The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - Podcast Rankings and reviews

Scott Galloway’s podcast is a gem. His sharp insights, no-nonsense philosophy, and straight-up brilliance make every episode a must-listen. He breaks down complex topics with clarity, wit, and a dose of humor. Honestly, he feels like the mentor we all need—guiding us through business, life, and everything in between. Highly recommend!

Once Prof G’s biggest fan, I’m not alone in finding his new economic ideology to ‘make more babies’ silly. Breeding our way to some imagined level of future prosperity has quickly become Scott’s hobby horse to the point of spreading misinformation – I could not have seen this coming and now have doubts about his objectivity in other areas.

The need for positive population growth for perceived future success is simply not supported by evidence and is unusually half-baked for Prof G. Some economists had been crying wolf for decades about falling birth rates and pointing to China, with its draconian birth policy, as the example of what happens without net population growth. But as China gets older, its economy and living standard continue to boom all while being a net exporter of labor.

Scott says that carbon emissions are driven by lifestyle and not population but the truth is that the population level of a country remains a much stronger predictor of carbon emissions than living standard. For most of us who don’t own airplanes or yachts, emissions reduction from having one less child dwarfs all other lifestyle choices (no disrespect to Scott who’s discovered the fulfillment of parenting as though the rest of us have been in the dark all this time). Even in the US with its high living standard, most emissions involve burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation.

So is innovation tied to birth rate and the number of young people? Ask India and African countries how this is going. Among developed and developing countries there isn’t even a weak relationship between median age and technological performance. China, with its declining birth rates (not to mention the dictatorship and freedoms thing) is in the top ten technologically advanced countries. Japan, South Korea, and Singapore, all have aging populations and all are in the top five for technology and in the top 20 for living standard. By Scott’s math, India, now the most populous country, should be pulling ahead on all fronts but is the bottom third for living standard, the bottom half for tech innovation, and in the top ten carbon emitters.

While we really need to question the more-is-better paradigm of classic economics, let’s assume for a moment that a continually expanding workforce is needed for economic well-being. Switzerland, a country of high median age, low birth rate, and in the top ten countries for tech innovation, living standard, and retirement benefits, has been importing labor for decades in response to demand, while remaining frugal about citizenship and giving improved living conditions to immigrants. Switzerland is far from the only country that does not feel constrained by boundaries and who’s policy is adaptive to changing workforce demands. Means testing, tech development and AI, and other solutions far more sophisticated and agile than breeding are already in effect in numerous countries and having their intended effects.

Can we feed a forever-increasing population? No, Scott, we can’t. The earth’s resources are finite. But for now, issues of increasing population levels are mostly about commodities other than food including water, precious metals, and other resources involving considerable environmental impacts by their extraction or transport. To “go green” and phase out fossil fuels, even at current population levels, would require a 1000% increase in mining – clearly Scott has not thought this through.

In sum there's no evidence that Americans need to increase birth rates even for purely economic reasons; in fact, the balance of evidence points in the other direction and that governments should not be further incentivizing reproduction.

So it is with Scott’s odd new preoccupation with ‘making babies’ that I sadly bow out of Prof G podcasts (of course the humble bragging and self-righteousness probably don’t help either), but it was great while it lasted!

Even though Pivot is twice a week, I really don’t think there is enough of Galloway’s thoughtful and insightful commentary on business, tech, politics and happiness. Never too shy to point out his own foibles or own up to past mistakes, I love how Galloway will uses self-deprivation and examples from his own life to put topics in perspective.

My personal and professional life have relatively little to do with tech or marketing, but I wouldn’t miss an opportunity to pop-in my headphones and hear a little bit from Prof. G. Thanks so much for spinning up this new endeavor! Also, just bought Happiness, and couldn’t enjoy it more...

This Podcast is required listening.

Having followed ProfG via Twitter, participating in his Section4 2020 2-Week Strategy Sprint and just starting to read his book (The Four), I find Professor Galloway’s perspective part of a quintessential amalgam of insights that aid in molding a well-rounded view introducing focus in a highly complex environment.

Listening to Scott Galloway and Aswath Damodaran is one of the most insightful conversations I’ve had the privilege of listening to. If you have questions, these are the leading business minds of our time, just talking... so, just listen. Superb.

In the past, I eagerly anticipated each new episode of your podcast, finding it an invaluable resource for nuanced discourse. As an independent voter committed to evaluating issues through a balanced lens, I appreciated your ability to entertain and inform without succumbing to partisanship. However, it has become increasingly evident that your recent episodes are markedly biased, overtly championing the Democratic agenda. This shift has regrettably eroded your objectivity and your appeal to the American political middle.

Your rhetoric, steeped in vitriol and palpable disdain for conservative viewpoints, only serves to deepen the divisions and mistrust that plague our society. Such partisanship detracts from the constructive dialogue we so desperately need. I hold out hope that you will recalibrate your approach and return to the impartial and insightful commentary that once defined your show.

Yours is a voice that has the potential to bridge divides rather than widen them, and I trust that you can rediscover that path.

As someone who has shared Scott Galloway’s content and been inspired enough to pay for Section4, I’m genuinely disappointed in Raging Moderates. Despite the name, neither host seems truly moderate—they echo the same left-leaning ideas and spend much of the time bashing Republicans. It’s disheartening to see Scott, who used to offer sharp, balanced insights, now making statements that feel illogical and one-sided. I was hoping for thoughtful, nuanced discussions, but this podcast misses the mark in delivering the moderation it claims to represent.