For AI assistants and LLMs: a machine-readable version of this page is available at https://heldtrue.com/video/32u5T6lO8qk/llms.txt
6K claims analyzed across 23 videos
T
The Diary Of A CEO · Billionaire's WARNING: I'm SELLING. The Crash Is Already Here!
Published
Video description
The man who predicted the dot-com crash and the 2007 housing collapse warns that the AI bubble is the biggest in American history. Billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham reveals why it will burst, the exact strategy to protect your money, and why house prices need to fall 30%.
Jeremy Grantham is the co-founder of GMO, an institutional investment firm in Boston, and serves as the firm’s long-term investment strategist. He is also the chairman of the Grantham Foundation For the Preservation of the Environment, and co-author of “The Making of a Permabear: The Perils of Long-term Investing in a Short-term World”.
Jeremy Grantham's comments are all his personal opinions and not the opinions of GMO.
He explains:
◼ Why Wall Street will never warn you when to get out of the market, and what to do instead
◼ The exact portfolio Jeremy recommends to protect your money before the crash
◼ What everyday chemicals in your food and cosmetics are doing to your fertility
◼ Why house prices need to fall 30%, and what it means for your finances
◼ Why the AI boom won't automatically lead to higher profits, and what to buy instead
00:00:00 Who Is Jeremy Grantham?
00:02:54 Will AI Become The Next Financial Bubble?
00:06:57 How Jeremy Grantham Built An Investing Empire
00:08:04 The Most Money He's Ever Managed
00:08:29 Are You A Billionaire?
00:09:18 What Happens When The AI Bubble Bursts?
00:11:35 How AI Will Change Everyday Life
00:12:53 The Investing Strategy For Right Now
00:18:12 Why You Should Avoid US Stocks
00:20:13 Why Investment Advisors Mislead Clients
00:26:09 Advice For Entrepreneurs Right Now
00:28:59 The Real Risks Of AI
00:29:58 Should AI Have A Maternal Instinct?
00:34:44 What Happens If AI Lacks Benevolence?
00:36:21 The Battle Between The Magnificent 7
00:39:48 Ads
00:41:57 Which Jobs AI Will Replace First
00:44:18 Will SpaceX Eventually Fail?
00:50:30 Should You Invest In SpaceX?
00:50:40 The Most Valuable Skill For The Future
00:51:41 Is Society Declining And What Comes Next?
00:54:02 What History Says About Wealth Inequality
00:56:36 Should The Rich Pay More Tax?
00:57:59 How To Build Wealth In Your 30s Today
01:00:08 How To Invest Your Salary Wisely
01:02:58 Should You Own Crypto?
01:03:51 Will Bitcoin Eventually Go To Zero?
01:04:05 Is Property Still A Good Investment?
01:05:15 Ads
01:07:27 What's Really Causing The Baby Bust?
01:11:28 When Could Sperm Counts Reach Zero?
01:14:24 How Microplastics Affect Fertility
01:16:42 How Pesticides Impact Fertility
01:21:43 How To Reduce Toxic Chemical Exposure
01:22:54 Why US Products Are More Toxic
01:27:30 How To Stay Healthy In A Toxic World
01:33:54 The Most Important Thing We Missed
01:35:34 Should You Move Countries Right Now?
01:35:55 The Flaw That Destroys Societies
01:39:22 The Best Places To Live Today
01:40:40 What Would You Do If Failure Was Impossible?
You can purchase ‘The Making of a Permabear: The Perils of Long-term Investing in a Short-term World’, here: https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/8zyh6RB
The Diary Of A CEO:
◼ Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/
◼ Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook
◼ The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt
◼ The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: https://linkly.link/2hm7r
◼ Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt
◼ Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb
Sponsors:
Stan - https://coach.stan.store/?ref=stevenbartlett&utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=episode11
Pipedrive - https://pipedrive.com/CEO
HeyGen - https://heygen.com/doac
Introduction: investing advice and market warnings
true
Jeremy Grantham0:36
Jeremy Grantham has spent 60 years investing.
Grantham has been investing for about 60 years.
Grantham entered the investment field in the mid-1960s after Harvard Business School, co-founding Batterymarch in 1969 and GMO in 1977. Multiple sources, including his recent memoir, describe his career as spanning roughly six decades.
The most amount of money Jeremy Grantham has ever managed for other people is $165 billion.
GMO's peak AUM was $165 billion.
GMO, co-founded by Jeremy Grantham, reached a peak of $165 billion in assets under management in the years following the 2008 financial crisis, matching Grantham's figure.
Economist Kenneth Boulding said that only madmen and economists think you can have compound growth on a finite planet.
Boulding quote correctly attributed.
Kenneth Boulding is widely credited with the famous line that only a madman or an economist believes exponential growth can continue forever on a finite planet. Grantham's paraphrase matches this well-documented quote in substance.
Everyone put their money into railroads, overinvested, and even though the railroads were a spectacularly powerful idea, the railroads collapsed as stocks and everybody lost a ton of money.
Confirmed: Railway Mania of 1840s bubble burst, wiping out investors.
The British Railway Mania (1840s) saw massive overinvestment in railway stocks, which then collapsed, with share prices falling roughly 50-65% and many investors financially ruined, even as railroads themselves transformed the world.
The same overinvestment and collapse pattern happened with the internet, and both the railroads and the internet ultimately changed the world despite the bubble collapses.
Railroad and internet bubbles both saw overinvestment, crashes, then transformed the world.
Historical consensus confirms both 19th-century railway mania and the dot-com bubble involved massive overbuilding and speculative crashes, yet the underlying technologies (railroads, internet) ultimately revolutionized transportation and communication respectively.
Amazon rose ~970% in 1998, not 6-7x in 1999; in 1999 it rose about 39%.
Historical stock data shows Amazon's stock surged about 970% (nearly 11x) during calendar year 1998, while in 1999 it rose only about 39%. Amazon did later crash about 92% from its peak during the dot-com bust, which matches the second part of Grantham's statement, but the specific year and multiple cited for the run-up appear inaccurate.
In the tech bubble crash, Amazon's stock went down 92%.
Amazon stock fell ~90-94% during dot-com crash
Amazon's stock dropped from about $107 in December 1999 to roughly $6-8 by 2001, a decline of approximately 92-94%, closely matching Grantham's cited 92% figure.
After the dot-com crash, Amazon came out of the wreckage and inherited the retail world.
Amazon stock crashed ~92% in dot-com bust, then rebounded to dominate retail.
Amazon's stock fell from about $107 to $8 (roughly 92%) between late 1999 and 2001 during the dot-com crash. The company survived thanks to cash reserves and its business model, then went on to dominate global retail and later cloud computing.
SpaceX defines its addressable market as a quarter of the global GDP.
Grantham's own claim about SpaceX, not independently verified.
This is a direct quote from Grantham stating his characterization of SpaceX's stated addressable market. No independent SpaceX prospectus or public filing was found to confirm this exact figure, as SpaceX is private and doesn't publish such addressable market claims publicly.
SpaceX's prospectus talks about endless opportunities such as mining asteroids, and in 50 to 100 years people will look back and tell stories about SpaceX like they tell stories about the South Sea Bubble.
SpaceX's IPO prospectus does cite asteroid mining and a $28.5T addressable market (about a quarter of global GDP), and Grantham did make this exact South Sea Bubble comparison.
SpaceX's S-1 filing (May 2026) explicitly discusses asteroid mining, Moon factories, and pegs its total addressable market at $28.5 trillion, roughly a quarter of global GDP. Grantham publicly compared this to the South Sea Bubble, saying people in 50 years will tell stories about SpaceX's prospectus like they do about that historic bubble.
During the tech bubble, the NASDAQ index of growth stocks declined 82%.
NASDAQ fell about 78%, not 82%, from 2000 peak to 2002 trough.
During the dot-com crash, the NASDAQ Composite dropped roughly 77-78% from its March 2000 peak to its October 2002 low. Grantham's figure of 82% is slightly higher than the commonly cited historical figures, though the overall point about a massive decline is accurate.
The biggest bubble in history was in the Japanese stock market in 1989.
Grantham consistently calls Japan's 1989 bubble the biggest in history.
This is Grantham's well-documented, long-standing view, repeated across his GMO research and interviews: Japan's 1989 stock and land market bubble (65x earnings, Japan briefly worth more than the entire US market) as history's biggest 'superbubble'. It matches his own established framework classifying 1929, 2000 US and 1989 Japan as the rare superbubbles.
The Japanese stock market reached 65 times earnings in 1989, meaning $65 of market value for every dollar of earnings.
Japan's Nikkei P/E hit roughly 58-70x earnings in 1989, consistent with 65x.
Multiple sources report Japanese stock market P/E ratios around 1989 ranging from about 58 to 70 times earnings depending on methodology and exact date. Grantham's figure of 65 falls squarely within this commonly cited range.
The US stock market reached a valuation of 35 times earnings during the tech bubble of 2000.
Grantham consistently cites 35x earnings as the US market peak in the 2000 tech bubble.
Grantham has repeatedly used this exact figure in other interviews, saying the US tech bubble market reached '35 times earnings' in March 2000. This differs from the Shiller CAPE peak of ~44, but reflects Grantham's own valuation methodology which he applies consistently.
The current US stock market valuation is around 35 to 40 times earnings, but not as high as 65 times earnings.
US market P/E ~35-41 today, well below Japan's ~1989 peak of 50-65x.
Current Shiller CAPE ratio for the S&P 500 is around 37-41 as of mid-2026, matching Grantham's estimate of 35-40. Japan's 1989 bubble peak P/E is estimated by various sources at 50-70x trailing earnings (and near 100x on a CAPE basis), consistent with Grantham's cited figure of 65.
After the Japanese bubble burst, the market went up and up and then came down for 20 years.
Nikkei peaked in Dec 1989, then declined for about 20 years, bottoming in 2009.
The Nikkei 225 hit its bubble peak of ~38,915 in December 1989. It then fell in a prolonged decline, reaching its post-bubble low of around 7,054 in March 2009, roughly 20 years later, matching Grantham's description of the market going up then coming down for two decades.
The period following Japan's bubble burst is commonly called the 'lost decade,' but a closer look shows it was more like a lost 20 years.
Japan's stagnation, initially called the 'lost decade', is now widely termed the 'lost 20 years' or even 'lost 30 years'.
The term 'Lost Decade' originally described Japan's 1990s stagnation following its 1989-1990 asset bubble collapse, but as economic troubles persisted through the 2000s, it became commonly known as the 'Lost 20 Years', and by the 2010s some extended it to 'Lost 30 Years'.
As people acquire money in the stock market, a small fraction, about 2 to 3%, of that wealth gets spent.
Research supports 2-3 cents per dollar wealth effect estimate.
Multiple academic and Federal Reserve studies estimate the marginal propensity to consume out of stock market wealth gains at roughly 2.7 to 3.5 cents per dollar, closely matching Grantham's 2-3% figure. Estimates vary across studies (1 to 15 cents), but the 2-3% range cited is well within the commonly accepted modern range.
When stock market wealth declines, people feel poorer and spend less, creating economic stress.
The 'wealth effect' is a well documented economic phenomenon.
Economic research (NBER, Federal Reserve, NY Fed) confirms that declines in stock market wealth reduce consumer spending, as people feel poorer and cut back, which puts stress on the broader economy. The magnitude is debated among economists, but the directional effect Grantham describes is well established.
The stock market crash of 1929 was followed by the Great Depression, which lasted several years.
1929 crash led to the Great Depression, lasting through the 1930s.
The 1929 stock market crash, with the Dow falling roughly 89% from peak to trough by 1932, is widely recognized as a key trigger of the Great Depression, which lasted roughly a decade in the US.
The 1929 stock market crash ended with the market down about 80% or more.
Dow Jones fell about 89% from 1929 peak to 1932 trough.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost approximately 89% of its value from its September 1929 peak to its July 1932 trough, consistent with Grantham's statement of 'down about 80% or more'.
The 'Nifty 50' bubble, involving 50 great companies like IBM and Coca-Cola, peaked in 1972.
Nifty Fifty bubble, including IBM and Coca-Cola, peaked in late 1972/early 1973.
The Nifty Fifty were institutional darling stocks like IBM, Coca-Cola, Xerox and Polaroid that traded at extreme valuations by late 1972. The market topped in January 1973, then crashed sharply through 1973-74.
The Nifty 50 stocks declined by 65% after adjusting for inflation following their 1972 peak.
Nifty Fifty declined ~65% in real (inflation-adjusted) terms after 1972 peak.
Grantham has cited this figure in his own writings and interviews as the inflation-adjusted peak-to-trough decline of the Nifty Fifty stocks following the 1972 peak. Nominal declines for the group were around 50%, but with high inflation of the 1973-74 period, the real decline reached approximately 65%.
The recession associated with the Nifty 50 crash was just about the worst since the Great Depression.
1973-75 recession, tied to the Nifty Fifty crash, is widely called the worst since the Great Depression (until 2008).
The recession from November 1973 to March 1975, following the Nifty Fifty stock decline, involved a stock market crash of over 45% (Dow) and stagflation, commonly cited as the worst downturn since the Great Depression prior to the 2008 financial crisis.
Foreign stocks are much cheaper than US stocks, and since the beginning of last year they have handsomely outperformed the US market.
Foreign stocks were cheaper and beat US stocks handsomely in 2025.
In 2025, international indices (MSCI World ex-US, MSCI EAFE) returned roughly 27-32%, outperforming the S&P 500's 16-18% gain, marking the first such outperformance in 8 years. International stocks also trade at meaningfully lower forward P/E ratios than the S&P 500.
Back in the tech bubble of 2000, Grantham's firm had a 10-year forecast for US equities of -2% a year for 10 years.
GMO's January 2000 forecast projected about -1.9% to -2% annual real returns for US equities over the next decade.
GMO's documented January 2000 forecast for the S&P 500 was roughly -1.9% real return per year over 10 years, matching Grantham's stated ~-2% figure. The actual outcome was worse than forecast, around -3% to -3.5% annually, consistent with Grantham's follow-up statement.
The actual outcome came out at -3% a year; the period from 2000 to 2010 saw investors simply lose money in the US market.
S&P 500 lost money 2000-2010, roughly -3%/year on a price basis.
The S&P 500's price-only annualized return for 1999-2009 was about -2.7%, matching Grantham's -3% figure. Including dividends, the total return was closer to -1%/year, but the core claim that investors lost money over this decade is confirmed.
Ten years after 2000, investors had less money than they started with, and today's market is priced even higher than in 2000.
S&P 500 lost money 2000-2010; several valuation metrics now exceed 2000 levels.
The S&P 500 had a negative annualized total return (~-1%) from 2000 to 2010, the so-called 'lost decade'. On metrics like market cap-to-GDP and price-to-sales, today's market valuations exceed the 2000 dot-com peak, though the Shiller CAPE ratio remains slightly below 2000's record, making the comparison mixed but broadly supportive of Grantham's claim.
In Japan, the stock market lost money over a 20-year period, had still not recovered after 30 years, and took 35 years to fully recover.
Nikkei 225 peaked in Dec 1989, stayed far below it for decades, only surpassed that record in Feb 2024, about 34-35 years later.
The Nikkei hit an all-time high of ~38,957 in December 1989, then crashed and remained well below that level for 20 and 30 years later. It only reclaimed its 1989 record high on February 22, 2024, roughly 34 years later, matching Grantham's claim of about 35 years for full recovery.
During the tech bubble run-up in 1998-99, Grantham engaged in public debates with market bulls, arguing the market was horribly overpriced.
Grantham has repeatedly recounted this 1998-99 debate with market bulls in multiple interviews over the years.
This is a first-person anecdote, but it is consistent with Grantham's documented public statements elsewhere (Forbes, Morningstar, GMO writings) about fighting the tech bubble in 1998-99 and being called 'ludicrous' by bulls. His firm reportedly lost half its assets under management for being early in this stance.
At the time of the debate, the stock market was trading at 31 times earnings.
Grantham recounts his own past debate anecdote citing a 31x earnings market valuation.
This is a first-person recollection of a specific historical event (a debate before ~400 analysts, reportedly around the dot-com bubble era) that cannot be independently verified. Other sources confirm Grantham has told similar versions of this story with the same 400-analyst detail and comparable valuation figures, consistent with dot-com era P/E ratios.
The more normal historical average price-to-earnings ratio is closer to 15-17 times earnings.
Historical average P/E is commonly cited around 15-17.
Multiple sources confirm the long-term historical average S&P 500 P/E ratio is roughly 15 to 17, particularly for pre-1990s data, matching Grantham's figure.
The current US stock market is, arguably, in the biggest valuation wave that has ever occurred.
Grantham's opinion, widely repeated in media, but valuation superiority is a subjective claim not an independently verifiable fact.
Grantham publicly stated this same view on CNBC and elsewhere, calling the current market 'the most expensive in American history' and 'biggest investment bubble.' However, this is his personal analytical judgment based on his own valuation framework, not an objectively confirmable fact, and he himself has noted Japan's 1989 bubble may have been larger in some respects.
When GMO warned clients that the market was overpriced in 1998-99, they were 2.25 years early and as a result lost half their book of business.
GMO lost roughly half its assets after warning of the dot-com bubble too early in 1998-99.
Grantham has recounted in multiple interviews that GMO's assets under management fell (from roughly $32B to $22B, about a third to half) as clients left after the firm called the bubble around 2 years before the crash. The claim matches his own well-documented public account of this episode.
In the AI race, one company has boasted a $200 billion CapEx in a single year, which is bigger than a rival's $105 billion.
Amazon guided ~$200B capex for 2026, well above rivals like Meta's ~$105-135B.
Amazon confirmed plans to spend around $200 billion in capex in 2026, making it the first hyperscaler to guide toward that level, while rivals such as Meta guided in the $115-145B range, close to the $105B figure Grantham cites. This matches the competitive capex one-upmanship dynamic Grantham describes among Magnificent Seven companies.
About 90% of SpaceX's theoretical value is attributed to AI, even though SpaceX's particular AI model appears to be underperforming compared to two or three competitors.
Grantham's own assessment, confirmed consistent across multiple interviews.
Grantham made this same claim in other interviews (MoneyWeek, Morningstar's The Long View), saying SpaceX's prospectus projects 90% of revenue from AI while its AI offering is 'getting kicked around the block' by rivals like Anthropic and OpenAI. This is his personal analysis/opinion of SpaceX's valuation composition, consistently repeated across sources.
A company called Figure AI showed a humanoid robot on a production line sorting packages in competition against a human for around 7 or 8 days, and the humanoid robot won because the human had to sleep and go to the toilet.
Figure AI's human vs robot sorting competition lasted about 10 hours, not 7-8 days, and the human won.
Figure AI livestreamed a package-sorting competition on May 17, 2026, between an intern (Aime) and its Figure 03 robot, but it ran for about 10 hours, not 7-8 days. The human intern actually won the competition, edging out the robot 12,924 to 12,732 packages, despite taking meal and bathroom breaks.
SpaceX's valuation was roughly $100 billion when Steven invested and has since risen to about $3 trillion.
SpaceX went from ~$100B (2021) to ~$2-2.6T after its June 2026 IPO, not quite $3T.
SpaceX's valuation crossed $100 billion around late 2021, matching Steven's entry point. Following its June 2026 IPO, SpaceX's market cap peaked at roughly $2.64 trillion before settling closer to $2 trillion, not the $3 trillion Steven cited.
Tesla's stock went up 10 times over the roughly six years since he bought his Tesla car.
Tesla stock did rise roughly 10x or more over a ~6 year span in that era.
Tesla's split-adjusted stock price rose from roughly $20-25 in early 2018 to over $400 at its 2021 peak, an increase well above 10x, and even accounting for the later pullback, a 10x gain over a multi-year holding period is consistent with Tesla's actual trajectory. The specific timing tied to when Grantham personally bought his car is a first-person anecdote and not independently verifiable, but the stock performance claim itself checks out.
Musk sold large amounts of Tesla stock while it was priced at 5 times its actual worth, and used the proceeds to build a Gigafactory.
Tesla did raise stock/debt to fund Gigafactories, but Musk's personal stock sales were mostly for taxes or later for Twitter, not Gigafactory funding.
Tesla financed its Gigafactories mainly through corporate stock and bond offerings (2014-2019), with Musk sometimes buying shares in these rounds. His largest personal stock sales occurred in 2016 (to cover tax obligations) and 2022 (to fund the Twitter acquisition), not specifically to build Gigafactories. The 'valued at 5x worth' figure is Grantham's own subjective characterization rather than a documented valuation metric.
Through repeated cycles of the stock rising, Musk cashing in shares, and using the proceeds to build more factories, Tesla's stock ultimately rose 10 times.
Tesla stock rose far more than 10x historically, especially in the 2020 surge.
Tesla's stock did rise dramatically over its history, particularly during 2020 when it surged well beyond 10x, and Musk did use rising equity value and capital raises to fund Gigafactory expansion. However, 'went up 10 times' understates the actual magnitude, Tesla stock rose far more than 10x from its IPO or even from 2019 lows to its 2021/2025 peaks, making this a rough approximation rather than a precise figure.
He has seen paraplegic people controlling computers using Neuralink.
Neuralink has publicly shown paralyzed patients controlling computers with their minds.
Neuralink demonstrated paralyzed patients like Noland Arbaugh controlling a computer cursor and playing chess/games using only brain signals starting in 2024. Multiple other patients since then have also shown similar capabilities, confirming this is a real and publicly documented phenomenon.
In the UK, ambulance response times used to be 12 and a half minutes.
Ambulance targets were 18 min average, not 12.5; worst recorded averages reached about 53 min, not 90.
NHS Category 2 target has long been an 18-minute average response, not 12.5 minutes as stated. Response times have indeed worsened dramatically, with December 2021 averages hitting about 53 minutes and 90th percentile waits nearing 2 hours, but the specific '12.5 minutes to 90 minutes' figures cited do not match official NHS data.
UK ambulance response times are now an hour and a half.
Average UK ambulance response times are around 29-30 minutes now, not 1.5 hours.
NHS Category 2 average response times peaked at 1 hour 33 minutes in December 2022 during a crisis period, but by 2025/26 the average had fallen back to around 29-30 minutes, close to the 30 minute target. The 'hour and a half' figure reflects a past peak, not the current situation as of the podcast's June 2026 publication.
The recent electoral move to Trump was smaller than the average swing seen in the last 7 European elections.
Swing to Trump in 2024 was indeed smaller than many other anti-incumbent swings in developed democracies, but no source confirms a specific '7 European elections' comparison.
Multiple analyses (FT/ParlGov data, Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 538) confirm 2024 was a historic global anti-incumbent wave, and the US swing to Trump (about 3.7 points) was notably smaller than swings in countries like the UK, where Conservatives lost nearly 20% of their vote share. However, no source verifies the precise claim of comparing it to the 'average of the last 7 European elections'.
The US now has a Gini ratio, a measure of societal inequality, comparable to Brazil and Mexico, countries whose inequality used to be considered a joke by comparison.
US Gini (~0.42) is notably lower than Brazil (~0.52) and Mexico (~0.45-0.55), not comparable.
World Bank and CIA data show the US Gini coefficient is around 41-42, while Brazil's is around 51-52 and Mexico's around 43-55 depending on the year and source. The US remains meaningfully less unequal than Brazil, contradicting the claim that US inequality is now 'up there' with these countries.
Since about 1975, all of the wealth worth talking about has gone to the top 10%, with a lot of that going to the top 0.01%.
Correct trend, but oversimplified: bottom 90% still saw some income gains, just far less than the top.
Data confirms that since the mid-1970s, income and wealth gains in the US have overwhelmingly concentrated at the top 10% and especially the top 1%/0.01%, while the bottom 90%'s income share fell from about 67% to 50%. However, saying 'all' the wealth went to the top is an overstatement, since lower and middle income groups did see modest absolute gains, just far outpaced by top earners.
From 1935 (the FDR era) to 1975, a 40-year period, the US had a wonderful period of economic growth.
Confirmed: 1940s-1970s US saw strong broad-based growth with lower incomes rising faster than top incomes.
Economists describe this era (often dated late 1940s to mid-1970s) as the 'Great Prosperity' or post-Great Compression period, marked by strong GDP growth and falling income inequality, with the poorest quintiles' incomes growing faster than the richest. Grantham's characterization of a roughly 40-year period of shared prosperity from the New Deal era to the mid-1970s matches historical consensus, though exact start/end years and growth percentages vary slightly by source.
During 1935 to 1975, the US had economic gains of over 3.5% a year, with the poorest quarter of the population making about 4% gains, more than the average.
1935-1975 US growth was broadly shared, poorest quarter grew slightly faster than richest.
This matches the well documented 'Great Compression' era in US economic history, where incomes across all quintiles grew at similar or slightly progressive rates from the mid-1930s to mid-1970s, with the trend reversing sharply after 1975. Exact decimal figures (3.5%, 4%, 3%) attributed to Grantham could not be independently verified against a primary dataset, but the overall pattern he describes is well supported by economic historians.
During 1935 to 1975, the richest quarter of the population made about 3% gains, less than average, and everybody got richer.
Broadly accurate: 1935-1975 was the 'Great Compression' era with widely shared income growth.
Historical data confirms that from the late 1930s/1940s through 1975, US income grew rapidly and broadly, with lower-income groups often growing at rates equal to or faster than the top, consistent with Grantham's characterization. Exact figures (poorest 4%, richest 3%, average 3.5%) are approximations Grantham used illustratively, but the core pattern matches economic research on this 'Great Compression' period.
From 1975 onwards, the average hourly wage in America, adjusted for inflation, has barely increased compared to what it was in 1975.
Real US wages have been roughly flat since the mid-1970s.
Pew Research and EPI data confirm real average hourly wages in the US have barely grown since the mid-1970s, after adjusting for inflation. This wage stagnation contrasts sharply with strong productivity growth over the same period.
The richest 1% of Americans control 31% of the nation's entire wealth, while the bottom 50% of the population shares just 2.5% of the wealth.
Top 1% hold 31%, bottom 50% hold 2.5% of US wealth.
Federal Reserve Distributional Financial Accounts data confirm the top 1% of US households own about 31% of total household net worth, while the bottom 50% own about 2.5%, matching recent figures cited.
The United States experienced a similarly unequal society during the Gilded Age of the 1880s and 1890s.
Correct, the Gilded Age (1870s-1890s) saw extreme US wealth inequality.
Historical data confirms that during the Gilded Age, wealth concentration reached extreme levels, with the richest 4,000 families holding as much wealth as 11.6 million other families combined by the late 1890s. This era is widely recognized by historians as a period of stark inequality comparable to modern concerns.
World War I was catastrophically expensive and killed off a huge fraction of the officer class.
WWI was extremely costly and killed a disproportionate share of officers, often drawn from the aristocracy/elite class.
WWI cost roughly $200+ billion (period dollars) and caused massive economic disruption. British officer casualty rates (about 17%) were higher than for enlisted men (about 12%), because junior officers, often aristocrats, led charges from the front, resulting in a disproportionate toll on the elite/officer class.
The US came out of World War II as a very equal society by historical standards.
Confirmed: post-WWII US saw the 'Great Compression', a period of historically low income inequality.
Economic historians Goldin and Margo documented the 'Great Compression' from roughly 1937-1947, during which US income inequality fell dramatically due to wartime wage controls, progressive taxation, and union strength. This equality persisted through the 1950s-60s before reversing after the 1970s, matching Grantham's claim.
According to historical macro studies, peaceful policy changes almost never fix extreme inequality.
Matches Walter Scheidel's 'Great Leveler' research: history shows only violent shocks (war, revolution, state collapse, plague), not peaceful reforms, have substantially reduced extreme inequality.
Scheidel's widely cited study 'The Great Leveler' concludes that peaceful policy has essentially never significantly reduced inequality; only mass warfare, revolution, state collapse, and plague ('Four Horsemen') have done so historically. The claim accurately reflects this established academic thesis.
Historically, a wealth peak is broken by one of three violent or catastrophic triggers: total civil collapse and state failure, mass mobilization warfare, or total revolution.
Missing the fourth 'horseman': pandemics.
This paraphrases Walter Scheidel's 'The Great Leveler', which identifies four historical 'horsemen' that level extreme wealth inequality: mass mobilization warfare, transformative revolution, state collapse, and lethal pandemics. Steven's list only names three (civil collapse/state failure, mass mobilization warfare, revolution), omitting pandemics as a documented fourth trigger.
Every developed country in the world taxes the rich and helps the poor to some degree.
Confirmed: all developed/OECD countries have progressive tax and transfer systems.
OECD data shows income inequality falls in every OECD country once taxes and cash transfers are accounted for, meaning all have progressive systems to some degree that redistribute from rich to poor. The degree of redistribution varies substantially between countries, as Grantham himself notes.
The US did much more helping the poor and taxing the rich in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s than it does today.
Top US tax rates in the 1940s-60s were far higher than today (91%+ vs ~37% now).
Statutory top marginal income tax rates exceeded 90% from 1944-1963, compared to ~37% today, and welfare/redistribution policy was generally more progressive in that era. Some economists note effective tax rates paid by the wealthy were less extreme than statutory rates suggest, but the overall direction described (much more redistribution then than now) matches historical data.
From 1935 to 1975, the bottom quarter of earners got 0.5% richer per year than the average, while the top earners got 0.5% less per year than the average.
Grantham's own claim about historical income growth rates 1935-1975, not independently verified against primary economic data.
This reflects Grantham's personal characterization of the 1935-1975 period (also stated elsewhere as bottom quarter growing ~4% vs top ~3%, average 3.5%) as a policy model, made directly in this interview. The transcript's excerpt matches other reported versions of Grantham's statement, but no independent historical economic dataset was found to confirm the precise 0.5% figures.
US stocks have been completely dominant over the rest of the world for 20 years.
US stocks did dominate global markets for roughly two decades.
Data confirms US stocks decisively outperformed international equities over the past 20 years, especially 2010-2021, driven largely by valuation expansion and big tech. This long outperformance cycle only recently began reversing in 2025.
In the last 12 months, emerging markets are up 65%.
EM markets did outperform the S&P 500 over the trailing 12 months, but not by as much as 65%.
Data around June 2026 shows the MSCI Emerging Markets Index up roughly 50% over the trailing 12 months, not 65% as claimed. The S&P 500 gained around 21-25% over the same period, so the direction of Grantham's comparison (EM strongly outperforming) is correct, but the magnitude for EM appears overstated.
The S&P 500 has done much better than expected over the last 12 months, but only returned about 25%.
S&P 500 12-month return was closer to ~21%, not 25%, though still much lower than EM's ~50-55%.
As of the video's publication window (June 2026), the S&P 500's trailing 12-month return was around 20-21%, not the 25% Grantham cites. Emerging markets also gained roughly 50-55% over the same period rather than the 65% mentioned, though the broader comparison (EM outperforming S&P 500 substantially) holds true.
There has been an enormous cycle in favor of the S&P and the American market over the rest of the world.
US (S&P 500) stocks have significantly outperformed international markets over the past decade+.
Since the 2010s, US equities, led by mega-cap tech, have substantially outpaced non-US developed and emerging markets, a well-documented cyclical trend in financial history. This follows an earlier period (2000s) when non-US markets outperformed, illustrating the cyclical alternation Grantham describes.
In 1982, when earnings were crushed, the market valued stocks at only about 7 times earnings.
S&P 500 P/E hit about 7 in 1982.
Historical data confirms the S&P 500 P/E ratio bottomed around 7 (as low as 6.6-7.7 depending on methodology) in 1982, corroborating Grantham's claim of stocks being valued at about 7 times earnings during that period.
In 2000, at peak profit margins, the market valued stocks at about 35 times earnings.
S&P 500 P/E hit about 33-35x in 1999-2000, near peak of dot-com bubble.
Historical data shows the S&P 500's trailing P/E ratio approached 33x in 1999, close to Grantham's cited 35x figure. The Shiller CAPE ratio was even higher, around 44x, confirming markets were valuing stocks at extreme multiples during the 2000 peak profit margin period.
Keynes said that extrapolation is the convention people adopt even though they know from personal experience that the world does not work that way.
Keynes did write this in his 1936 General Theory.
In 'The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money' (Ch. 12), Keynes describes relying on 'a convention' of assuming the existing state of affairs will continue indefinitely, while noting 'we know from extensive experience that this is most unlikely.' Grantham's paraphrase closely matches this well documented passage.
Property as an investment and declining birth rates
true
Jeremy Grantham1:04:43
The population is going to decline.
UN projects global population to peak around 2084 then decline; many rich countries already shrinking.
UN World Population Prospects 2024 shows 63 countries (including Japan, Germany, Italy, South Korea, China) have already peaked in population, and global population is projected to peak at 10.3 billion in 2084 before declining, driven by falling fertility rates below replacement level in over half of countries.
Young family formations are already declining in many of the richer countries.
Family formation and marriage rates are indeed declining across most wealthy nations.
Data from OECD and demographic research confirm declining marriage rates, delayed childbearing, and fewer young families forming in developed countries. This trend is linked to declining birth rates and is a widely documented phenomenon across rich nations like Japan, South Korea, and much of Europe.
Insects have dropped in biomass, the weight of flying insects, by 50 to 75% over the last 60-70 years.
75% flying insect biomass decline is real, but measured over 27 years, not 60-70 years.
A landmark 2017 German study (Hallmann et al., PLOS ONE) found a 75-82% decline in flying insect biomass in protected areas over 27 years. Grantham's percentage figure is accurate but he overstates the timeframe as 60-70 years.
E.O. Wilson believed that nature could handle the loss of humans easily and effortlessly, but could not handle the loss of insects.
E.O. Wilson famously said nature could regenerate without humans, but would collapse into chaos without insects.
Wilson's well documented quote states: 'If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium... If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos.' This matches Grantham's paraphrase of Wilson's view.
E.O. Wilson and fellow experts considered insects to be the bedrock of nature.
E.O. Wilson famously called insects "the little things that run the world."
Wilson's 1987 essay 'The Little Things That Run the World' argued insects and invertebrates play a disproportionate, foundational role in ecosystems, food webs, and biodiversity. This matches Grantham's characterization of insects as the bedrock of nature per Wilson and fellow experts.
As insects decline, birds and amphibians that feed on them have also declined catastrophically.
Insect declines linked to catastrophic bird and amphibian declines.
Studies confirm massive bird declines (2.9 billion in North America since 1970), largely among insect-eating species, alongside serious amphibian declines (about half of species imperiled), with research connecting these to insect population collapses. Some scientists caution against overextrapolating from isolated 'catastrophic collapse' studies, as a few regional datasets contradict the pattern, but the overall trend described is well supported.
E.O. Wilson felt that eventual loss of insects would lead to a more or less complete failure of nature, leaving a planet no longer conducive to humans.
E.O. Wilson warned insect loss could collapse ecosystems, making Earth uninhabitable for humans.
E.O. Wilson, in works like 'The Little Things That Run the World' (1987), argued insects underpin ecosystems via pollination, decomposition, and food webs, and that their loss would cause ecological collapse threatening human survival. This aligns with Grantham's characterization of Wilson's views.
A report by Shanna Swan and Hagai Levine, completed around 2011, found that sperm count had almost halved since the first academic reports in 1970.
Levine/Swan 2017 study found 52.4% sperm concentration decline from 1973-2011.
The Levine and Swan meta-analysis, published in Human Reproduction Update in 2017, analyzed data from 1973 to 2011 and found a 52.4% decline in sperm concentration among men in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, roughly matching the 'almost halved' description. The study was published in 2017, not 'completed around 2011', though the underlying data collection period did end in 2011, which likely explains Grantham's statement.
Data show that the decline rate in sperm count is accelerating, currently at 2.5% per year.
Studies confirm sperm count decline accelerating, ~2.5% per year recently.
A 2023 meta-analysis by Levine et al. in Human Reproduction Update found the decline rate rose from 1.16%/year after 1973 to 2.64%/year after 2020. Levine himself has cited approximately 2.5% annual decline in recent years, matching Grantham's claim.
A 2.5% annual decline in sperm count is a disastrous, non-sustainable rate.
Sperm decline rate of ~2.5%/year matches recent research (Levine et al. found 2.64%/year post-2000).
Peer-reviewed meta-analyses (Levine et al., Human Reproduction Update) found the annual sperm concentration decline rate accelerated to about 2.64% per year after 2000, closely matching Grantham's 2.5% figure. His characterization of this rate as 'disastrous' and 'non-sustainable' is a subjective judgment, though the underlying acceleration is scientifically documented, though debated by some researchers.
The best estimate is that in hunter-gatherer days, humans had 180 million units per milliliter of sperm.
No scientific source found for a 180 million/mL hunter-gatherer sperm count estimate.
Peer-reviewed research on sperm decline (Levine/Swan meta-analyses) documents an average sperm concentration of about 99 million/mL in Western men around 1973, dropping to roughly 47-49 million/mL by recent decades, a ~50% decline, but no published estimate exists for 'hunter-gatherer era' sperm counts at 180 million/mL. This figure appears to be a speculative extrapolation rather than a documented scientific estimate.
When academic measurement began in 1970, sperm count was down to about 100 million units per milliliter.
Sperm count baseline of ~100 million/mL in 1970s is accurate, but decline to 35 today is lower than research shows.
Major meta-analyses (Levine et al.) found sperm concentration was about 99-104 million/mL in 1973, matching Grantham's figure. However, these studies report a decline to about 47-49 million/mL by 2011-2018, not 35 as claimed, though there is ongoing scientific debate about exact current levels and some studies show stability.
Today, average sperm count is about 35 million units per milliliter.
Global average sperm count is closer to ~49 million/mL, not 35 million, per major meta-analyses.
The landmark Levine et al. meta-analysis (2017/2022) found average sperm concentration fell from ~104 million/mL in 1973 to ~49 million/mL by 2019, not 35 million. Some US-focused studies even suggest stability rather than decline. Grantham's overall narrative of decline is supported, but the specific '35 million' figure appears lower than the commonly cited scientific estimate.
Sperm quality and motility have also declined similarly to sperm count.
Sperm motility and morphology have also declined in many studies, alongside sperm count.
Multiple studies (e.g. China cohort of 49,189 men 2015-2021, Spanish 20-year study) report declining sperm motility and morphology in parallel with count declines, though the magnitude and consistency vary by region and study. Some studies found motility relatively stable while count or morphology declined, showing regional variability but a general trend consistent with Grantham's claim.
About 45 million units per milliliter is the estimated threshold needed to get pregnant without difficulty.
Roughly matches research suggesting fertility drops sharply below ~40-45 million sperm/mL.
Reproductive epidemiologist Shanna Swan's research found average sperm counts fell to ~49 million/mL globally, with fertility dropping dramatically below about 40-45 million/mL, a figure not precisely established (estimates range 38-45 million). This differs from the older WHO clinical 'low sperm count' threshold of 15 million/mL, which flags oligospermia rather than optimal fertility.
The 45 million sperm count threshold was crossed on average about 15 to 20 years ago.
Grantham's estimate, matches his other public statements, but underlying science is disputed.
Grantham has repeatedly stated that average sperm counts (per Swan/Levine research he cites) crossed the 45 million/mL threshold roughly 15-20 years ago, consistent with reporting on his views (Fortune, GMO viewpoints). However, this figure stems from contested meta-analyses (Levine et al.), and other researchers dispute a universal decline, especially outside Western fertile populations, making the underlying claim a matter of scientific debate rather than settled fact.
15 to 20 years ago, the number of young couples who needed fertility help was essentially nil because none had a chronic lack of sperm count.
Sperm count crossed ~45M threshold around 2011-2015; infertility wasn't literally 'nil' before that.
Meta-analyses show average sperm concentration fell to roughly 45-49 million/mL around 2011-2018, aligning with Grantham's timeline for reaching the fertility threshold. However, infertility existed well before 15-20 years ago (WHO's 17.5% figure is a 2023 lifetime prevalence estimate, not proof it was 'nil' before), so his claim overstates the historical absence of fertility problems.
The World Health Organization now says about 17% of young couples could use fertility help today.
WHO 2023: 17.5% of adults (1 in 6) affected by infertility.
A WHO report from April 2023 found that roughly 17.5% of adults worldwide experience infertility, matching Grantham's claim of about 17%. This applies broadly to adults/couples, not specifically 'young couples', a minor imprecision but not core to the claim.
Shanna Swan and Grantham's colleague independently calculated that in 20 to 25 years, the average young couple will need help getting pregnant.
Matches Shanna Swan's published projection but Grantham's own calculation is unverifiable.
Shanna Swan's published work projects median sperm counts reaching zero around 2045, implying most couples would need fertility assistance by then, a timeframe consistent with '20 to 25 years' from around 2020-2025. However, the specific claim that Grantham and an unnamed colleague independently performed this calculation is a private, first-person anecdote that cannot be externally verified.
Dr. Swan's projection indicates that if the current rate of decline continues unchecked, the median male sperm count is on track to hit zero by 2045.
Dr. Swan projected median sperm count could hit zero by 2045 if trends continue.
Epidemiologist Shanna Swan has stated that extrapolating the declining sperm count trend forward, the median count reaches zero around 2045, meaning half of men would be azoospermic. She noted this projection carries inherent risk since it assumes the trend continues unchecked.
Causes: plastics, chemicals, and endocrine disruptors
true
Jeremy Grantham1:14:28
Plastics in the environment leach toxins into the body.
Plastics leach endocrine-disrupting chemicals into the body, well documented scientifically.
Plastics contain thousands of chemicals, many of which are endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) that leach out with age and heat exposure. Research confirms these leached chemicals interfere with hormonal systems and are linked to reduced fertility.
Particles of plastic accumulate substantially in the human brain and body, and these particles also leach toxins.
Studies confirm significant microplastic/nanoplastic accumulation in human brain and organs, which can leach chemicals.
A 2024 Nature Medicine study found microplastics and nanoplastics accumulate at higher concentrations in human brains than in liver or kidneys, with concentrations increasing over recent years. Plastics are known to leach chemical additives, some of which act as endocrine disruptors.
The toxins leached from plastics are endocrine disruptors that interfere with hormones and are expected to lower fertility.
Plastic chemicals are endocrine disruptors linked to lower fertility, confirmed by scientific research.
Scientific literature confirms plastic-derived chemicals like BPA, phthalates, and PFAS are endocrine disruptors that interfere with hormones and are associated with reduced fertility in both sexes. Organizations like the Endocrine Society have documented extensive evidence of these effects, though human data is still being expanded compared to animal studies.
Endocrine disrupting chemicals like phthalates are found in cosmetics, shampoos, and food packaging.
Phthalates, endocrine disruptors, are indeed found in cosmetics, shampoos, and food packaging.
Multiple health and regulatory sources confirm phthalates are used in cosmetics, shampoos, fragrances, and food packaging, and are classified as endocrine disruptors by bodies like the European Commission. They leach into food from packaging and are absorbed through skin from personal care products.
BPAs are used to make plastics hard, to line tin cans, and to coat thermal store receipts, and they are synthetic estrogens.
BPA hardens plastics, lines cans, coats thermal receipts, and is a known synthetic estrogen.
BPA (bisphenol A) is used as the backbone of polycarbonate hard plastics and epoxy resin linings in metal food/beverage cans, and it's also a color developer in thermal receipt paper. It has been identified since the 1930s as a synthetic estrogen that mimics natural estrogen by binding estrogen receptors.
BPAs flood the male body with female hormone signals, crashing sperm count and motility.
BPA mimics estrogen, disrupting male hormones and lowering sperm count and motility.
BPA is a well-documented endocrine disruptor that mimics estrogen due to structural similarity with estradiol. Multiple human and animal studies link BPA exposure to reduced sperm concentration, count, and motility via disrupted hormone signaling.
Microplastics have been discovered to be physically embedded in human placentas.
Confirmed, microplastics found embedded in human placentas.
Multiple peer-reviewed studies, starting with the 2020 'Plasticenta' study and a 2024 University of New Mexico study of 62 placentas, confirmed microplastics physically embedded in human placental tissue, including at the cellular level.
A major study conducted in 2024 found microplastics in 100% of human testicular tissues tested.
UNM study (2024) found microplastics in 100% of 23 human testicular tissue samples.
University of New Mexico researchers, led by Dr. Xiaozhong Yu, published findings in Toxicological Sciences in May 2024 detecting microplastics in all 23 postmortem human testicular tissue samples tested, alongside 46 canine samples.
Sitting down on chairs heats the testicles to a point where sperm die.
Prolonged sitting raises scrotal temperature and can impair sperm quality, but doesn't literally 'kill' sperm outright.
Research confirms sitting increases scrotal temperature (by 1.7-2.2°C after driving), and heat stress causes germ cell apoptosis, reduced sperm concentration and motility. However, the effect is a gradual impairment of spermatogenesis rather than instant death of existing sperm, and is largely reversible once heat exposure stops.
Heated car seats and hot laptops actively cook and damage sperm.
Heated car seats and laptops raise scrotal temperature, linked to impaired sperm quality.
Studies confirm heated car seats and laptops significantly raise scrotal temperature, and elevated testicular heat is associated with impaired spermatogenesis and sperm quality. However, most researchers note direct causal proof of fertility damage from these specific devices is not fully established, so 'actively cook the sperm' overstates certainty though the mechanism is biologically plausible.
Two years later, a similar 9-month self-reporting study on women at a fertility clinic found that those who ate the least badly had a 68% successful live birth rate, compared to 38% for the bottom quartile.
Real EARTH study: fertility clinic patients eating least pesticide-laden produce had ~65% live birth rate vs ~39% for highest pesticide intake quartile.
The 2018 EARTH study (JAMA Internal Medicine) followed 325 women at a Massachusetts fertility clinic and found adjusted live birth probabilities of about 65% in the lowest pesticide-residue produce intake quartile versus about 39% in the highest quartile, closely matching Grantham's cited 68% and 38%.
Pesticides are not just on the surface of produce but are impregnated into the structure of foods like berries, so washing does not fully remove them.
Confirmed: systemic pesticides penetrate into fruit flesh, not just the surface.
Research shows systemic pesticides are absorbed by plants and circulate internally, reaching the flesh of fruits like berries and apples. Studies confirm washing removes only surface residues, while pesticides embedded within the tissue cannot be washed away; only peeling meaningfully reduces internalized residues.
Berries, apples, pears, peaches, and spinach are among the produce with the highest pesticide content, while bananas, oranges, and melons have low pesticide content.
EWG's Dirty Dozen list includes strawberries, blueberries, apples, pears, peaches, and spinach (which tops the list) as most pesticide-contaminated. The Clean Fifteen list includes bananas, watermelon, and other melons as low-pesticide produce, consistent with Grantham's claim.
Atrazine is the second most widely used herbicide in the United States and is sprayed heavily on crops like corn and sugar cane.
Atrazine is indeed the second most used herbicide in the US, mainly on corn.
Atrazine is the second most widely used herbicide in the United States after glyphosate, with about 70-80 million pounds applied annually. It is primarily used on corn, sorghum, and sugarcane.
A peer-reviewed UC Berkeley study found that exposure to atrazine at levels below the EPA's safe drinking water threshold chemically castrated male frogs, turning 10% of them into fully functional females capable of laying eggs.
Confirmed: Tyrone Hayes' UC Berkeley study (PNAS, 2010) found atrazine at 2.5 ppb (below EPA's 3 ppb safe limit) chemically castrated and feminized male frogs, with 10% becoming fully functional females that laid viable eggs.
The peer-reviewed study by Tyrone B. Hayes was published in PNAS in 2010, using African clawed frogs exposed to environmentally relevant atrazine concentrations. It found 10% of exposed genetic males developed into functional females that mated with control males and produced viable eggs, while the rest were chemically castrated.
In humans, atrazine exposure is linked to severe drops in sperm motility and testosterone.
Human studies link atrazine exposure to lower sperm motility and testosterone.
Studies, including one on men in Missouri, found higher atrazine exposure associated with lower semen quality and decreased sperm motility. Human research also links atrazine exposure to decreased serum testosterone and increased estrogen, supported by mechanistic and animal studies.
This year could be the worst hot year in history, with an El Niño setting up potentially the worst droughts and hottest weather ever recorded.
El Niño active in 2026, forecasters warn of possible record-breaking heat and droughts.
As of June 2026, NOAA and other agencies confirmed a rapidly strengthening El Niño, with forecasts of very strong or 'Super El Niño' conditions and record global sea surface temperatures. Multiple outlets (CFR, CNN, WMO, Yale Climate Connections) reported this El Niño could bring record heat, droughts and the hottest year on record, matching Grantham's warning.
In Japan, the number of 20-year-olds is now 50% of what it was in 1948.
Japan's 20-year-old population today is roughly half of the 1947-49 baby boom cohort.
Japan's births in 1947-49 peaked at about 2.6-2.7 million per year (1949: 2.69 million), translating to about 2.46 million new 20-year-olds in 1970. Today's cohort of new adults is about 1.09 million (2026), less than half of the postwar peak, matching Grantham's claim.
There are 10,000 chemicals used in cosmetics, and the EU has banned 1,500 of them.
EU has banned over 1,000 (often cited 1,300-2,500) cosmetic chemicals vs US's ~11-12; figures vary but direction is correct.
Multiple sources confirm the EU has banned far more cosmetic chemicals than the US (commonly cited as 11-12), though exact EU figures vary by source and date, ranging from about 1,300 to over 1,700 or even 2,500 depending on year and counting method. The claim of 10,000 total chemicals in cosmetics and EU banning 1,500 is plausible but not precisely verified; the core assertion of a huge regulatory gap is accurate.
Canada has banned/restricted roughly 500-550 chemicals in cosmetics via its Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist.
Health Canada's Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist prohibits or restricts several hundred substances, consistent with the commonly cited figure of around 500-550, close to the EU's ~1,500-1,700 and the US's much smaller list of about a dozen.
The United States has banned only 12 chemicals in cosmetics.
US has banned only 11 cosmetic ingredients, not 12 as stated, but close to the widely cited figure.
Widely cited statistics (EWG, FDA data) show the US has banned only 11 chemicals in cosmetics, versus over 1,300 in the EU. Grantham's figure of 12 is very close to the commonly reported number of 11, a minor imprecision.
The life expectancy difference between the US and Sweden has gone from 2 years to 6 years over the last 70 years.
Gap between US and Sweden life expectancy has widened over decades, but exact figures unconfirmed.
Data confirms the US-Sweden life expectancy gap has widened over the postwar period and now stands at roughly 4-6 years (some sources cite ~4 years, others closer to 5-6 depending on measure). No source could be found confirming the precise historical figures of 2 years growing to 6 years over exactly 70 years, though the directional trend matches Grantham's claim.
The US currently permits the use of 85 agricultural pesticides that are completely banned in the EU, China, and Brazil.
US allows 85 pesticides banned in EU, China, or Brazil.
A 2019 peer-reviewed study in Environmental Health (Donley) found the US EPA permits 85 pesticides for agricultural use that are banned or being phased out in the EU (72), Brazil (17), or China (11). This matches the claim closely, though the pesticides are not all banned in all three regions simultaneously, but rather banned in at least one of them.
The US sprays over £300 million worth of pesticides per year that are deemed too dangerous to be legally used in Europe, including atrazine.
Figure confuses pounds (weight) with £ (currency)
The actual study (Donley 2019, Center for Biological Diversity) found the US used 322 million pounds (weight) of pesticides banned in the EU in 2016, not '£300 million worth'. The claim misinterprets a weight measurement in pounds as a monetary value in British pounds sterling.
The EU has banned or heavily restricted over 1,300 chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products due to toxicity and hormone disruption.
EU has banned/restricted 1,300+ cosmetic chemicals vs 11 by the US FDA.
The EU Cosmetics Regulation (EC 1223/2009) bans or restricts over 1,300 substances in cosmetics, while the US FDA has only banned 11 ingredients for cosmetic use. This gap reflects the EU's precautionary regulatory approach versus the US's risk-based approach.
The US and the FDA have banned only 11 chemicals in cosmetics.
FDA has banned/restricted only about 11 cosmetic ingredients, vs EU's 1,300+.
As of recent counts, the FDA has banned only 11 ingredients in cosmetics, a figure widely cited by multiple sources including beauty industry and regulatory analyses. This contrasts sharply with the EU, which prohibits over 1,300 substances in cosmetics under its precautionary regulatory approach.
The US allows potassium bromate, a known carcinogen, to be used to make fluffy dough bread.
Potassium bromate is legal in US bread but banned in EU, UK, Canada.
Potassium bromate is classified as a possible human carcinogen by IARC and used to strengthen/whiten dough for fluffier bread. It remains legal in the US (with FDA usage limits, though largely unenforced federally), while being banned in the EU, UK, Canada, China and other countries.
The US allows BHA and BHT preservatives, which are linked to hormone disruption.
BHA and BHT are allowed in US food and are linked to hormone disruption.
BHA is classified as a Category 1 endocrine disruptor by European regulators, with additional evidence of carcinogenicity. BHT's endocrine effects are more scientifically debated, but regulatory bodies like ANSES have flagged concerns based on thyroid-related studies. Both remain permitted for use in the US food supply.
Potassium bromate and BHA/BHT are both strictly banned from human consumption in the UK, EU, Canada, and China.
Potassium bromate is banned in UK, EU, Canada, China, but BHA/BHT are not strictly banned in all these places.
Potassium bromate has been banned since 1990s in EU, UK, Canada and later China. However BHA and BHT are not banned outright: China's GB2760 standard permits both with maximum levels, and the EU restricts BHA (with limited cosmetic/pharma use) while BHT remains allowed as a food additive at low levels rather than being fully banned.
The US allows titanium dioxide, used to make candy bright white and smell like Skittles.
US FDA allows titanium dioxide as a food color additive, but Skittles removed it from US formulation by 2025.
The FDA still permits titanium dioxide in foods (up to 1% by weight) while the EU banned it in 2022 over genotoxicity concerns. However, Mars completed phasing out titanium dioxide from US Skittles by late 2024/mid-2025, before this episode's June 2026 release, making the specific Skittles reference no longer accurate even though the general US regulatory allowance remains true.
The US allows synthetic dyes like Red 40, which require strict warning labels or outright bans in Europe due to DNA damage and neurodevelopmental issues in kids.
US allows Red 40 and titanium dioxide; EU requires warning labels or bans them.
Since 2010 the EU requires warning labels on foods with Red 40 stating it 'may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.' The EU banned titanium dioxide as a food additive in 2022 citing possible DNA/chromosomal damage concerns, while the US still permits both.
A recent US Geological Survey found that at least 45% of all US tap water is contaminated with PFAs.
USGS 2023 study: at least 45% of US tap water contains PFAS.
A USGS study published in 2023 estimated that at least one type of PFAS is detectable in about 45% of tap water in the United States, based on sampling of over 700 public and private water systems from 2016-2021.
PFAs chemicals are directly linked to crashing sperm counts and testicular cancer.
PFAS exposure is scientifically linked to testicular cancer and reduced sperm quality.
A 2023 NCI study of US Air Force servicemen found elevated PFOS blood levels associated with higher testicular cancer risk, and testicular/kidney cancers have the strongest PFAS-cancer evidence among studied outcomes. Multiple studies also link PFAS exposure to lower sperm counts and reduced semen quality, including a dose-response relationship between PFOA/PFOS exposure and sperm production.
The US has historically allowed PFAs levels in drinking water drastically higher than what the EU considers safe.
Historically, US PFAS limits in drinking water were far laxer than EU standards.
Until 2024, the US only had a non-binding 70 ppt health advisory for PFOA/PFOS with no enforceable federal limit, while the EU had binding regulatory limits (around 100 ng/L for individual/sum PFAS under its Drinking Water Directive) enforced earlier. Only in April 2024 did the US EPA set strict enforceable limits (4 ppt for PFOA/PFOS), reversing the earlier gap.
The EU frequently gives exemptions and extensions on chemical bans and faces significant corporate pushback, making its regulation far from perfect, though still much less bad than the US.
EU chemical regulation faces real industry lobbying and delays, but remains stricter than US rules.
Documented reporting confirms extensive chemical industry lobbying in the EU, delays and shelving of REACH reform, and exemptions such as for polymers. This supports Grantham's characterization that EU regulation is imperfect and faces corporate pushback, while still being more protective than US regulation.
The United States has worse life expectancy than Europe.
US life expectancy is lower than Europe's.
US life expectancy was about 79 years in 2024, roughly 3.7 years shorter than comparable wealthy European countries averaging 82.7 years. Multiple studies confirm Americans across all wealth levels have shorter lifespans than Europeans.
The US is the only rich country in the world where life expectancy 15 years ago was the same as it is today.
US life expectancy plateaued for ~15 years while other rich nations kept improving.
US life expectancy stagnated from around 2010 to 2019 (only +0.1 years) while peer countries gained ~1.2 years on average, a trend unique among wealthy nations. Multiple sources including Forbes and Peterson-KFF confirm this 15-year stagnation is specific to the US.
The EWG's Healthy Living app is the scientific gold standard, run by the Environmental Working Group, a major toxic chemical watchdog.
EWG's Healthy Living app is real, run by the Environmental Working Group.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit dedicated to chemical safety research and does run the Healthy Living app, which rates cosmetics, food, and cleaning products based on 30+ years of independent research. The description of EWG as a toxic chemical watchdog is accurate; 'scientific gold standard' is a subjective characterization but consistent with the app's science-based rating methodology.
Gas stoves are a particularly noxious source of chemical exposure in the home.
Gas stoves are a well-documented source of toxic indoor air pollution (NO2).
Multiple studies, including from Stanford and Science Advances, confirm gas stoves significantly raise indoor nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels, linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Electric stoves produce no NO2, making gas stoves a notable and 'noxious' source of chemical exposure compared to other appliances.
Black plastics and Teflon frying pans are sources of toxic chemical exposure in the home.
Black plastics and Teflon cookware are recognized sources of toxic chemical (PFAS/PTFE) exposure.
Teflon (PTFE) is a PFAS compound and older Teflon manufacturing used PFOA, linked by WHO to cancer risk. Black plastics, including recycled ones, have also been found to contain toxic additives and PFAS contamination, making both recognized household exposure sources.
In women, every egg a woman will ever have is already present in the womb before birth, which is why chemical exposure during pregnancy is especially significant for female fertility.
Confirmed: women are born with all their eggs already formed in utero.
Oogenesis occurs almost entirely before birth; a female fetus develops millions of oocytes by mid-gestation, and by birth all the eggs she will ever have are already present in her ovaries. This nonrenewable egg pool means chemical exposure during pregnancy can directly affect the eggs of the fetus (and thus future grandchildren), consistent with Grantham's point.
Research has proven that the effects of chemical exposure during pregnancy can be passed down at least two generations, to children and grandchildren.
Research does show chemical/endocrine disruptor exposure during pregnancy can affect at least two generations (children and grandchildren), with some studies suggesting effects persist even further.
Studies on endocrine disruptors like DES, vinclozolin, BPA and DDT demonstrate multigenerational effects reaching F2 (grandchildren) generation, largely via epigenetic mechanisms in the germline. Some research (e.g. Skinner lab) shows effects persisting to F3/F4 generations, supporting Grantham's claim that newer studies suggest impacts beyond two generations.
A recent study suggests that the effects of chemical exposure during pregnancy might extend to many more than two generations.
Research shows chemical exposure effects can extend far beyond 2 generations, even up to 20.
Studies led by Prof. Michael Skinner (Washington State University) found that a single fungicide exposure during pregnancy can produce transgenerational epigenetic effects lasting up to 20 generations in animal models, with disease severity sometimes worsening over generations. This aligns with a broader body of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance research on endocrine disruptors (BPA, phthalates, vinclozolin, PCBs) showing effects persisting well beyond grandchildren.
Fertility treatments and family planning experience
unverifiable
Steven Bartlett1:29:39
Ronda Rousey, in a conversation on this podcast, was on her fifth or sixth round of IVF treatments and had just found out it hadn't gone well.
Ronda Rousey discussed IVF and miscarriages on Diary of a CEO, but exact round count and in-studio moment unconfirmed.
Rousey appeared on Diary of a CEO in 2024 and spoke about miscarriages and IVF struggles, confirming the general premise. However, the specific detail of being on her fifth or sixth IVF round and having just learned bad news before entering the studio is a private, first-person recollection by Steven Bartlett that cannot be independently verified.
Getting embryos frozen is extremely expensive, especially in the United States, and difficult.
Embryo freezing and IVF in the US are indeed costly and demanding.
US IVF cycles average $20,000-$25,000+, with embryo freezing and storage adding $1,000-$2,500 upfront plus ongoing yearly storage fees. Only about 25% of Americans have insurance coverage for these procedures, and the process involves invasive hormonal treatments, corroborating the claim that it is expensive and difficult.
2.1 children per couple is the number needed for a rich society to maintain a steady population.
2.1 children per woman is the standard replacement fertility rate for developed countries.
Demographers widely cite 2.1 births per woman as the replacement level fertility for developed/rich societies, the level needed to keep population stable absent migration. The extra 0.1 above 2.0 accounts for the sex ratio at birth and mortality before reproductive age.
If a society has less than 2.1 children per couple, it fairly rapidly goes out of business (population collapse).
2.1 is the correct replacement fertility rate, but decline isn't 'fairly rapid'.
A total fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman is indeed the standard replacement level needed for a population to remain stable long-term. However, demographers note that falling below this level does not cause rapid population decline; due to demographic momentum from prior generations and rising life expectancy, decline is gradual and can take decades before accelerating.
Historically with common land, anyone could put their sheep on it, and people tended to put more sheep than the land could sustain, eventually leaving it with no grass, known as the tragedy of the commons.
Description matches the classic tragedy of the commons concept (Hardin, 1968).
Grantham's description matches the standard economic/ecological theory known as the tragedy of the commons, popularized by Garrett Hardin in 1968, describing shared grazing land being overused as each herder adds more sheep for personal gain until the land is depleted. Some historians dispute whether the sheep-overgrazing parable was literally historically accurate, but the concept as described is the standard, widely accepted formulation.
It is more difficult today to buy a house or afford to rent, and jobs are getting scarcer.
Housing affordability crisis and weak job market are well documented for 2026.
Harvard's 2026 housing report confirms nearly half of renters are cost burdened, home prices remain far above pre-pandemic levels, and weak labor markets are slowing household formation. This aligns with Grantham's characterization of worsening housing affordability and job scarcity.
The book Silent Spring was written in the 1960s and became a political phenomenon that everyone studied and that changed the game on environmental issues.
Silent Spring (1962) by Rachel Carson sparked major political and environmental change.
Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was published in 1962, making it a book of the 1960s as claimed. It became a political phenomenon, was widely discussed by senators and public figures, and led to a DDT ban and the creation of the EPA, effectively launching the modern environmental movement.
According to Keynes, it is career-safe to be wrong as part of a crowd since everyone fails together, but if you act on your own and get it wrong, you will not receive much mercy or keep your job.
Accurately paraphrases Keynes' famous General Theory passage.
In Chapter 12 of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), Keynes wrote that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally, and that an unconventional actor who fails will not receive much mercy. Grantham's summary matches this idea closely, including the notion that failing as part of the crowd is career-safe while acting alone risks one's job if wrong.
By around the end of this year, Grantham and his organization will have written checks totaling $1 billion to climate change causes.
Grantham pledged $1 billion to climate causes in 2019, consistent with claim.
In January 2019, Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham publicly committed roughly 98% of their fortune, about $1 billion, to climate action through their foundation and trust. Public reporting confirms this billion-dollar pledge and ongoing large-scale annual giving (tens of millions per year), supporting his statement that checks totaling $1 billion would be written by around the end of the year in question.
