The Debt Ceiling, Cognitive Drag, the Value of a College Degree: It's All in a "Rule Breaker Investing" Mailbag

To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool's free podcasts, check out our podcast center. To get started investing, check out our quick-start guide to investing in stocks. A full transcript follows the video.

This video was recorded on May 31, 2023.

David Gardner: What do you get after a month of Kevin Kelly and Gotta Know the Lingo, Old, New, Borrowed & Blue and what you've learned from me. Well, you get a mailbag was 7.7 points that include a couple of hills and I'm not talking about the ones you climb. A couple of hills that each in their own way or so very special and we'll speak to that a bit later. Seven points another cast of stars, Jeff Fischer, Tom King, Jason Moser, and the debt ceiling, and one other in studio guest. It's your May 2023 Mailbag only on this week's Rule Breaker Investing.

Welcome back to Rule Breaker Investing Happy final day of may. You know, there are two ways of counting the seasons. I grew up anyway with just the astronomical viewpoint and that means you celebrate something like summer solstice somewhere around June 22nd each year and they're the Equinox's as well, and they're all around the 21st or 22nd of the month, four times a year, that's the astronomical calendar. But then later I learned about the meteorological calendar and that one is the one that feels a little bit more apt for me and that just starts the seasons on the first of each of those four months. By the meteorological calendar, summer starts tomorrow, June 1st and that feels about right to me if you want, you can just wait for the astronomical calendar and count separate three weeks from now, somewhere around the 21st to 22nd of the month anyway, I'm going to say happy summer. It was a very happy month for this podcast, there were five Wednesdays, so that means there were four preceding podcasts to think about from a mailbag standpoint this week we look back, the first one was May 3rd. Excellent advice for living with Kevin Kelly. A delight to be joined by such a visionary and such a good person, and such a great Fool, somebody that I really admire, Kevin Kelly. I hope you enjoyed that conversation, I know you did.

The second week of May, it was Gotta Know the Lingo Volume 4 where among other things, we talked about the debt ceiling and we're going to open that one backup, reacting to a couple of mailbag items this month from that one, then the third week, what you've learned from me, it's your annual birthday present to me. Thank you very much for the notes and finally, fourth, Old, New, Borrowed & Blue, Volume 7 that was last week. That was then this is now that's the month that has been it's time for our monthly mailbag. Now, before I get started, I want to mention what we're probably doing in June, and that is, it's probably going to be artificial intelligence month for this podcast. I don't know that every week we'll be focused on VAIs as Kevin Kelly would have me say but I know at least one or two of our podcasts next month, we'll be focused there and I think it's time to talk more and more about that. Now I realize you can talk too much about it. I feel like I haven't probably talked enough about it and I like to talk about it not from the standpoint of being supportive of or against the AIs, but rather to be understanding of them and to be thoughtful and reflective about where we're headed in this world and what the opportunities are with the dawn of artificial intelligence.

I'm going to have some good thinkers and commentators coming up in June for you as we embark upon what might be artificial intelligence month for Rule Breaker Investing. Well, let's take a look at Twitter. I think the general sentiment that I read on Twitter in and around at RBI podcast that is, of course this podcasts Twitter handle was just general feeling that Kevin Kelly's episode, while it went more than an hour-and-a-half, which is nearly a record for this podcast. As one commentator said on Twitter, this episode could've gone longer ans I wouldn't have minded it at all so thank you again to Kevin for taking time has excellent advice for living book is out in bookstores. It's a fun one and that was a fun podcast, I just randomized page numbers and asked him about various thoughts and reflections that he had in that book. In a, where our whimsy takes us kind of a way and it was a pre-summer delight so again, thank you to Kevin and thank you for many good thoughts on Twitter about that podcast. At goforgrowthco, that's Joe Philippe Picart, Joe Philippe I believe you are reacting to the what you have learned from David Gardner episode, and there was a lesson written in by Walter. And you're right I loved Walter's lesson, "I learned that I could pick companies and it's not that hard" Joe Philippe, you went on to reflect about that note that I shared on that week's podcast that investing had become his favorite hobby.

In 1999, our fellow Fool Walter had moved $16,000 from mutual funds into specific companies. He added with every paycheck over time he's now assumed to be multimillionaire. I think that was the opening salvo on that particular podcast that was basically Point Number 1 and I think at the end of it, I said it really could have been a mic drop and ended the podcast right there because that's why we do what we do at The Motley Fool. Anyway, Joe Philippe, I really appreciate you on Twitter calling out Walter's lesson. I learned that I could pick companies, and it's not that hard, I think in a lot of ways that summarizes what we tried to do at the Motley Fool, which is to democratize our subject to make everybody recognize that you dear listener are an investor. You may not have thought of yourself that way before, but every time you invest a dollar or an hour, you're making an investment sometimes for immediate return, immediate gratification, but other times for long-term return, for compounding returns, the choices that we make in our lives with our money and our time really are when you think about it this way, investments, we are all investors. I think one of the things our company tries to do, which is much of the world onto that as possible and get you realizing, yeah, you're an investor and with Walter, you could learn that you can pick companies and it's not that hard. We have had a spectacular return for one of my longest standing picks in Motley Fool Stock Advisor just over the last few days and that would be NVIDIA, a stock where for stock advisor members in 2005, we got you a cost basis below $2 a share.

I went back and read my original write-up in 2005, recommending NVIDIA, which I've done a number of times since we've just held that position all the way through with a cost basis below $2 and back then, I was reacting to things I was reading on AOL to show you how long ago this was and I was thinking about the future of video games, which was very much where NVIDIA was positioned 20 years ago. But you just keep holding these kinds of great Rule Breakers and you can be very pleasantly surprised by how they evolve and morph over time. I think the key for Walter's lesson is that he said he learned that he could pick companies. The more that you and I think about companies were not so much investing in stocks. I mean, we are, but some people take that to mean that they have to start doing a lot of math, or they have to start gambling or as soon as they buy the need to have a target price to sell. When you start saying stocks to a lot of people it might, either turn them off or have them start doing silly things. When you start saying companies to people, then they start looking around and going, well, what are companies that are important in this world that I think will grow from here NVIDIA is a good example, but companies like Starbucks or Tesla are other good examples, long-term holdings that we've had in place for many years. I hope you have too, and companies will continue to own many years going forward from here companies, not so much stocks. Well, thank you again to the Twitter sphere, a reminder at RBI podcast is this Podcasts Twitter address and yes, we continue to use Twitter. I do too, even though I haven't paid up for my blue checkmark, I'm still as I've always been for 10 years plus on Twitter @DavidGFool.

Well, seven points for this, the 79th mailbag continuous monthly since 2015 in Rural Breaker Investing history. Thank you, ahead of time to each of our correspondence. Let's go to Mailbag item number 1. This is from Susie makes a short note, Susie, I'm going to read it in full. Thank you very much for this. Dear David you've helped me so much to become interested in investing and daring enough to do it. I've loved listening to Rule Breakers podcast. They are educating, enriching and amusing. I've learned so much from you. I love your belief that you should let winners run high. That makes so much sense to me. I don't know why everyone doesn't think this way. You've inspired me with your optimism and humor. Both you and Tom are so wonderful, have improved my life in many ways. I wish you lots of happiness on your birthday and lots of fun celebrating foolishly, Susie Mix. Now, the reason I'm sharing that is first of all, it's just a very nice sentiment and Susie, thank you. But two more things come to mind. The first is that sometimes you get a note and it's just really nice. Often on mailbag, I'll read a really nice sentiment, but then the person has a but, and either something went wrong or they want to poke back at something and I'm totally prepared for either of those things. But occasionally, I'll just get a note and maybe it's because it's my birthday month where there is no dot, dot, dot, but there's just a straight up, really nice sentiments.

Susie, I really appreciate you sharing that and the second reason I wanted to call it out is because in your first-line, this connects with what we just talked about with Walter story. But you said in your first-line, you've helped me so much to become interested in investing and daring enough to do it. Listeners should know that Susie actually included an exclamation mark at the end of that sentence, so this is a strong statement from her and it just reminds me that for a lot of us, it does feel daring to save money in the first place and not spend it. Nope, to save it, but then not to save it just for a rainy day, but specifically to invest it. And then beyond just investing it, let's say, in an index fund or mutual funds, or accordingly to whatever financial advisor tells you to take, whether all, or in part at least some of it and invest it yourself directly and buy a stock. That's right. Buy shares of a for-profit entity that you are becoming a part owner of the day you buy shares thanks to the small miracle of the stock market and this ownership culture that many of you who are listening to me right now have grown up in, and should never take for granted that we live in an ownership culture where you and I can be part owners of the products and services that we greatly esteem that enrich our lives and that we have real belief in going forward.

The stock market doesn't need to be much more complicated than that but because for so many of us, it's not necessarily how we were raised. We may not have had parents who did that. We may not have had schools that really taught us much about the stock market. Maybe we had one of those plug-in courses where your social sciences teacher for one-week had you track the stock market, or maybe there was a fake a hundred thousand dollar schoolwide competition or regionwide competition who could make the most money in a month or a quarter and the person who won those stock market contests usually was betting it all on a penny-stock, and everybody else who might have been a little bit more capital F Foolish, didn't actually invest that way and didn't win. But that's actually the way to win the game of investing is to diversify and buy great companies and hold them not for a month or a quarter, but over time, a lot of us did not have that experience and so it is daring, and I underline that for you Susie and I give you a virtual high five that you took the dare and it puts me in mind that great Teddy Roosevelt line about not the critic being the one that counts, but the one in the arena and he includes the word daring in that quote. In fact, it ends this way, "It celebrates those who know the great enthusiasms, the great devotion who spend themselves in a worthy cause who at the best," Roosevelt said, "knows in the end the Triumph of high achievement. And who at the worst, if they fail, at least they fail while daring greatly, so that their place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat," said Teddy Roosevelt on April 23, 1910. That famous line was from a speech he gave at the Sorbonne in Paris. Anyway, a little bit of a historic reminder. But yes, Susie, you became interested in investing and you dared enough to do it.

Rule Breaker's Mailbag, item number 2, this one from Mike McMann. Thank you, Mike, "David in your something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue episode, you highlighted the value of building a second brain via digital note-taking. I would point to a second order effect of using digital note tools," Mike writes, "by reducing the friction of moving an interesting article or a quote or a highlight from your physical present mind space, and storing it instead in a digital place, you can significantly reduce cognitive drag." Mike goes on, "Our physical brain does not multitask efficiently so moving the interesting find to a digital place enables you to free your brain from worrying about having to remember it. Cognitive drag," Mike concludes, "occurs when you're constantly context switching so digital note-taking allows you to remain focused on your current work. I'm glad that you recognize that Mike and I completely agree and building a second brain, which is where that quote came from and where that something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue came from, Thiago Forte's wonderful book and I want to go onto mention one more thing about that book that you reminded me of Mike, and that is at one point Forte talks about how we're going to benefit if we simplify some down to a shorter, more distilled task list or list of projects. I'm somebody who has always had a ton of projects and ever since I first read getting things done by David Allen, the wonderful book, I think I read it in 2003 or '04, I started to amass dozens of projects and I was thinking, what is my next action for this one or that one and my weekly reviews where I try to go through my list of projects, started to break down some because there was just too much.

I think I was to over multitasking and I wasn't making enough use, not just of a digital place to keep my notes, but I wasn't making enough use of essentialism, another great book by Greg McEwen. I wasn't distilling down to really the important things. There were trivial many but what were the precious few? And I think our work in this world, dear listener, wherever you are purposing either for profit or not-for-profit either as part of your occupation or your hobbies were all generally going to benefit by being a little bit more focused and, in fact, at one point in building a second Brain, author Forte quotes Richard Feinman, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who seemed to be a genius and knows so much about a variety of topics. But when you boiled it down, what Feinman did is he distills his interests down to 12 fundamental questions and those questions wouldn't change much necessarily from one year to the next, although they were never written in stone, but what Feinman was doing is that he was always listening, whether it was through his reading, through conversation, keynote speeches, experiences around the world he was always looking at the world through his 12 questions and that enabled him to really gather information and organize for action in the specific areas he cared most about.

So he appeared to be a man of very wide ranging intellect, which, of course, he was, but he was more focused than most of us recognize. He might not have cared at all about mixed martial arts or he might not have cared at all about chemistry and maybe he was just a physicist, but what he did care about, he was very focused on. I think that's something Mike and my dear listeners that each of us can learn from, the idea of focusing down toward more important and fewer things to be really great at. There's an additional thought, mailbag, item number 2. Onto Rule Breaker's Mailbag Item Number 3. Now I probably get every year or maybe every other year. A note from Dave Gac. Dave has made appearances on this podcast before. He's a wonderful storyteller with great perspectives on life. Dave, thanks for writing in because I'm sharing your latest work. Let's do it.

Rule Breaker, Mailbag, Item Number 3. Enjoy the April Mailbag this morning doing my four mile run, listening at 1.75x speed, it takes my mind off the drudgery of the run. Two things caught my attention Jeff Fischer, Dave writes as an aside, I am a big fan. Mentioned that a $10,000 investment in 1980 would be worth more than $1.1 million at the end of 2022. I agree with his math and the power of compounding that he was raw riding, but currently I am 70 so I was around in 1980. I was a captain in the army and had been in the army for three-and-a-half years when 1980 began. Dave Gac writes and I can tell you, $10,000 was a lot of money back then. After taxes, social security and medicare payments, I would have had to have saved the residual of my previous year income. The thing I always cringe about these types of comparisons, well, it's twofold. First, the start in this example is, Dave writes in 1980 dollars, and the end is in 2022 dollars if I put them in 2022 dollars, I would need about $35,000 today to save to get to 1.1 million 2022 dollars in value. Hey, I'm the first one to agree that this is fantastic, but that is how much someone in 20-22 would need to have saved to have 20-22 value of $1.1 million. Now the second thing that rubs me a bit is 2022 to me does nothing $10,000 or even $35,000 is all that much but in my case, 2022 Dave writes, doesn't think 2063, Dave will need the money, and I think Jeff Fischer who's joining me at this point in the podcast. Welcome, Jeff.

Jeff Fischer: Thank you, David.

David Gardner: I think Dave, reflecting that since he's 70 here in 2023, he's unlikely to make it to 110, although we're both cheering them on.

Jeff Fischer: Definitely.

David Gardner: Definitely cheering them on. But to return to his note, but in my case, 2022 Dave doesn't think 2063 Dave will need the money. Likewise, I know that 1980 Dave would have thought of $10,000 as a huge amount, and I suspect most 27-year-olds today would see $35,000 as a huge amount. Now I know Jeff would lose most of us if he tried to explain all this, so no criticism, just an observation as for me, he concludes this part of his note, 2023 Dave has more than three times the stated end points, so I'd take pleasure in noting that although i did not have $30,000 to save in 1980 by saving and investing in the last 43 years although he says, I only save for 33 years since 1980 because I retired 10 years ago. I have been able to accumulate what that $30,000 in 1980 would have provided. Jeff, I may have made the mistake of getting to deep and the numbers were not. This is not a mathematical exercise you and I are about to embark upon, but any thoughts on top-of-mind back as we speak to 2023 Dave?

Jeff Fischer: Dave is exactly right. I am celebrating the power of compounding and the power of the stock market of course, as Dave well knows and has benefited from, and I oversimplify it, I guess you could say, and that's totally accurate, $10,000 in 1980, which was $35,000 equivalent today, became more than $1 million 1.1 million by 2022 so that's all, as Dave pointed out, that's true, he agrees with the math. But I love Dave's real-life acrobatics that adds so much more to the story because true, $10,000 may not sound that much right now but it was a lot in 1980, so I could have used any number, of course, $100 in 1980 became $10,900 by 2022, so at least it was a much more agreeable some to invest, and then it still tells the story. Wow, if i had just put $100 in 1980, which I guess by the math would be about $350 today. It would now be more than $10,000 and that was just $100. I'm just trying to convey to everybody that a little bit or moderate amount or even a larger amount, if you think of it that way, can become much more in the stock market over time.

David Gardner: Very well said Jeff and my intent and heavy you back was not to have you issue a mea culpa. If anybody would need to do that, I would because I put out compounding numbers just as much as you do. But first of all, I'm glad that you just put it back out there. All of these numbers are somewhat relative and we all start with different amounts and we all have different amounts of time and a lot of us don't exactly know how much time we'll have but at the heart of it is the benefit of compounding, of daring to invest and reaping the rewards through patients. I think good behavior, which partly explains longer health the greater your longevity, the greater your wealth these things are tied directly together.

Jeff Fischer: Right David. One more thing I'll say about this, and this is in agreement with Dave on a topic he didn't mention but I think you would agree is I don't love the here's a static number. If you invested this 42 years ago went up. When in reality, hopefully, we're all able to save something each year, if not each month, and let our savings grow in the stock market, and in that case, even if the market doesn't go anywhere for a long time, your savings have grown and ultimately hopefully it all grows. Yes, that's another critique I would have of this comment.

David Gardner: Love it. One other thing I'd like to mention before we go to a second point in his note, which I'd love for you to speak too Jeff. I'd like to point out that while it's true that $10,000 today is like about a third of what it meant 30 years ago or 40 years ago. Here's something we never want to forget as well. A lot of stuff we get for free today that costs stuff back then, for example the easiest one that always comes to mind for me, Jeff, is long distance telephone calls, which I know Dave Gac would understand and you and I grew up with as well. It could be like a dollar a minute to call somebody, especially internationally. It certainly wasn't a video call and it was not as good quality in many cases as well, so there are so many things today we never want to forget this pinch yourself, dear listener, that we're getting for free or at vastly reduced prices that make things even better than we might think.

Jeff Fischer: That's true. I was trying to think of other examples, and what came to mind is when you had to book a plane ticket, even in the '90s, you call a travel agent, you pay them a commission, etc, now it's just straight through.

David Gardner: Glad you mentioned commission because as soon as you say that, Jeff, I think about the $50 or $150 you used to have to pay in commissions to a broker to trade a stock for you, and you often had to have account minimums, or you couldn't buy fractional shares, the list goes on.

Jeff Fischer: It does.

David Gardner: A benefits that we take for granted today, that would we could only have dreamed of 30 years ago.

Jeff Fischer: Now, I'll have to take one on the other side is coffee used to be $0.25.

David Gardner: The other part of Dave's note also speaks to a different topic, Jeff, but one that you were around with me to discuss and that was the benefits of a college degree or not. We were having this debate some in April and Dave's got a story you ready?

Jeff Fischer: He does.

David Gardner: Second point was on whether a degree is worth it. I would say a lot depends on what you want to do and what risk you want to take. Years ago, Dave writes, I had a job as manager of advanced engineering. I hired a person without a degree to fill one of my advanced engineering positions. The plant manager called me in and asked if I had lost my mind. He asked how I would risk my reputation of him failing and me hiring a non-degree person for my team. I told him, honestly, I probably wouldn't except I had worked with him at a previous job for two years and he had the exact skill set for what we needed. The manager said he would not stop me his conscience was clear, but he would go after me if this guy failed.

Jeff Fischer: Pressures on.

David Gardner: Within a year he was in love with this guy but would not advance his materials manager who had no degree. When he left, I was a plant manager and my boss asked me for my recommendation for another plant manager position. Well, when I recommended the materials manager, Dave's guy here, he unsurprisingly said, and I quote, but he has no degree. Dave Gac goes on to say, I told him that I could name a bunch of degrees people who were terrible managers. Also that it made sense for someone coming out of school to their first or second jobs to have a degree to show that they had something to show they had, I don't know. Dave writes determination a bit of smarts, etc, because you had no work history to go on but in this case, we had seen him advanced to the materials manager position and demonstrate the skills we felt were needed to be a plant manager. He said, OK, and gave him the job and he excelled. But Dave concludes, but he was lucky he had me to advocate for him and I had a history of preparing people for plant manager positions, so I was at least listened to for consideration and he had a boss who was willing to hear what I said and take a chance, but it took a much longer to get there and he did not have a chance to go higher. In conclusion, Dave Gac writes, I would say it is not impossible to succeed without a college degree, Jeff, but you have to be good and lucky.

Jeff Fischer: I love the story and I love that Dave shared it and hats off to Dave for giving this colleague the chance. This was several years ago he wrote. Back then it was even more thought that you must have a degree.

David Gardner: Yeah, you're right about that, Jeff.

Jeff Fischer: I absolutely loved Dave's conclusion that you can succeed and you can advance without a degree, but it takes more luck and things have to break your way more frequently. I think going back to our conversation a few weeks ago, my belief is still the same. If you can get a degree, if you're that fortunate enough to go to school and get a degree and you're at least somewhat enjoying the process or you're getting something from it, you don't feel like you're doing the wrong thing with your time, then it's worth it. It's an asset that you'll always have, whether or not you end up using it directly or not, because I think as Dave pointed out so well, without it, you need more things to break your way in many cases.

David Gardner: Really well said, Jeff. I think I'm underlining your point, but I will add that, having friends who can mentor you, who might recognize you. I mean, that was the critical dynamic here, is that this guy without a degree knew Dave. Often it's a reminder to look for the helpers out there and to ask ourselves, why might we be worth taking a risk on? Often it's because we've connected well enough with somebody else, maybe in a position of seniority, that they think good of us and are willing to take a little extra risks. There's a human relationship dynamic that we should all pay attention to as well.

Jeff Fischer: Definitely. If you read the reports of late on society in general, it sounds like it's something that is lacking for a lot of people. I think it's easy to forget how much your friends are there to help you, be there for you, support you. We go months at my house not reaching out to friends. The time just goes by quickly, but they're all there and then they will help you if you asked them. It's important to remember.

David Gardner: Love it. Priya Parker in her book, The Art of Gathering, I had the pleasure of having her on this podcast some years ago, she reminded me, she reminds all of us that the purpose of a gathering, whether it's a cocktail party, a funeral, a corporate offsite, the purpose of gathering is to help each other. That's why we're gathered. Those who keep that in mind and remember the purpose behind things usually excel. Really appreciate you pointing that out. Jeff, will you hang with me for another mailbag pointer too?

Jeff Fischer: Definitely.

David Gardner: Onto mailbag item number 4. This one reflects back on Gotta Know The Lingo, Volume 4. Thank you, Sam Becker for this note. On the Lingo podcasts, Sam writes, my surprise winner was Tom King. Now I'm going to pause it right there for two reasons. First of all, was there a competition to this one? Were there losers? I hope not. That's the first reason I want to pause. I didn't know there was a competition. But the second reason is because Tom King is here. Tom, welcome back to the show.

Tom King: Thank you very much.

David Gardner: Have you been a surprise winner in other contexts in the past?

Tom King: I don't generally win things. I get a participation award, so I'll take that as a participation.

David Gardner: The green ribbon. [laughs] Not the red, not the blue, not even the white, the green ribbon. Well said Tom. But you were his surprise winner, so let me keep going. Sam writes, "Tom is much less familiar to me than Bill Barker and Jason Moser, so he had the ability to surprise." Sam goes on, this is slightly more serious, "As a bankruptcy and finance lawyer, I am familiar with most terms, but I thought Tom King's esoteric terms and descriptions were terrific and good for me to think about. I had, though, two knits with the discussions of debt ceiling and leverage. First he says, I think it is important to tell people that the debt ceiling is an issue that arises when Congress has already authorized the expenditures, not new expenditures." That is knit number 1 that Sam wants to pick. The second on leverage he writes, "I think I would have emphasized that leverage can be a good thing if you can figure out how to pay it back. For example, an amortizing mortgage is different than a margin loan, so you can buy more stock." He concludes, "Fool-on." Gentlemen, I think we can expect that Sam Becker is a very Foolish bankruptcy and finance lawyer. Thank you for writing in, Sam. Let's talk briefly about both of these things. Actually, we're going to talk a lot more about the debt ceiling in just a few minutes, but let me start there. Would either of you like to weigh in with any additional thought about the debt ceiling or as he points out, Congress has already authorized these expenditures. These are not new expenditures.

Tom King: I don't have anything to add on that topic. I'm not sure how it works in the background, but after it's been approved by Congress, I suppose the money has to come from somewhere. If it isn't enough from taxes, then it has to be borrowed.

David Gardner: Tom, a lot of us who are getting to know you may recognize you have a little bit of an accent to an American here, and I know it's a South African accent. I'm curious, in your native country, South Africa, is there this problem every decade or so with debt ceiling and the government just can't agree and it becomes a big tussle and a media sensation for a month or so? Are you used to this?

Tom King: There hasn't been. It's not something that makes it into all news cycle. Corruption and power outages and things like that tend to dominate the news back in South Africa.

David Gardner: Does South Africa have $32 trillion or so of debt?

Tom King: No, [laughs] we'd be in big trouble if we did.

Jeff Fischer: I wonder if any country has been for 105 years raising the debt ceiling. The US started the debt ceiling in 1917, exactly to the point of the spendings are already all been approved. This is, I hate the phrase in a way, but political theater to then debate how do we pay for it. But that's all I'll say for the moment.

David Gardner: Thank you, Jeff. Let's cut it off right there because we're about to welcome back Jason Moser as well and go a little bit deeper into debt ceilings. That's probably not the right metaphor. Anyway, let's go on to his point about leverage. On leverage, Sam writes, "I think I would have emphasized, leverage can be a good thing."

Tom King: It increases your potential for reward, but it also increases your risk. I'm speaking from ignorance here because I have never used borrowed money to buy shares, so I don't have a very innate understanding of how it works in a brokerage account. But that's the general point, it increases your risk. If things go badly for you, your equity can be wiped out pretty quickly.

David Gardner: I have made very little use of margin over the course of my years, although occasionally I have, for example, at one point, we bought our new house before fully selling our previous, present at that point, house. Rather than do some bigger sale of stock, I was like, you know what? I think this house that we're sitting on still is going to sell, so let's just keep this on margin for a little while. It was a pretty low interest rate and it worked very well. Jeff, there are other reasons investors might commonly beyond margin, beyond just the, I'm tempted to buy too much of a stock that I think too much of, right?

Jeff Fischer: Certainly. Where my head is that right now though first is the good use of debt, whereas a company borrows at a low rate and earns a higher return on that capital as it is.

David Gardner: Happens all the time.

Jeff Fischer: Or a house, as I think was being referred to. If you get a good interest rate and buy a house at a reasonable price, of course, that could be great use of leverage over the years. Of course, it can also bite you as in the great financial crisis when people overpaid for houses on borrowed money and then walked away. With investing, I do not advocate borrowing money to buy stock. Equity is too volatile. We know even great businesses can get cut in half and the drop of a hat. Even if they recover a year later completely, you had been wiped out in the meantime. If you're going to short sell stocks or use options, you do need to use the buying power of your account. You don't necessarily need to borrow money, however. But a short sale can quickly become margin if it rises against you and you'll owe back more than the amount that the short originally paid you. I advise avoiding margin in an equity account

David Gardner: Thank you, Jeff and thank you, Tom and thank you Sam Becker for writing in, and giving us a little platform to reflect back on these points, mailbag item number 4. You guys ready to talk a little bit more debt ceiling?

Tom King: Yeah.

Jeff Fischer: Definitely.

David Gardner: On topic. On the 0-10 proverbial scale where zero is, I wish I weren't in the studio right now, and 10 is, could I please have all the mics in the room and just start speaking into them in terms of your excitement, how excited? 0-10, I want you both to think about this independently. Do you have your number?

Jeff Fischer: I do.

David Gardner: I'm going to count down from three and you'll both say allowed your number simultaneously, so we can just hear where the minds are. I'm not going to answer this because we all know I'm a 10, otherwise, why would we have this as the next mailbag item. Are you both ready with your number? This is how excited Tom King and Jeff Fischer are to talk more about the debt-ceiling. Here we go, three, two, one.

Tom King: Seven.

Jeff Fischer: Nine.

David Gardner: That averages to eight. I say we bring in Jason Moser as well. He's the one who got this whole topic started when he introduced it on the Gotta Know the Lingo episode earlier this month.

Jason Moser: Excellent. My caveat was it's a nine because Jason is entering the room. [laughs].

David Gardner: Yep. Onto Rule Breaker's Mailbag, item Number 5. This one again, reacting back to the Gotta Know the Lingo volume for podcast earlier this month. This is from John, our biggest fan friend. Let's get started. John writes, I hope everyone is doing well. You had fun with your birthday. David my note to you this time though, is on Gotta Know the Lingo Volume 4. First, I'm happy to report my score of 13 and that reminds me, friends and those who are with me, know this. We encouraged listeners to score themselves. It wasn't that a high or low score was necessarily good or bad. You were scoring yourself based on how much you learned. If you gave a zero, that meant you learned really nothing from us and maybe that is a worst score than a bigger score. But if you had a higher score, like 12, which I think was the max, that means you really learned a lot from our Gotta Know the Lingo Volume 4. Dear listener, if you did not get to hear that episode of a few weeks ago, google it, go back to it, relisten to it and score yourself and learn along with us. John, guys is saying this, I'm happy to report my score of 13. I know the full score is 12, but let me explain. I feel I earned extra credit from researching the term. I gave Jason's debt ceiling a score of three for the fact that it not only educates me about the term, but also sparks my curiosity to learn more about it. It also prompted my first time using chatGPT. I'm amazed by its ability to generate answer specific to my curiosity. I'm hoping we can revisit the term and clarify something. Here we go. I think this is a very Foolish sentiment and to me to put a title on this before I read this next paragraph, I think we have a regular American.

An American like you or me, dear listener, just the rest of us. I include myself in this group wondering what exactly is going on with how our government handles its finances versus what I'm trying to do in my own life. What's right, what's wrong, what's good, what's bad. Here we go. That's by the way, too long a title for anything.

Here we go, as you know, Jum Wright, I'm a nurse. Although I love business and investing, I have no background in the subject of economics before I listened to the episode, the more I heard about the debt ceiling debate in the news, the more frustrated I got. It's because it sounds the focus of the debate is on the fact that we should raise the debt ceiling, and not on working toward reducing our national debt. It frustrated me, Jum Wrights, because at an individual finance level, personal finance, if you will, taking on more debt than we can handle is almost always a bad thing. No bank is going to lend you more money, Jason Moser, and you're going to end up defaulting on your debt and bankruptcy can ensue. To an economic naive such as myself, Jum Wrights, I'm afraid that as a nation, we're sending out a message that it's OK to keep taking on more and more debt. The solution is we can just keep raising the "Debt ceiling." I'm going to pause it right there. There's a little bit more to share with her viewpoint. But Jason, what comes to mind for you as you hear this first part of jumps note?

Jason Moser: Well first and foremost, I just love the engagement they Gotta Know the Lingo is creating here. This is really cool. We got to do more of these episodes. I like John's sentiment here. I think it's in line honestly with the way I'm thinking is, that old saying, you can't get yourself out of debt by taking out more debt. It's not solving the problem, it's really just slapping a band-aid on it, and so yeah, it does communicate, I think a message to a lot of us that what we're doing maybe is OK for everyone just to do in their everyday personal, financial lives, and we know that's not the case. You can't just spend your way into oblivion and keep on getting more debt. It's one of those things. But I think part of that is the difference between family versus country. You look at it from the perspective of the individual or my family at home, for example, I have a family of four. We're talking about a country of 340, some odd million people, and there are a lot of moving parts. We've got a wide variety of interests, priorities and beliefs. It's a bigger entity, it's a credit-based economy. We are the world's reserve currency, and the largest economy in the world. There's a lot that with that.

David Gardner: Knock on wood.

Jason Moser: There's a lot that comes with that. When you're dealing with a credit-based economy, it is something to keep in mind. I do think it's important to note that the US has carried a debt since our inception. Today. It's a very big number, $31 trillion. That sounds like a lot, and it is. Now, it's worth noting if you go all the way back to 1922, in inflation adjusted $2022, it was $408 billion. Even all the way back to 19, 2022, it was, I think what many would consider a very large number. It's just part of the nature of that comes with a credit-based economy. Unfortunately, it does feel like we're communicating a message to individuals that may not work out so well.

David Gardner: Well, I think part of what we can do through this podcast this weekend, I think a lot of the Motley Fool's work is to remind us that you are different than your government. The actions that you take, the choices that you make, don't always align one-to-one with what a larger entity might do. I think Jum in her heart understands that what makes sense for Jum may not make sense for the nation and vice versa. I think since most of us are Jams out there, we're trying to make the right decisions. We just Jason before he came on, we're talking about not using margin, as an example. There are reasons sometimes to make use of leverage, but it's complicated. Let me pick up her note right there because she goes on to say, I know that it is a lot more complicated and I appreciate the distinctions made during that podcast, but could we please go back and discuss a little bit deeper the differences between debt at an individual level and debt at a national level. Why is it OK and maybe necessary to take on more debt as a nation? Tom King, any thoughts here at this point?

Tom King: Well, I think the important thing to remember is that as an individual, we can't create money. But the United States government and the European Union, and Japan, and a few other countries around the world powerful economies, are in a very unique position where they can create money.

Jason Moser: This is such an important point.

Tom King: The rest of the world wants, particularly the mighty United States dollar. For example at my household, if I don't have enough money to cover my expenses for the year, I have to go to the bank and say Mr. Banker, please will you lend me some money? But if I'm in the United States government and I don't have enough money to cover my expenses for the year, I write down on a piece of paper, this is $100 and I give it to myself and I spend that. It just so happens that everybody will accept that piece of paper I created as legitimate currency. That is the position the United States government is in. I think the important thing, I'm not an economist, so I think the absolute level of the debt ceiling, whether it's 31 trillion or 100 trillion, is not that important. I think the most important thing to focus on is inflation. Is the United States dollar maintaining its buying power? I think that is a far more important thing to be aware of than whether the debt ceiling is 100 trillion or whatever arbitrary number you want to put on it.

Jason Moser: But I think Tom makes a really good point here too is that this is not something that is gospel. Economists all out there, they disagree on this, but some economists feel that the debt limit is really crucial. Others feel like it's immaterial and it shouldn't even exist. What the right answer is I'm not necessarily sure like Tom, I'm not an economist. I did major in economics in college, David. But it is something to remember that, there is a political dynamic to this. Again, I get back to this really big family that we have, it's a big family. A lot of perspectives, a lot of priorities, and a lot of things that we want to get done. I think that's where a lot of this comes from, is we're looking to figure out ways to allocate our money in the most effective ways possible, but we don't always agree. Then furthermore, that does constantly change as we have election cycles every two years at least. It makes it a little bit more difficult back to that bigger family and a lot more moving parts. It just makes it a little bit more difficult really of a problem to solve.

Jeff Fischer: I think one of the best ways to tie this together then in comparing the government to the individual, is to look at the amount of debt to the amount of GDP that the economy creates. Just as in our households, we look at the amount of assets we have to the amount of debt that we have.

David Gardner: When we research stocks, I'm often looking at the amount of debt the company has, the amount of cash it has in the bank, and these things can be expressed as ratios.

Jeff Fischer: Exactly. I think that's the one. I agree with everything the table has said.

David Gardner: Wait you just gave away that we're at a table..

Jeff Fischer: We're at a round table. Yes.

David Gardner: A round-table, slightly nobler. I wouldn't like people that picture us in high elevated circumstances. Geoffrey, simply to say that we're at a table, really I think changes the dynamic of this whole podcast for our listeners.

Jeff Fischer: You're right. A lot of people are clicking out right now.

Jason Moser: I'm out of here.

Jeff Fischer: They're just to the table. This beautiful round table at which we are so elegantly ceded. The computer in front of me, the nice MacBook computer, shining tells me that in the year 2000, the debt to GDP of the US was 56 percent. Now in the year 2022, it was 124 percent, so it has doubled. This is like saying you at your house, you had twice as many assets as you did debt in 2000 and now here we are in 2022 and you have 30 percent or so more debt than you do have assets. That's the one thing that concerns me about the US. A lot of countries that are letting their debt grow to a greater and greater portion than their GDP and why would that concern me for exactly the reason Tom mentioned, that can often lead to inflation decreasing the buying power of your currency.

David Gardner: Some really good thoughts and I appreciate the multiple angles. Ultimately we're speaking to Jum we're speaking to everybody really who is trying to figure out how much they should care or not about this. Tom, earlier you said what really seems to be more important is inflation not necessarily raising the debt ceiling, negotiating to have that reaches a certain number. I would say that a lot more ink has been spilled over the last couple years about inflation than the debt ceiling. I would also say more blood has been spelled at least some of mine in declining markets over the last couple of years because I think that threat very real near and present of inflation, which gentlemen seems to be coming down a little bit, at least the numbers suggest and the markets are back up a little bit in 2023.

Jason Moser: Feeling very good about that. It does feel like we're starting to see some impacts of that interest rate policy playing into that inflation number. I fully agree, you don't really think about it when it's not there. But then once inflation rears its ugly head, it really becomes unavoidable and it impacts you in every which way. When you think about what we've been through over the last several years especially the last three years, we saw a lot of money pumped into the system for obvious reasons, to help get through what was obviously a very trying time. But when you have too many dollars chasing too few goods and services, inflation is inevitable and that is the definition of inflation. I've said it before on Motley Fool Money, we're dealing with that hangover of the last three years and all of this money that was pumped into the system. I'm not saying that was right or wrong, I'm simply saying that's what was done. But, it really does speak to how impactful it can be, that inflation is really troublesome to get past.

Jeff Fischer: Definitely, Jason and the great fear of course is that it becomes systemic. It becomes part of it. Because if you expect inflation, if a company expects inflation to continue or at any level, they'll raise prices ahead of time to make themselves in [inaudible]

David Gardner: Self-perpetuating cycle potentially, Jeff.

Jeff Fischer: That's why you have to break it with these higher interest rates, which are likely going a bit higher still, but not that we want to prognosticate right now, but it's looking a little better lately, but I don't think it's not always easy to, and inflation and once it starts.

Jason Moser: Well, and what can solve those? We hear a lot of conversation about economic growth. When you see economic growth outpacing, that national debt level, then you see that debt become a lower and lower percentage of the actual economy because the economy's growing. In stretches where the economy is not growing, then it becomes a little bit more of a persistent problem and that's where you see these tools like interest rate, policy and whatnot come into play. There are lot of moving parts to it. It's fascinating, I really enjoy studying in college. I enjoy discussing it now is I don't think there's any one right answer and that's why you see so many disagreements on it.

David Gardner: Jumped concludes your note by saying, I know we can't let our government default on its loan because that could destroy the credit of our nation and we know that trust is everything. In fact, the ability of the US government to be able to raise the debt ceiling and borrow more money is based largely on that, on trust. However, in reality, isn't raising the debt ceiling in a way, reducing trust saying we can't pay our debt. I guess just to bring this one to a close, what you just said, Jason, is important. We all said it in different ways. If we're borrowing at an individual level or a corporate level, if we're borrowing and making use of those borrowings in a way that is generative, that well out does the detriment of borrowing in the first place, then that's a clear win. I think it's hard to imagine governments consistently doing that. They can certainly be generative, and I'm always reminded of Warren Buffets' great line, never bet against America. I think that's generally been, I hope Tom, that you even or living in America right now from your beautiful native country of South Africa suggests that you're not betting against America?

Tom King: No, not at all.

David Gardner: Are you betting for America?

Tom King: Of course. 

David Gardner: Are you betting in a roll-the-dice crazy man away or with quiet confidence?

Tom King: I'm not on margin typically. I'm investing my own money that I have.

David Gardner: Well said. I really trust is the coin of the realm George Schultze famously said, I appreciate that John closed her note there. I think a lot of us are just left wondering how much can this be trusted. We always hear the big numbers, 31.7 trillion or whatever it rounds to the national debt. But rarely do we hear it expresses ratio, which is more helpful, Jeff, you have pointed out that ratio is higher than in recent years. Yet, Jason, you pointed out that, hey, we had this thing called COVID can we even believe that we're all in a studio at a high, well-appointed table together, in a studio together face-to-face where two years ago we literally couldn't do that. Pinch ourselves in some ways that we got through and maybe it's not surprising that the national coffers have been a bit stretched. I want each of you to give a final sentence. It can be a sentence of reflection. It can be a sentence of advocacy. A sentence of whimsy, if you like. I'll ask for a show of hands to see who's ready first to give his concluding sentence on mailbag item number 5, Jeff Fischer.

Jeff Fischer: This will be a long sentence.

David Gardner: Wait that itself was the sentence.

Jeff Fischer: No, that was the preamble.

David Gardner: He's calling you.

Jeff Fischer: That was it.

David Gardner: You haven't started the sentence, are you?

Jeff Fischer: Yes. No, I haven't. It'll start now. A bright point to the debt is that more than one-third of it is owed to the government itself because different agencies within the government borrow from one another. More than 12 trillion is owed back to the government itself so about one-third of it. Is that a sentence for a horrible sentence?

David Gardner: That was a sentence and I think that was a sentence of reflection and insight. Thank you.

Jeff Fischer: Thank you.

David Gardner: Jason.

Jason Moser: I will say you'd Jum said.

David Gardner: Was that your sentence?

Jason Moser: It's not my sentence. I'm going to begin with something that Jum said so I don't think that counts anyway.

David Gardner: We won't count. 

Jason Moser: Play it that way. I know that Jum said I know my note this time is a bit on optimistic LOL perhaps, but let's look at this at least a little bit glass half full and be thankful because you referred to the last three years, COVID opening these coffers with the financial stimulus. Let's be thankful that we live in a country where we have these tools at our disposal to be able to get through difficult times like these. Because when you look at the history, when you look at how far we go back where we'd been running debt levels from this country, clearly, there are solutions and ways to get past it. Really, I think it's just worth remembering we live in a wonderful country that has just a ton of tools at its disposal for people to get through these stretches.

David Gardner: Was that your sentence or is it about to start?

Jason Moser: Long sentence. I just really wanted to make sure you get the point.

David Gardner: Never bet against America.

Jason Moser: Tom King.

Tom King: I guess I just say something whimsical. I know you watched the news and these things like debt ceiling, that makes all the headlines and people get very concerned about it. But I think maybe as an outsider, I can say that you should count your blessings to be Americans and sure you have your problems. But for many countries, noticed serious as many people faced in other countries. You're very blessed to be where you are all.

David Gardner: Well, you called that whimsical and maybe it was laced with whimsy, but I thought that was heart full. Full of heart. Thank you, Tom, for that reflection. Thank you each for this brief panel on the debt ceiling. Let's not do it again next week, although maybe we will find another topic next week because it was really fun to be with you guys. Thank you.

Jason Moser: Thank you.

Tom King: Thank you.

David Gardner: On to Rule Breaker's Mailbag item number 6. I foreshadowed this one a little bit at the beginning of the podcast. If you're one of those people who reads the titles the podcast before you click play, you may have noticed upon because item number 6 enables me to welcome in my favorite Hill. Chris, great to be with you.

Chris Hill: It's great to be here. Thank you.

David Gardner: I really appreciate what you said yesterday on Motley Fool Money. More important than words on a given day, 26 years of being friends. That's what matters most of all to me. As I think backwards from the future, which is often how I tried to live my life. I think about we're all always playing the long game. Thinking back from the future Chris, I have good news for you. We're friends for life. I've seen it.

Chris Hill: Well, obviously we recorded that episode set in the future. [laughs]. As your listeners know.

David Gardner: The year the market skyrocketed.

Chris Hill: Yes. It's great to have the benefit of foresight, hindsight, maybe their combined in some way. But yes, that I was walking to the studio just now and was not sure what exactly what we're going to be talking about. The things that popped into my mind, were not necessarily business related per se. They were more along the lines of friendship and moments we've shared as colleagues and friends. I can share one now if you want. It's a time I want to say more than 20 years ago, back when I was doing media and public relations for The Motley Fool, you and I were up in New York City doing several rounds of interviews at different media publications and outlets. One of them was Bloomberg. As happens every once in a great while, we had travel, that everything worked out perfectly to the point where we were 45 minutes early to the Bloomberg building. They basically politely said, you should come back in 45 minutes because we're not ready for you.

David Gardner: They had like free food. That was a big thing about working in Bloomberg probably still is they had like all this breakfast stuff laid out. They could have invited us.

Chris Hill: They could have. It was there at the time, a brand-new building. It looked gorgeous. It was really at the forefront of the free food for employees and all this thing in a coffee bars in the office. We were almost like orphans looking through the window and saying we will literally walk the streets of New York City together. We spent the next 40 minutes or so just walking around New York City looking for a Starbucks. We may or may not have been making jokes at the expense of Michael Bloomberg himself.

David Gardner: Good-naturedly.

Chris Hill: Yes, with respect because he's built an incredible business, Michael Bloomberg.

David Gardner: My recollection is that our joke ran something along these lines, Chris, that while in most Starbucks across the country in the world, you can order a tall, a Grande or Venti. But at the Starbucks right next to Bloomberg's offices, you could order an even bigger size. What was that one called?

Chris Hill: The Bloomy.

David Gardner: The Bloomy.

Chris Hill: We basically created a scenario where Michael Bloomberg demanded [laughs] of Starbucks.

David Gardner: Venti is not enough.

Chris Hill: At this one location, a size just for him. [laughs] That Bloomberg repeatedly throughout the day would just yell at his assisted kept me so and so and accounting, get me this person from marketing and get me another Bloomy.

David Gardner: [laughs] We've had experienced in the past where we make jokes, but then they end up coming true. There's a chance, Chris, that the former mayor is listening and that he will innovate with a partnership added nearby Starbucks and that there may be a Bloomy, or maybe somebody is competing against Starbucks and realizes this is the play.

Chris Hill: What is the tried and true playbook for businesses in the restaurant industry, particularly. You can include Starbucks, it's the limited-edition item. Why wouldn't they do eliminate addition, Bloomy, even if it's just in New York City, who wouldn't go for that? I would go for that.

David Gardner: Ka Ching. Yes, and I remember that morning as well. I don't actually remember the interview in the Bloomberg offices.

Chris Hill: The interview itself was fine but not memorable is walking around looking for coffee.

David Gardner: Definitely not. I think that's been something that you and I have enjoyed together and good news. It keeps going until at least the year 2052 an opportunity whimsically, to observe the business world together. Maybe I'd just say observe the world together and see the businesses doing they're crazy good, sometimes bad things. Chris, you have done that for so many of us, me included with an on-air in combination of insight and good naturedness for the better part of a quarter-century for Fools. You've gotten a lot of thanks and a lot of plottes and I see out on Twitter people saying, don't go Chris Hill, and that's how I still feel. But you've earned all of our respect, admiration, trust, and love. I'm just really fired up that you took the time to walk over and come join me for Mailbag item number 6, you did say as you walked over here, you're not sure what we're talking about?

Chris Hill: I did.

David Gardner: Nor am I. I just thought, Chris, come. Here's a mic.

Chris Hill: I appreciate those kind words. Long-time listeners will note, probably with some measure of Glee. My business acumen, not always, not perfect. Sometimes very off. I remember in the early days of podcasting. Openly questioning this expensive acquisition [Alphabet's] Google made for this start-up video company called YouTube. Just like, I don't know if that's a $1.6 million. That really seems like a lot of money. I'm not sure that's going to work out for them. There are plenty like that, but when people have asked me over the years. You're hosting a daily show like what's that like? One of the things I've often said about it is it's never boring. It's one of the things I truly love about the business world is rarely, if ever, is it boring. Maybe there's a slow period right before earnings season starts. But being able to watch some of the great businesses of our time, grow, struggle, persevere. It's really fascinating. It's one of those things where for the most part, when I read books, I don't read fiction. The non-fiction world is so fascinating to me. Businesses right there at the top of the list.

David Gardner: Are you saying business is stranger than fiction? Is that what I'm hearing you say.

Chris Hill: Sometimes it is strangers infiction, sometimes it is. But I was talking with our friend and colleague Bill Barker and we were talking about something that happens. It's happening right now in the world of business. It happens every few years. It is this fact where one idea becomes so hot that companies will latch onto it and stumble over themselves to talk about on their quarterly call. We're doing this thing too right now it's AI. Companies that aren't really involved in AR are going out of their way to say that they are. A few years ago it was blockchain. I said, the classic example is the Long Island Iced Tea company talking about blockchain becoming a blockchain. Then when I was talking with Barker, I said, wait a minute, it just hit me. We came up with that at the Motley Fool more than 20 years ago with e-meringue. [laughs] The April Fool's Day joke about the auto-parts company that it's like, actually we're an e-commerce company as well selling e-meringue. It's not the pie, not the filling, just the e-meringue will ship it anywhere in the continental United States within seven days. Long Island Iced Tea, getting at the blockchain that they were stealing from The Motley Fool and MRI.

David Gardner: I appreciate that. Larry McCloskey, it's ill-fated CEO. I think it's fair to say, Chris, you knowledge when you first and by the way, thank you. You took the time to let me know that you were going to be leaving us. You said, David, I don't want you to hear this by email or anything else. I'd like you to hear it from me, so thank you. That's so respectful. I don't deserve that, but that was very kind and when you told me that a few months ago, I said something like this to you, which I'm going to say again, Chris, you are a huge institutional memory here at The Motley Fool. You know, things that I don't know that are amazing, hilarious. I hope not really bad. There's no fairness going on at the Fool that you know of Chris.

Chris Hill: Not that I'm aware.

David Gardner: Good. Thank you. But you can neither confirm nor deny is that what you're saying on the record?

Chris Hill: On the advice of counsel.

David Gardner: But you truly have from Bloomy to 2023, you have seen it all really here at the Fool. Part of my being your friend for life is you'll help me and all of us remember some of the things from the early and recent days. Chris, whatever you go on to, I know you're going to succeed. I will be watching you. I'm a big fan. I am so appreciative of all that you've done for so many of us. I would just say at different points with friends for life, we may walk in or out of each other stories. I will continue to live forward with the assumption that you and I are going to have fun together in future whenever. However that happens.

Chris Hill: The feeling is very mutual.

David Gardner: Chris, you have a future invite back to this podcast when again, it'll make sense. It might be a day the market crashes or a year the market is I'm not really sure, but I look forward to that day.

Chris Hill: I look forward to it as well, particularly if there's a blow me in the room.

David Gardner: [laughs] Fool-on.

Chris Hill: Fool-on.

David Gardner: As Chris stepped away from the studio, I shouted at him, actually, I just slacked him, but I shouted at him. Because I'd always wondered, was this the case? Anybody who knows Chris's work at The Motley Fool knows his love of the news ferry, visits from the news ferry, right when he didn't think there'd be anything to talk about that day's episode of Motley Fool Money. The news ferry would show up and give him the gift of an interesting and good news story about business or finance. I shouted to him, I meant to ask, Chris, is there actually a news ferry? He replied back, yes for all those who believe. Onto Rule Breaker's Mailbag Item Number 7, Eldon Fred Hill was born in 1921 to his parents Harold and Anna. He was born in Loyal, Wisconsin. Got to love it. Loyal, Wisconsin, where he spent most of his life before moving to the state of Washington in his later years. Eldon grew up during the great depression. The community played an important role in his upbringing as a child, he raised rabbits, chickens, and calves for sale. He used discarded lettuce leaves as feed and rake leaves as bedding during the winter. He also grew potatoes, which he sold to the feed mill, the food distributor where he worked on weekends in high school and college. In addition to odd jobs, he recycled copper wire and aluminum plates from the nearby garbage dump for extra cash. Eldon also enjoyed playing gin rummy, and poker at the towns watering holes, which provided his obituary, said this past week a consistent source of income. Despite not approving of Eldon's moneymaking activities, his mother, Anna, didn't have the heart to forbid him from pursuing them during the difficult times. She recognize the importance of practical skills and insisted that Eldon learn to type, saving up for a year to buy him a typewriter, which he quickly mastered. Eldon's typing skills proved useful when he was commissioned stateside and when he later pursued medical studies. Eldon had a lifelong habit of saving money and making cash purchases. Always looking for a good value and avoiding unnecessary expenses. He made the mistake of buying his first new car on credit, which he promptly crashed the next day.

This experience taught him the importance of never financing a car again. After completing his undergraduate studies in pharmacy training, Eldon Hill relocated to Madison, Wisconsin, where he continued to raise rabbits and play poker to earn an income while pursuing his medical degree. During his undergraduate years, he also worked in the dining room and maintained a high academic performance following his service in the navy during the war years, Eldon used his typing skills to assist in recruiting. Before enrolling in medical school, he completed his internship at Miller Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota. Where he met his future wife, Josephine or Joey. The coupled tied to not in 1947 in St. Paul, Minnesota. In 1948, Eldon and Joey spent a year in Janesville, Wisconsin where their first child was born. They then settled in Spring Valley, Wisconsin where Eldon established his general practice. He continued to practice as an OB-GYN until his retirement at 65 years of age. Eldon and Joey would go on to have seven kids and I am sorry to note from his obituary that his family eventually separated did end in divorce.

Eldon embarked on a new life. It says here in the Marshfield News-Herald leading a somewhat nomadic existence. Eldon lived as simple and thrifty life with a passion for stock investments and options trading. He relied on the Motley Fool for advice and kept 10-15 percent of his net assets in cash while investing the remaining 80 percent in long-term stocks. This allowed him to weather market corrections and invest in ''value equities". He also allocated approximately three to five percent of his assets to options trading, which covered his annual expenses. Eldon was proud that most of his multi-million-dollar estate was earned during his retirement years rather than his medical career. In 2014, Eldon decided to give back to the community that raised him in Loyal, Wisconsin by donating the majority of his estate to endowments, including a financial literacy endowment, supporting a full-time teacher, to provide financial literacy education to students in grades K-12 in Loyal, with evening classes available for adults, as well. Eldon's generosity, it concludes, will continue to impact the community for years to come. Eldon Fred Hill, a retired obstetrician, gynecologist.

I'll add here, a Foolish investor passed away peacefully on April 26, 2023, at the age of 102. There you have it. Dickens wrote a tale of two cities we're lower budget than Dickens. This podcast won't likely stand up to the test of time quite as winningly. Rather than being able to bring you to cities, I got to bring you and close with two Hills. One of them, I'm not sure I ever met. Eldon Hill may have rubbed shoulders with a Gardner brother or two maybe at a Minneapolis book signing in the '90s or at a Motley Fool member event in the teens or maybe not at all. I don't know, but it was my pleasure to share with you the obituary from the Marshfield, Wisconsin News-Herald, about a man who raked leaves so that he could provide bedding to the rabbits and chickens he raised, crashed his first car a day after he'd financed it, served our nation in the navy during World War II, parlayed typing skills into a medical degree, helped his fellow men, well actually women for decades as an OB-GYN and all the way through, kept saving and investing. Finding the Fool, not sure how and allocating 80 percent of his portfolio too, in the words of the obituary in "value equities".

At the end of it all made more money that way than as a professional, lived into the triple digits and gave most or all of it away in the form of endowments to leave the campfire better than he founded, a remarkable Hill. The other Hill, I know well, if you're a fellow Fool of any vintage you do too. Chris Hill has given of himself and has many gifts from a quick wit to relentless good nature, such a Foolish sensibility as well, a generous spirit that had him bringing in chocolate covered fruits to the office for fellow employees the day before he wrote off into the sunset. This Era's sunset, the Fool sunset, not Chris' sunsetting. Chris Hill, in whatever time he likes, in whatever way will go on to continue to leave whichever campfire is lucky enough to lure him much better than he founded. As my presentiment suggested, I know this won't be the last time I or we get to enjoy Chris. I hope he lives to 102. That's a good number. The 100 part makes me think of the 100 emoji, 100 as in excellent, top drawer 100, that's the 100 part. Then the two, well, that's the two Hills, both of whom by my emoji accounting 100, 102 Hills.