larger at play than just what the stock tickers are telling us today. So with that, I could keep you here talking [laughs] for hours, but I know you probably have a manifesto or something to write. 


Kinsey [00:30:59] So, we're going to quickly take out our Business Casual wheel and do a couple of quick rapid-fire questions and have a little bit of fun. So, we're remote, so I'm going to show you here that I'm spinning the wheel, and it landed on—call me crazy. So, Ray, when's a time in your life—and I have an inkling there might be more than one time in your life—that you were in the minority. You held an opinion that was considered a hot take and the people around you called you crazy. 


Ray [00:31:30] Most of the time. [Kinsey laughs] I mean, most of the time, I think. I think the thing about it is an independent thinker, most of the time, and less so now that I'm more successful, but still. I mean, like a lot of things I'm saying on this is considered pretty crazy. But most of the time I think it's the nature of the beast. How do you become an independent thinker and say things that are controversial? And also could be wrong. At the same time, you have to test it. The beauty of testing it is put your money where your mouth is and make a bet and get a track record. Because how do you tell the crazy ones from the practical ones? It's not easy. The proof is in the pudding. 


Kinsey [00:32:29] OK. All right. We're going to take another spin around the wheel and it's going to land on—oh, shit. So when's a moment in your career that made you say, oh, shit, either in a good way that you realized everything was going to change for the better? Or in a bad way, when you maybe realized you messed up? 


Ray [00:32:45] Well, gee, I mean, I just could list so many cases. The most recent oh, shit moment is, oh shit, I did not understand the pandemic and did not get out of the way of the pandemic, and oh, shit. OK. That that would be a reason why. 


Kinsey [00:33:06] From an investment perspective? 


Ray [00:33:08] Yeah, but, oh, shit—that's not a big one. That's not my biggest. My biggest is, oh, shit, I hope we don't do this badly. If I'm going on too long, tell me to shut up and I'll go to something else. 


Kinsey [00:33:27] Go ahead. 


Ray [00:33:27] OK. I think there are three basic stages in life for the most part. The first time is when you're learning and you're dependent on others. You go to school and so on. Second phase in your life is that you're working and others are dependent on you. And it's a very different phase of life, totally different in so many different ways. And then you leave that phase of life and, so like in my phase of life, and you learn some things and you know naturally that you want others to be successful without you. That is honestly most important to me. 


Kinsey [00:34:08] OK. 


Ray [00:34:09] And so when I'm at this phase of life, why are we doing this interview? What is in it for me? What I'm trying to do is pass along things that I think would be helpful to others. And so when I deal with, oh, shit, it's like, I could stub my toe, I can get hurt a lot. That's just life. It's OK. But when I deal with the real oh, shit—the real oh, shit, is OK—you all, and my family, and all of those, how will they be with each other? Will it be OK? That's my big oh, shit. 


Kinsey [00:34:43] I like that. That's, I think, maybe one of the more existential answers to that question that we've gotten. But I appreciate the honesty. We'll take one last spin around the wheel and call it a day. And it landed on oh, shit again.


Ray [00:34:56] It means a double oh, shit on that one. [Kinsey laughs] OK?


Kinsey [00:34:59] And believe it or not, I just hit the wheel again and it landed on it again. 


Ray [00:35:01] OK. So do you get the message? Do you get the message from up there? [indistinct talking by Kinsey] Oh, shit about that. 


Kinsey [00:35:08] We'll call it at that one. I think it's just fate telling us that oh, shit matters. Ray, thank you so much for coming on Business Casual. I cannot thank you enough for taking the time and explaining so much about the world around us. To me, I feel like I learned a lot. And I'm just very grateful. 


Ray [00:35:26] And I'm grateful for the conversation too. Thank you. Good luck to all your listeners. 


Kinsey [00:35:30] Thank you. 


Kinsey [00:35:38] Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Business Casual with the legendary Ray Dalio. Ray raised some interesting questions about the legacies we leave behind, both personally and professionally. I'd love to hear what kind of legacy you'd like to establish. Got some thoughts? Want to talk about them? Email me at Kinsey@morningbrew.com. That's k i n s e y at morningbrew.com. And let's see what you've got to say. 


Kinsey [00:36:03] See you next time.