AI 에이전트가 이 뉴스에 대해 생각하는 것
パネリストは一般的に、最近の経済データがスタグフレーションのリスクを示していることに同意しており、高インフレ、弱いGDP成長、地政学的な原油ショックがあります。彼らはこれらの傾向の持続性について不確実性を表明していますが、連邦準備制度の政策的ジレンマと潜在的な財政支配に対する懸念があるため、悲観的です。
리스크: インフレと成長を管理する際の連邦準備制度の政策的ジレンマは、スタグフレーションの罠またはドルの切り下げにつながる可能性があります。
기회: 重要な機会は特定されませんでした。
In this podcast, Motley Fool analyst Jason Moser and contributors Travis Hoium and Lou Whiteman discuss:
- Q4 2025 GDP data.
- Uber's autonomous momentum.
- Adobe's earnings.
- Executive free agents.
- Stocks on their radar.
To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool's free podcasts, check out our podcast center. When you're ready to invest, check out this top 10 list of stocks to buy.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
A full transcript is below.
Should you buy stock in Uber Technologies right now?
Before you buy stock in Uber Technologies, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Uber Technologies wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $503,861!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,026,987!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 884% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 179% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
*Stock Advisor returns as of March 29, 2026.
This podcast was recorded on March 13, 2026.
Travis Hoium: Are we headed for stagflation in 2026? Motley Fool money starts now.
Welcome to Motley Fool Money. I am Travis Hoium joined today by Jason Moser and Lou Whiteman. Guys, we've got to start with the topic of the day. That is the economy. We got information about GDP growth in the fourth quarter this morning. That growth was 0.7%. Earlier estimate was 1.4%. The reason that this is notable is that the further we get away from the end of the fourth quarter, the better the data gets, Lou. Where does your head go when you think about this? Because this is a sharp drop from I believe it was 4% growth in the third quarter. We also have inflation, which was over 3% in January. It seems like that stagflation word starts to come up when you have low growth and high inflation. That's not a great place to be from an economic standpoint.
Lou Whiteman: Yeah, you're right. With each revision, not only do you get more better data because they've had time to digest it, but you also get this rare gift to see into the future, compared to a few weeks ago when we didn't know what the first quarter of 2026 was going to look like, now it's almost over, so we can actually take that data from the fourth quarter and look at the world now. Look, it's not great. I wish we had a real uncertainty gauge the way we have the VIX for volatility, and it's kind of the same, but it feels like what's going on here, this lack of activity, it isn't because just everything's terrible. It's because just for the last year, between tariffs, between war, between just so much uncertainty, it is causing companies, it's causing consumers to just do a little less or to wait and see. The good news there is is that in theory, if we get more certainty, that's a quicker turnaround than it would be if just the economy is in the dumps. The bad news is, like I said, we've had time to see how things play out. Arguably, I think we weren't at war at the end of the fourth quarter, we have oil, we have so much going on. If anything, things look worse now than they did at the end of the year. So combining the fact that things weren't growing in the fourth quarter with, wow, look at what's happened in the first quarter. I think there's a lot of reasons to be concerned right now.
Travis Hoium: Yeah Jason, Lou brought up the oil market. To put some numbers to that, January 2nd, West Texas Intermediate crude was $57 a barrel. Today, as we're recording, it's 93. It has been over $100 a barrel in the past few days. That's a big piece of people's consumer spending. If you need to get to work, you need to take your kids to soccer practice, whatever you've got to do in your life, it's hard to cut back on spending for energy in particular gasoline. Maybe you got to pull back in other ways. How are you thinking about that as an investor? Is this something that just goes into the mix of data that you're pulling in, or is there anything actionable here that you're actually doing when you get GDP data like this?
Jason Moser: Lou, I think, is right there. Looking at things currently right now, they probably look a little bit worse. The wildcard in here is, of course, what's going on in Iran and how long this is ultimately going to last. When you look at energy prices, hopefully this is something that's short lived. When you look at oil and you think, why is oil going up. Is oil going up because demand is going up because of growth? Because then you can support that. But if oil is going up as in this case, because of geopolitical conflict, well, that's another problem altogether. When you combine that with low growth, you combine that with inflation that really is still very sticky. I certainly understand the pessimism here in the near term. Again, the wildcard is how long does this go on? If it's something that is very short lived, then maybe things start to look a little bit better. But, yeah, for right now, I think what will be interesting when we look at these first quarter numbers, whenever we get them in, that's going to take into account the Supreme Court's decision to reverse the tariffs. That could be a tailwind. It also doesn't really incorporate higher energy prices and how persistent that may be. The news is always in the revisions, of course, and we'll continue to get revisions as time goes on, but it's very understandable for now just the near term trepidation.
Lou Whiteman: I'm not going to pretend to be an oil expert, but I am really worried about the idea that it could be temporary, the energy spike. I'll tell you why. I do know a thing or two about logistics, and I think we are greatly underestimating, even at the drop of a hat right now, there's peace. I don't think we're going to see the flow resume. I'll point to look at the Red Sea. It has been at least what, six months since we had headlines about attacks in the Red Sea from Yemen. Look at what's going on there. Shipping is still very depressed, relative to averages. We're dealing with insurance markets. We're dealing with just the safety markets. Shippers are going to be gun-shy well after the straight is open. I don't think we're just going to see an immediate flow. We need an oil expert in here, but I don't think some of these, they've run out of storage capacity, so they are being forced to just shut down the wells. That's not a simple valve like your garden hose. I think even there, I am really worried that energy it's almost too late for this to be quick with energy. Yeah, this is a major headwind heading into it at least for the first half of 2026.
Travis Hoium: Yeah, Lou, let's just explain what you're talking about there. Oil is what you would call an inelastic market. Like we talked about going to work, if you need to fill your tank, you're going to fill it, whether the gasoline is two dollars a gallon or four dollars a gallon. So about 20% of the world's oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz, if my memory is correct. That is a huge number. A 5% reduction in the supply of oil will send oil prices spiking. If this lasts for a while, a 20% reduction or impact in the supply of oil could have a dramatic impact on prices. Now, we're not trying to fear monger here, but this is the real potential economic impact if there is a prolonged conflict there. It's not just as simple as, well, the US makes enough oil to provide energy for the US, this is aglobal market There's a lot of worms in this can that has been opened up.
Lou Whiteman: Real quick,a couple of things. Yeah, we are advantaged to the extent that we are not going to run out of oil, but we're not advantaged in terms of we're not going to feel the price shock. That's it, exactly. We will have oil, it will just be more expensive. The elastic thing is interesting, just a quick dive into that. Where it is elastic is, especially on the corporate side, trying to scale back, say, factories, so you use less. Then that really ripples through the economy in terms of jobs needed, employment hours and just all sorts of things. There's a lot of ways this can ripple. Truth is we don't know. Again, as you said, we don't want to fear monger, but just it feels like enough has happened that it will reverberate for a while, and I think we should acknowledge that as we try and figure out what's going on.
Travis Hoium: Yeah, Jason, Lou used the word that I think we should probably be thinking about, which is commoditized. The auto industry has always had a problem making money because it's essentially a commodity. It's four wheels. It has seats. Yes, there's differences between each vehicle, but the pricing power, unless your name is Ferrari, the pricing power is not super high, and you've got all these manufacturing costs, capacity costs. If you're an autonomous vehicle company and you're not Tesla or Waymo, or maybe Zoox, you got to just find riders, and Uber seems to be the one going, hey, we'll provide them, and we're happy to be a partner with you and it seems like every automaker is going, I guess we got to go down this commodity road.
Jason Moser: That reminds me of the planes trains and automobiles line. Steve Martin Four bleeping wheels in a seat. That's ultimately what this is at the end of the day. I think that's what a lot of us have talked about in regard to AVs and just the general commoditized nature of it. At the end of the day, that really ultimately is what it is. I would rather be in Uber's position. Capital business that's able to really go any different direction it wants. You're already hearing companies like Tesla try to move past the vehicle narrative altogether. Tesla is no longer a car company, it's humanoid robots. I don't think this is something where we're going to see it all one way or the other. The future is not all EVs, or at least not for the rest of my life, I don't think. I think it's a little bit of both. I think it's important to remember, too, for some individuals, having a car and being able to drive represents freedom. It depends on where you live, if AV's even really makes sense. Where I live here in Northern Virginia, it's not necessarily an ideal solution. We need to be able to drive to get to where we need to go. But if you're in a city, like if you're in Washington, DC or San Francisco or Las Vegas, it absolutely can make more sense. Either way, I like the idea that Uber can play this opportunity any number of ways. Just to play devil’s advocate because I honestly don't know the answer to this, but I'm curious. If we continue down this path of commoditization, where it just becomes every table stakes, how important then is the owner of the customer? If you could almost get this anywhere from anything, how important. [OVERLAPPING]
Travis Hoium: You’re saying you’re going to talk to your AI agent, and they are going to disintermediate?
Jason Moser: Isn't it possible if it's everywhere, I every taxicab out there is an autonomous vehicle? Do we need the middleman in the app? Maybe, but I just wonder if Uber could end up commoditized, as well. That's a long way off. I'm not really worried about that, but it's weird to think about how this ends. I'm not sure if it ends well for anyone other than the consumer, I'm OK with that.
Travis Hoium: Well, it will be interesting to see how this plays out because everyone is racing toward autonomy, and I don't know that everybody has a phenomenal business model, but who those winners and losers are going to be is fluid at this point. The fact that Uber is going so aggressively and partnering with seemingly everybody seems notable, no matter where you're invested in the space. Let's get to Adobe. They reported earnings this week,
AI 토크쇼
4개 주요 AI 모델이 이 기사를 논의합니다
"この記事は、1つの弱いGDP修正と1つの地政学的なショックに基づいて構築されたスタグフレーションの事例を示していますが、一時的な不確実性と構造的な経済の悪化を混同しています。この区別は非常に重要です。"
この記事は、弱い第4四半期のGDP修正(1.4%から0.7%)、粘着性のあるインフレ(1月は3%超)、地政学的な原油ショック(WTIは$57→$93)という3つの異なるマクロリスクをスタグフレーションの物語に混同しています。しかし、パネリスト自身は持続性について不確実性を表明しています。Louの物流に関するホルムズ海峡の議論は妥当ですが、1億7200万バレルのSPRの放出と関税の解除(Moserが言及)がオフセットされる可能性があります。本当に重要なのは、まだQ1のデータがないことです。不完全な情報に基づいて外挿しています。地政学的なショックによる原油価格の上昇は歴史的に平均回帰的であり、需要破壊が深刻でない限り、持続的なスタグフレーションにエスカレートしません。
イラン紛争が本当に世界の石油供給量の5〜20%を6か月以上にわたって混乱させる場合、企業はそれに反応して資本支出を削減し、パネリストの「様子見」楽観主義は崩壊します。これはスタグフレーションではなく、真のスタグフレーションになります。
"スタグフレーション圧力と自律走行技術の商品化により、2027年までにUberの価格力とプラットフォームマージンが低下します。"
第4四半期のGDPが0.7%に修正され、1月にはインフレが3%を超え、WTI原油がイラン/ホルムズの緊張により$93/バレルに急騰したことは、クラシックなスタグフレーションの罠を示しています。パネリストはUberの「資産負債なし」自律戦略に焦点を当てていますが、2次効果を無視しています。エネルギーコストが依然として高い場合、成長が停滞している場合、Uberのテイクレートは、価格に敏感な消費者と艦隊パートナーの運営コストの間で圧迫されます。「商品」としてのAV(自律走行車)がJason Moserが指摘したように、実際にUberの防波堤を脅かします。テクノロジーがどこにでもあれば、20〜30%のプラットフォーム料金は簡単にターゲットになります。市場は現在、Uberがハイマージンプラットフォームではなく、低マージンユーティリティになるというリスクを誤って評価しています。
Uberがすべての主要なAVプレイヤー(Waymo、Zoox、Motional)を正常に統合した場合、それは自律輸送の「Windows」になります。これにより、OEMが重要な数のライダーに到達するためにUberなしでは不可能です。
"1%未満のGDP成長、3%を超える粘着性のあるインフレ、持続的な原油ショックのスタグフレーション的な組み合わせは、H1〜2026に消費者裁量株式の収益と倍率を大幅に圧縮します。"
ここに示されているデータスニペット—第4四半期のGDPが1.4%から0.7%に修正され、1月のインフレは依然として3%を超え、WTI原油がイラン/ホルムズの緊張により$57から$93/バレルまで急騰—は、消費者指向の裁量的なビジネスに不均衡な影響を与えるスタグフレーションリスクを示しています。ガソリンと物流コストの上昇は、実質所得とマージンへの即時カットのようなものです。企業はコストを負担するか、それを引き継いでボリュームを失います。投資家にとって、これは、長期的なテクノロジーの物語(例:自律パートナーシップ)が維持されている場合でも、H1 2026における周期的な収益と評価倍率への下落リスクを高めます。
原油の急騰が短期間で終わるか、貿易/関税の明確化が資本支出と在庫の再構築を促した場合、成長の減速は急速に回復する可能性があります。消費者支出は回復力があり、サービス主導のインフレは労働市場が需要を維持できることを示唆しています。さらに、Uberスタイルのプラットフォームは、一部の裁量的な弱点を相殺するために市場シェアを獲得する可能性があります。
"ホルムズのリスクは、数か月間、高水準の原油価格をロックし、成長が減速する一方で、粘着性のあるインフレを煽り、ソフトランディングの物語を打ち砕きます。"
第4四半期のGDPが1.4%から0.7%に大幅に修正され(第3四半期は4%)、1月のインフレは3%を超え、イラン/ホルムズの緊張によりWTI原油が$93/バレルに63%急騰したことは、スタグフレーションの懸念を裏付けています。ホルムズ海峡は世界の石油供給量の約20%を処理しています。非弾性的な需要は、部分的な封鎖が発生した場合でも価格を維持します。SPRの1億7200万バレルは、世界の需要のわずか2日をカバーします。修正は、Q1データがショックを組み込むにつれて、さらに悪化する可能性があります。
米国のシェール柔軟性とSPRは、紛争が迅速に緩和された場合、供給を氾濫させることができます。また、弱い成長は、インフレを加速させるリスクを回避するために、連邦準備制度が金利を引き下げる可能性があります。
"このスタグフレーションになるかどうかは、原油ショック自体ではなく、政策的ジレンマによって決定されます。"
ChatGPTの1億7200万バレルのSPR計算は正しいですが、政策的手段を見逃しています。原油が$90を超えた場合、連邦準備制度は真のスタグフレーションを回避するために、3%のインフレを無視せざるを得ないというジレンマに直面します。これは単なる「スタグフレーションの罠」ではなく、ドルの強制的な切り下げです。連邦準備制度が価格の安定よりも債務サービスの優先順位を置く場合、原油の急騰は一時的なショックではなく、恒久的な底値になります。Grokの「シェール柔軟性」は、資本支出がすでに崩壊していないことを前提としています。崩壊している場合、供給への対応は12〜18か月遅れる可能性があります。誰も尋ねなかった質問:このデータがQ1後半に到着したとき、連邦準備制度のガイダンスはどのようなものになるでしょうか?
"連邦準備制度は、成長の減速に伴い、債務サービスのコストを管理するために高インフレを許容せざるを得ない場合があります。"
連邦準備制度は、成長の停滞に伴い、債務サービスのコストを管理するために高インフレを許容せざるを得ない場合があります。これにより、スタグフレーションは周期的ではなく構造的になります。
[利用不可]
"高い原油は、財政/連邦準備のダイナミクスが機能するよりも、Uberの供給側のコストと需要ボリュームをより迅速に圧迫します。"
ジェミニの財政支配はクロードの連邦準備制度のジレンマに色を加えていますが、早すぎます—CBOによると、2026年には米国の債務利息がGDPの3.6%に達し、ドル切り下げを圧迫するものの、まだ強制していません。より大きな見落とし:$90以上の原油はUberのドライバーコストを15〜25%引き上げ(燃料は費用の20%)、AVオフセットが機能する前に、0.7%のGDPを考慮して、Q1 2026のボリュームを破壊する運賃を引き上げる必要があります。
패널 판정
컨센서스 없음パネリストは一般的に、最近の経済データがスタグフレーションのリスクを示していることに同意しており、高インフレ、弱いGDP成長、地政学的な原油ショックがあります。彼らはこれらの傾向の持続性について不確実性を表明していますが、連邦準備制度の政策的ジレンマと潜在的な財政支配に対する懸念があるため、悲観的です。
重要な機会は特定されませんでした。
インフレと成長を管理する際の連邦準備制度の政策的ジレンマは、スタグフレーションの罠またはドルの切り下げにつながる可能性があります。