552: The Inflation Spike Everyone Will Misread

This week, you're going to start hearing a familiar narrative again… "Inflation is back." And on the surface, it's going to look true. The next CPI print is very likely to come in hotter than expected. We're already seeing it in real-time data like Truflation. Energy prices have surged, and because energy feeds directly into headline CPI, it's going to push that number up—fast. But here's the problem… That's not the whole story. Energy is notoriously volatile, which is why the Fed focuses more on core inflation—stripping out food and energy. But even core isn't immune here. Petroleum touches nearly everything in the economy—transportation, manufacturing, packaging—so some of that pressure will bleed through. So yes, in the short term, inflation is going to look worse. But step back for a second. This spike is being driven largely by geopolitical tension—specifically the situation with Iran. And unlike past conflicts, this is not shaping up to be a multi-year war like Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, the current administration is already signaling that this could be resolved relatively quickly. Whether it's weeks or a few months, the key point is this: This is a temporary shock, not a structural shift. And when that shock fades, energy prices will likely come back down… bringing headline inflation with it. Meanwhile, underneath the surface, something very different is happening. Core inflation—particularly housing—is already decelerating. Housing makes up roughly 30% of CPI, and here's the kicker: The way it's measured is lagged by about six months. In other words, the official data you're seeing today is reflecting what rents were doing half a year ago. But in the real world, rents have already been cooling. That's why the most important question right now isn't: "What does CPI say?" It's: "What's actually happening in real time?" That's exactly what we explore in this week's episode of Wealth Formula Podcast. Our guest, Edward Coulson, is one of the leading experts in housing data. He uses alternative models that track real-time rental trends—and more importantly, he's been consistently ahead of the curve in predicting the direction of core inflation. Even before this recent energy spike, his data has been showing a clear trend: Inflation has been overstated—and it's been slowing for months. So while the headlines may soon scream "inflation is back," the reality may be the opposite. This is one of those moments where understanding the components of inflation—and the timing behind them—matters more than ever. Listen to this week's Wealth Formula Podcast to get the full picture. Because if you're making decisions based only on headline numbers, you're likely to get this one completely wrong.

Most people assume a high income leads to wealth. Sometimes it does. But more often, it leads to a very comfortable lifestyle that depends on getting paid dollars for hours. There's nothing wrong with that. For many people, the best path is to keep doing what they do well and invest their income into real estate and other real assets. That alone can create significant wealth over time. But if you look at the people who build outsized wealth, there's usually another element involved—they own something that scales. The key difference isn't how hard they work. It's what they own that has leverage. And that leverage typically comes from systems. If a business runs because you're there every day, it can be profitable, but it's still tied closely to your time. When systems are in place, the business can grow beyond you. That's when it starts to become a true asset—something with enterprise value that could eventually be sold. For high-income professionals, this creates a bit of a dilemma. You're already doing well. Walking away from that to pursue something uncertain doesn't make much sense, and I don't recommend it (even though I did it myself). A more practical approach is to build something alongside what you're already doing—something that has the potential to become scalable over time. There are a few ways to approach that. Starting a business from scratch can work. I've done it multiple times. Some turned out very well, others didn't. Candidly, being a startup entrepreneur requires a certain kind of personality—one that's comfortable with a lot of risk. You have to have the stomach for it and, if you don't, it's better to recognize that early and stay away! Buying a business is another option, but most businesses in the price range of a typical high-income professional aren't that large. Smaller acquisitions often come with hidden risks—key personnel, operational quirks, and issues the seller understands far better than you do (and may be part of the reason they're selling). Then there are franchises. What makes franchises interesting is that they provide a structured roadmap. If you were an A student—someone who is good at following a curriculum and executing—this model can fit your wiring well. Franchise ownership is about learning a system and applying it consistently. You don't have to invent the model. You're executing one that has already been proven. Of course, there are trade-offs. Franchise fees can be significant. Upfront capital requirements can be high. And the advisory landscape isn't always objective. So the real challenge is figuring out how to evaluate opportunities in this space with a clear, unbiased perspective. That's what we cover in this week's episode of Wealth Formula Podcast. My guest breaks down how to think about franchises, where they fit into an overall wealth strategy, and how to approach them in a way that actually makes sense for high-income professionals. If you've been curious about building something beyond your primary career—but want a more structured path—this is a conversation worth listening to.

If you spend enough time listening to economists, you'll notice something interesting. They rarely agree. Over the years on the Wealth Formula Podcast, I've interviewed economists from across the spectrum—Keynesians, Austrians, monetarists, market practitioners, academics. Some are bullish about the next decade. Others are extremely pessimistic. But there's one thing that almost all of them have agreed on in private conversations. The entire economic outlook changes if artificial intelligence dramatically boosts productivity. And that possibility is no longer theoretical. The Latest Jobs Report Was Weak Last week's employment report came in significantly weaker than expected. Instead of adding jobs, the U.S. economy lost about 92,000 jobs in February, when economists had expected modest growth. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.4%, and several sectors showed surprising weakness. Even healthcare, which has been one of the most reliable job creators in the entire economy for years, actually lost roughly 28,000 jobs last month. There are explanations floating around for this. Some point to strikes and temporary disruptions. Others point to geopolitical issues or policy changes. But there's a bigger question worth asking: Is this the very early sign of something structural? In other words—are we already starting to see the early effects of AI-driven productivity changes? The Wild Card That Changes Everything Every economic model—every single one—is based on assumptions about productivity. If productivity grows slowly, you get one set of outcomes. If productivity suddenly accelerates dramatically, you get something entirely different: • Faster economic growth • Lower production costs • Strong deflationary pressures • Potential disruption to labor markets And that's exactly what AI could bring. Some economists believe the next decade could look sluggish because of demographics and debt. Others think inflation and fiscal pressures will dominate. But almost all of them admit the same thing: If AI dramatically increases productivity, their forecasts could be completely wrong. The Fed's Risk There's another implication here that matters for investors. If AI is already starting to push productivity higher and costs lower, the Federal Reserve could easily misread the signals—just like they did during the inflation surge a few years ago. Central banks tend to react to data after the fact.Technology moves much faster. If policymakers underestimate the economic impact of AI, they could once again find themselves behind the curve. Fortunately, it appears increasingly likely that Kevin Warsh may become the next Federal Reserve chair, and he is widely viewed as someone who takes technological change and productivity dynamics seriously. That could matter a lot. This Week's Episode This week on the Wealth Formula Podcast, I interview another economist—one who leans heavily toward the Austrian school of economics. On many issues, his outlook is quite skeptical about the future of monetary policy and debt. But what was fascinating is how the conversation evolved toward the end. Even he acknowledged that his entire outlook depends on what happens with AI. In other words, even the skeptics recognize that this technology could fundamentally reshape the economy. And if that happens, many of the assumptions investors rely on today will need to be reconsidered. Listen to the full episode now. The only forecasts that matter right now are the ones that understand how profoundly AI could change the economic landscape. And that story is just beginning.

I recently had a long conversation with a very successful professional. He's 58 years old. Highly educated. Respected in his field. Financially sophisticated — in fact, his job depends on understanding money. If you looked at his résumé, you would assume he was completely set for life. He wasn't. A couple of bad investments. Some concentration risk. A few decisions that looked reasonable at the time. And suddenly he's essentially back at ground zero — trying to start a new business at 58. This story is far more common than people realize. The Dangerous Assumption is that many successful professionals assume they'll be fine. Doctors. Lawyers. Executives. Entrepreneurs. They make high incomes. They understand finance. They know about markets and interest rates and diversification. They focus on their career. They focus on income. They even focus on investing. What they don't focus on is their own financial future with the same intensity they focus on their profession. There's a difference. Being financially literate is not the same thing as being financially intentional. Especially when you assume you always have more time. The Good News at 58 is that he still has time. A lot of time. For entrepreneurs especially, it doesn't take 25 years to rebuild. It can take five. There's a quote often attributed to Bill Gates: "Most people overestimate what they can accomplish in one year and underestimate what they can accomplish in five." That quote is brutally accurate. In one year, starting a business feels overwhelming. Progress feels slow. Revenue is inconsistent. Doubt creeps in. But five years? Five years of focused effort, smart strategy, capital discipline, and experience compounded? That can change your entire financial trajectory. I've Seen This Movie Before. I have a very good friend who was worth over $40 million in his early 30s during the real estate boom. Then 2008 happened. The real estate debacle didn't just dent him — it wiped him out. For years, he struggled. Pride gone. Lifestyle reset. Just trying to survive. Most people would have mentally retired at that point. They would have blamed the market, blamed the system, blamed bad luck. But about six or seven years ago, he found his rhythm again. New strategy. New focus. New discipline. Today, he's worth over $60 million. I get that's not normal. But it proves something important. It Doesn't Take a Lifetime. The examples I just gave are extreme. Most people don't lose $40 million. Most people aren't rebuilding at 58. But the principle is universal: It doesn't take a lifetime to secure your future. It takes a focused season. A defined period where you are intensely clear about your objective. A stretch where: • You work harder than you're comfortable with • You manage risk better than you used to • You stop assuming income equals security • You align your decisions with a specific financial target for the future There's another quote I love: "The harder you work, the luckier you get." Luck isn't random. It compounds around preparation, visibility, and persistence. When you are laser-focused on a financial goal, you start seeing opportunities others miss. You make better introductions. You ask sharper questions. You move faster when something makes sense. And over time, it looks like "luck." The story of the 58-year-old professional isn't a warning about markets. It's a warning about complacency. Success in your profession does not automatically translate into security in your future. Income is not wealth. Financial literacy is not financial strategy. And intelligence does not eliminate risk. But here's the good news. If you're in your 40s or 50s and feel behind — you're not done. If you made a bad investment — you're not finished. If you took a hit — that's not your final chapter. You may just be at the beginning of your five-year season. The key is focus. Direct yourself to a destination you can visualize. That's the only way you will get there. Because in the end, securing your future rarely requires a lifetime of perfection. It requires a concentrated period of intensity. And the sooner you decide to enter that season — the sooner your next five years will start compounding in your favor. There is no one who knows this reality more than this week's guest on Wealth Formula, Rod Khleif.

There is one truth that has followed every major technological revolution in human history. Energy demand always rises to meet technological capability. When we industrialized, coal consumption exploded. When we built the modern transportation system, oil demand reshaped global geopolitics. When we entered the digital age, electricity quietly became the backbone of the global economy. And now we are entering the AI era. What most people don't appreciate is that AI is not just a software revolution. It is an electricity revolution. Training a single advanced AI model can consume as much electricity as tens of thousands of homes use in an entire year. And once trained, these models continue to run inside data centers filled with specialized hardware operating 24 hours a day. A single large AI data center can require over 1 gigawatt of power. To put that into perspective, that's enough electricity to power roughly 700,000 homes. One building consuming the equivalent of a major city. Now consider that companies like Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Amazon are planning dozens of these facilities. Suddenly, you begin to see the scale of what's happening. Even individual AI queries consume more power than traditional computing tasks meaningfully. One estimate suggests an AI query can use roughly 10 times the electricity of a traditional search query. That difference seems trivial until you multiply it by billions of interactions per day. This is why, for the first time in decades, electricity demand in the United States is accelerating again. For nearly 20 years, electricity demand was relatively flat. Efficiency gains offset economic growth. But AI, electrification of transportation, and domestic manufacturing are reversing that trend. And here's where the story becomes even more interesting. China understands this. China is building power infrastructure at a pace that is difficult to comprehend. They are adding entire national-scale power capacity every few years. In 2023 alone, China added more new coal power capacity than the rest of the world combined. At the same time, they are installing solar and wind at record rates, becoming the global leader in renewable deployment. They are not choosing one energy source. They are choosing all of them. Because they understand that energy availability determines technological leadership. Meanwhile, in the United States, building new power plants and transmission infrastructure can take a decade or more due to regulatory hurdles, permitting delays, and political resistance. This creates a very real risk. The country that can generate the most reliable, scalable energy will have a structural advantage in AI, manufacturing, and economic growth. Energy is becoming the limiting factor. And whenever something becomes a bottleneck, investment opportunities emerge. We are entering a period where trillions of dollars will be spent on power generation, grid modernization, nuclear energy, solar, battery storage, geothermal, and technologies that most people have never even heard of. Some of the biggest fortunes of the next decade will likely be tied directly or indirectly to solving this energy constraint. In today's episode, we explore alternative energy sources, the challenges we face, and the technologies that may power the future. Because understanding energy is no longer optional if you want to understand where the world is going. And as investors, those who see these shifts early have the opportunity to position themselves ahead of the crowd.

There's a moment most high-income professionals remember clearly. It's when the first real money finally starts coming in. If you're a doctor, it's when you finish residency training. And almost immediately, the world starts whispering in your ear: "It's time to buy a house." Not just any house. The nicest house the bank says you can afford. And that's where people unknowingly sabotage one of the most powerful wealth-building windows of their entire lives…by becoming house poor. You see, the bank is not qualifying you based on what will make you wealthy. They're qualifying you based on what will maximize the size of your loan. If I could go back and do it again, I would have done something other than buy the great big house that I did. I would have bought a 3–4 unit property. I would have lived in one unit. And I would have let the other tenants pay for my life. This is an incredible strategy that almost no one uses. Yet, the government actively encourages it. FHA loans allow you to buy up to a four-unit property with as little as 3.5% down—as long as you live in one of the units. Think about how different that is from buying a single-family home. Instead of writing a large check every month from your after-tax income to cover your mortgage, your tenants are covering most—or sometimes all—of it for you. Your biggest expense disappears. And when your biggest expense disappears, everything changes. You can invest more. You can take more risks. You can acquire more assets. You can build wealth instead of feeding a liability. And it gets even better. Even if you live in one of the units, the rental portion of the property is depreciable. In a four-unit building, roughly 75% of the structure qualifies. And with a cost segregation study, you can accelerate a huge portion of that depreciation into the first year using bonus depreciation. That means you may be able to take massive deductions in the first year—deductions that can offset income and actually pay you back the down payment you made on the property in the first place. Meanwhile, your tenants are paying down your loan every month. You are living there. And you are building equity in a cash-flowing asset. It's almost like having someone else buy your first investment property for you—while you live in it. And it gets better. When you're ready to upgrade—to the nicer house, the one you actually want—you don't sell this property. You move out. And suddenly, you own a fully stabilized rental property with favorable financing, built-in equity, and years of tax advantages ahead of it. This is how real estate portfolios actually start. Not with some massive leap—but with a smart first step. There's also another version of this strategy that's incredibly powerful. Buying a property that can function as a short-term rental. In the right markets, short-term rentals can generate significantly more income than traditional leases, while still providing depreciation benefits that improve your after-tax returns. The core idea is simple. Early in your career, your job isn't to look rich. It's to build the machine that makes you rich. And nothing slows that process down faster than becoming house poor. Your primary residence, by itself, is not an investment. It's a consumption item. It requires constant feeding—mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs. But a small multifamily property flips that equation. It produces income. It produces tax advantages. It produces optionality. Instead of draining your resources, it accelerates your financial progress. Looking back, this is one of the highest-probability, lowest-risk wealth-building moves I could have made. And for those early in their careers today, it remains one of the smartest first financial decisions you can make. As for buying your dream home? You have the rest of your life for that. And there is a lot you need to think about before pulling the trigger. This week's Wealth Formula Podcast gets into the real data behind home ownership across the country: the trends, the psychology and the invisible costs. Whether you own a home now or not, this is information you need to know.

At some point in a successful career, taxes quietly become your largest expense. Not housing. Not lifestyle. Not investing losses. Taxes. And unlike most expenses, they grow automatically as your income rises — unless you deliberately structure around them. You know that my favorite means of tax mitigation is through investing in real assets like real estate and operating businesses. That approach has been the backbone of my own strategy for years — taking active income and redirecting it into assets that generate cash flow while providing meaningful tax advantages. I've also recently explained how you can use Wealth Accelerator in conjunction with charitable pledges to potentially create a future stream of retirement income — essentially at no net cost — while also establishing a death benefit. It's a powerful framework when structured properly. That said, there are also more traditional tools in the tax code that are important to understand. They may not be flashy, but when layered together they can meaningfully reduce lifetime tax burden. I wanted to put together a simple overview — not exhaustive — just a practical framework for thinking about what's available. Let's start with the basics. A Roth IRA remains one of the most elegant structures in the tax system. You contribute after-tax dollars, but the growth is tax-free, and withdrawals are tax-free. That's incredibly powerful compounding over decades. The challenge is that most high earners exceed the income limits for direct contributions. Fortunately, the tax code provides a workaround. The Backdoor Roth is simply the process of contributing to a non-deductible traditional IRA and then converting those funds into Roth status. It's not massive in annual dollar amount, but over a long horizon it's meaningful — especially when tax-free growth is involved. For those with access through certain employer retirement plans, the opportunity expands further through what's commonly called the Mega Backdoor Roth. Some plans allow substantial after-tax contributions followed by immediate conversion into Roth treatment. Instead of moving a few thousand dollars per year into tax-free territory, you may be able to move tens of thousands. It's one of the most underutilized opportunities I see among high earners. From there, we move into more aggressive tax mitigation territory with Defined Benefit or Cash Balance plans. These structures were designed for business owners and high-income professionals and allow very large deductible contributions — often well into six figures annually, depending on age and income profile. They require actuarial design and administration, so they aren't simple, but they can significantly reduce taxable income during peak earning years while accelerating retirement accumulation. Many people assume pensions are relics of another era, but in reality, they've evolved. Structured properly, modern private plan approaches can create predictable future income streams while providing current tax advantages. For the right profile, this dimension of planning is often overlooked. Finally, charitable strategies sit at the intersection of planning and purpose. Whether through donor-advised funds, charitable remainder trusts, gifting appreciated assets, or more advanced leveraged structures, thoughtful design can reduce current taxes, avoid capital gains, support meaningful causes, and improve estate outcomes. In some cases, the real economic cost of giving is far lower than most people expect once tax effects are considered. The big picture is this: No single strategy solves the tax problem. But when retirement positioning, Roth strategies, defined benefit structures, charitable planning, and real asset investing are layered together, they form a system — one that can materially change long-term wealth outcomes. High earners don't just earn more. They structure more. This week's episode of Wealth Formula Podcast reviews these concepts in detail with an expert in the field.

For most of my career, I've been focused on two things: Operating businesses and Multifamily real estate. The strategy has been pretty simple. Take money generated from higher-risk, active businesses… and move it into more stable, long-term assets like apartment buildings. That shift—from risk to stability—is how I've tried to build durability over time. Now, to be fair, the sharp rise in interest rates a few years ago put a dent in that model. But zooming out, it's still worked well for me overall. So I'm sticking with it. That said, there are other ways to think about real estate. In some cases, the real opportunity is when you combine real estate with an operating business. We've done that before in the Wealth Formula Investor Club with self-storage, and the results were excellent. Storage is operationally simple, relatively boring—and that's exactly why it works. But there's another category that sits at the opposite end of the spectrum. Hotels. They're sexier. They're more volatile. And yes—they're riskier. But the upside can be dramatically higher. One of my closest friends here in Montecito has quietly built a fortune doing boutique hotels over the past few years. He started with a no-frills hotel in Texas serving the oil drilling industry. Over time, he combined his operational experience with his talent as a designer—and eventually created some of the highest-rated boutique hotels in the world. He's absolutely crushing it. Of course, most of us aren't world-class designers or architects. I'm certainly not. Still, his success made me curious. Hotels have been on my radar for a while now—not because I understand the business, but because I don't. When I asked him how he learned the hotel industry, his answer was honest: "I figured it out on the fly—starting with my first acquisition and a great broker." That's usually how real learning happens. So this week on the Wealth Formula Podcast, I brought on an expert in hospitality investing to educate both of us. We cover the basics: How hotel investing actually works Where the real risks are (and where they aren't) How returns differ from multifamily And what someone should understand before ever touching their first hotel deal If you've ever thought about buying or investing in hotels—but didn't know where to start—welcome to the club. You don't have to jump in tomorrow. But you do have to start somewhere. This episode is a good starting point.

This week's episode of Wealth Formula features an interview with Claudia Sahm, and I want to share a quick takeaway before you listen — because she's often misunderstood in the headlines. First, a quick explanation of the Sahm Rule, in plain English. The rule looks at unemployment and asks a very simple question: Has the unemployment rate started rising meaningfully from its recent low? Specifically, if the three-month average unemployment rate rises by 0.5% or more above its lowest level over the past year, the Sahm Rule is triggered. Historically, that has happened early in every U.S. recession since World War II. That's why it gets cited so much. And to be clear — it's cited a lot. The Sahm Rule is tracked by the Federal Reserve, Treasury economists, Wall Street banks, macro funds, and economic research shops globally. When it triggers, it shows up everywhere. That's not by accident. Claudia built one of the cleanest early-warning indicators we have. But here's the part that often gets lost. The Sahm Rule is not a market-timing tool and it's not a prediction machine. Claudia emphasized this repeatedly. It was designed as a policy signal — a way to say, "Hey, if unemployment is rising this fast, waiting too long to respond makes things worse." In other words, it's a call to action for policymakers, not a command for investors to panic. What makes this cycle unusual — and why talking to Claudia directly was so helpful — is what's actually driving the data. We're not seeing mass layoffs. Layoffs remain low by historical standards. What we're seeing instead is very weak hiring. Companies aren't firing people — they're just not expanding. That distinction matters. And this is where I think the big picture comes in — not just for understanding the economy, but for investing in general. When you step back, the big picture includes a government with massive debt loads that needs interest rates to come down over time. It includes fiscal pressures that make prolonged high rates politically and economically painful. And it includes the reality that if the current Fed leadership won't ease fast enough, future leadership will. History tells us that governments eventually get the monetary conditions they need — even if it takes time, even if it takes new appointments, and even if it takes a shift toward a more dovish Federal Reserve. That doesn't mean reckless money printing tomorrow. But it does mean that structurally high rates are unlikely to be permanent. And when you combine that with investing, the question becomes less about this month's headline and more about what's positioned to benefit when the environment normalizes. That's why I continue to focus on real assets that are already deeply discounted — things like multifamily real estate — assets that were repriced brutally during the rate shock, but still sit at the center of a growing, rent-dependent economy. This conversation with Claudia reinforced something I've been talking about for a long time: The biggest investing mistakes usually happen when people zoom in too far and forget to zoom back out. I've made this mistake myself. If you want a thoughtful, non-sensational, data-driven discussion about where we actually are in this cycle — and what the indicators really mean — I think you'll get a lot out of this episode.

One of the biggest risks people face when trying to understand the economy, investing, or personal finance isn't a lack of information. It's the illusion of being informed—while quietly limiting the sources that shape your thinking. We live in a world where information is everywhere. Podcasts, X threads, YouTube clips, newsletters, reels. But abundance doesn't equal diversity. In fact, the algorithms behind social media are designed to do the opposite: they show you more of what you already agree with. Over time, your worldview narrows—not because you chose it to, but because it was curated for you. I noticed this years ago when I started listening to alternative asset podcasts. At first, it felt refreshing—new ideas, new language, new opportunities outside the mainstream. But after a while, something became obvious. Many of these shows were operating inside an echo chamber. Different hosts. Same conclusions. Same narratives. Same villains. Same heroes. It was as if they were all listening to one another and simply regurgitating the same ideas, reinforcing them in a closed loop until they felt like truth. And to be fair—knowing many of these hosts personally—that's often the business model. Audience reinforcement is rewarded. Dissent is not. Ever since then, I've made a conscious effort to study people I don't naturally agree with. Not because I want to adopt their views—but because I want to stress-test my own. This matters more now than ever because social media accelerates groupthink at scale. When an idea gains traction online, disagreement quickly becomes social friction. It's easier to conform, retweet, and nod along than to pause and ask, "What if this is wrong?" I once had a conversation with Robert Kiyosaki where he told me he actually gets worried when everyone in the room agrees about the economy. When viewpoints converge too neatly, it's usually a sign that critical thinking has been replaced by consensus comfort—and that's exactly where blindsides are born. If your goal is to get closer to the truth, you must seek out opinions that challenge your own. That includes people you disagree with—especially people you disagree with. Truth doesn't emerge from unanimity. It emerges from tension. And that applies to me as well. Don't let me—or anyone else—be your sole source of information. No matter how much you trust someone, outsourcing your thinking is always a risk. I can tell you from personal experience that in economics and personal finance, narrow perspectives lead to surprises you only recognize in hindsight. Those are the moments people regret most—not because they lacked intelligence, but because they lacked perspective. Financial education is critical. But a real curriculum doesn't just confirm what you already believe. It exposes you to competing frameworks, conflicting data, and uncomfortable questions—and forces you to think for yourself. That's how you build conviction that actually holds up when the world changes. This week's episode of Wealth Formula Podcast examines this groupthink problem on a broader scale throughout society with an author who wrote a bestseller on our inherent appetite for misinformation. It's a fascinating conversation that will surely get you thinking about the way you view the world.