Why AI Has No ROI with Paul Kedrosky

In this week’s Better Offline, Ed Zitron is joined by economist Paul Kedrosky to talk about why nobody can find the ROI of AI, why there won’t be a Dot Com Bubble-style recovery for AI data centers, and how Google’s $80bn equity sale shows we’re at the top. https://paulkedrosky.com/ The Nick, Dick and Paul Show: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFbDiETo29GTIjg6Lk4imig Save $10 off a year of my premium newsletter: https://edzitronswheresyouredatghostio.outpost.pub/public/promo-subscription/gzqwkv54e1 - I’d be so grateful! YOU CAN NOW BUY BETTER OFFLINE MERCH! Go to https://cottonbureau.com/people/better-offline and use code FREE99 for free shipping on orders of $99 or more. Buy our new “FUCK DATA CENTERS” shirts today! --- LINKS: https://www.tinyurl.com/betterofflinelinks Newsletter: https://www.wheresyoured.at/ Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/BetterOffline/ Discord: chat.wheresyoured.at https://discord.com/invite/QUUQUP9szv Ed's Socials: https://twitter.com/edzitron https://www.instagram.com/edzitron https://bsky.app/profile/edzitron.com https://www.threads.net/@edzitron Email Me: [email protected] mailto:[email protected] See omnystudio.com/listener https://omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed Human.

• 0:04Speaker 01

  My name is Jessa. One of the things I love the most about working for United Healthcare is that everybody matters. Every moment matters. There's a person behind every problem. I care because it's what I was put on this earth to do.

• 0:20Speaker 02

  I'm Ben and I work at United Healthcare. I am just one piece of a larger puzzle, but every piece matters. It's more than just work. We want to make the healthcare system better for everyone. I care because I want to make a difference. That's what committed to care means to me.

• 0:34Speaker 03

  Cash flow crunch? OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 1:05Speaker 04

  Empower is all about helping you invest well so you can go out and live a little. And their Free Empower Personal Dashboard shows you your full financial life in one place. You'll be able to see your net worth, monitor budgets, analyze your portfolio, set retirement goals, and more. Whether you're saving for something big, want to treat yourself, friends, or family, or meet long-term goals, Empower helps you see where you stand. You've worked hard for your money, and Empower can help you make the most of it. Download the Empower Personal Dashboard or visit empower.com. Not an Empower client, paid or sponsored.

• 1:38Speaker 05

  Call Zone Media.

• 1:41Ed Zitron?

  Greetums, I'm Ed Zitron and this is Better Offline.

• 1:56Ed Zitron?

  Today, we are joined by the mighty economist Paul Kudrowski. Paul, thank you for joining me.

• 2:02Speaker 07

  Hey Ed, how's it going?

• 2:03Ed Zitron?

  It's going great. Everyone's deeply upset because this week and the last week, everyone has been saying, huh, does AI have a return on investment? And it's, I've really been enjoying it because it's like watching the dinosaurs look up and see the meteor. They're just like, what do you, what do you mean? What do you mean this costs money? Have you, I don't know if you've seen the GitHub Copilot stuff?

• 2:29Speaker 07

  Yeah, I actually put out a thing on it yesterday.

• 2:32Ed Zitron?

  Oh, sorry, Paul, terribly rude of me. You, you know me, I've got all sorts of crap on, so I haven't read it yet. But I'm excited to talk about this. I'm really excited.

• 2:43Speaker 07

  It's really, and not only that, I mean, there's, I'll, I'll sort of triangulate with three different things that touch on different aspects of this at the same time. One was obviously the GitHub Copilot study, which we can get into as deeply as you want. There was also a piece that came out in part from the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Yesterday or the day before, Jack Cook or Clark at Anthropic sent it around, who is obviously one of the co-founders there. And it's, and it's called, where is the, where is AI in GDP statistics? And then, of course, there was the debacle, which I saw anonymous, someone that had anonymously disclosed that they had spent almost a half, $500 million because they had uncapped token expenses.

• 3:27Speaker 07

  And discovered they've sort of blown their credit cards. So anyways, yes, there's a bunch of things.

• 3:30Ed Zitron?

  I love that as well. Well, let's start with the GitHub thing. So for the uninitiated, GitHub Copilot, AI coding tool from Microsoft. Couple of weeks ago, I broke the story, of course, that they were moving their users from a premium request model to a token-based model. So think of it like this, listeners, if you, every time you use the cab service, you could just say, drive me from the Upper West Side to Red Hook. And that would just, that would be one drive and you get a certain amount of drives a month. And then suddenly, the beginning of June, they turned to you and say, yeah, you got to pay by the mile. And you suddenly realize you've been taking 95 mile trips. You've been asking to drive from New Jersey to Maryland, which I realize is further than, than 95 miles. Not a geographer, all right? But nevertheless.

• 4:14Ed Zitron?

  On the GitHub Copilot subreddit, people have just been posting, what the fuck? What do you mean? My whole balance is gone in three prompts? What do you mean by that?

• 4:25Speaker 07

  It's, uh, yeah. And this is part of the problem, right? Is there's been, uh, you can get all econo wonky about this stuff, about the merits of metered pricing on a per token basis versus lump sum pricing. But in a sense, you can think of this was the early pricing in token, in terms of how tokens were metered out, had two really important characteristics. One is they were grotesquely subsidized. You weren't actually seeing the real all in cost with respect to the loaded cost of actually providing you with those tokens. And then as a kind of don't pay a cent event up there with Costco, it was being bundled. So you had a second layer of masking with respect to what these, what tokens were actually costing.

• 5:07Speaker 07

  And so once it becomes unsubsidized and unbundled, then you see your, you know, your ass is dangling in the breeze of real token pricing.

• 5:17Ed Zitron?

  I think it's funny as well because for years, people have been saying to me, that's not happening. They're not subsidizing it. It's different. It's just, it's like the Costco model, for example. People are like, oh yeah, well, they're making money other ways. It's like, no, they're not. They're just selling, in Microsoft's case, they were like, we're going to sell you $1,000 for $39.

• 5:39Speaker 07

  Right.

• 5:39Ed Zitron?

  What do you think? You think that's good? Do you like that?

• 5:43Speaker 07

  It's lovely. It's a lovely come on. It brings people in. It's like the hot dogs at Costco, except Costco has other things on which they make a boatload of money.

• 5:50Ed Zitron?

  Except the hot dogs cost like $7,000 a packet. It's just, I think it's quite deceitful personally. I think it's because these, on one hand, we can make fun of these people. I will continue to do so. It's funny, but when you look at them, it is also quite depressing because they were intentionally misled. Like these people had no idea. It's not like these subsidized subscriptions were like, hey, if you use this many tokens while paying for them, it would cost this much, until they made the change. Microsoft released a calculator that allowed you to see that, but only once they'd announced it. So you have millions, I would say the vast majority of people that interact with AI, who have no idea what it costs, literally none.

• 6:35Speaker 07

  Right, and which is made worse by some of the early over excitement, especially among large corporations that made the mistake of creating leaderboards.

• 6:45Ed Zitron?

  Oh my god, hell yeah.

• 6:48Speaker 07

  Right, so this is, we got into this token maxing phenomenon. So if you're inside of, which is obviously the idea that the more tokens you use, the better you do in your job review, because look at you, you're all AI. The problem, of course, is this is a little bit like the Saudis handing out Humvees to everyone in America. And people say, wow, this is awesome, I love having a Humvee. And then you have to fill it up. And so for a little while, it was like we were subsidizing these grotesquely profligate users of tokens, just like profligate users of gasoline. And then all of a sudden, the bill comes due and you say, wait a minute, this thing's a pig, uses a lot of gas. I don't want to drive it for groceries anymore. And the exact same phenomenon is true with respect to being, again,

• 7:31Speaker 07

  exposed to the, having your ass hanging in the breeze of real token prices.

• 7:35Ed Zitron?

  Well, the other thing is as well is, I just put out a newsletter about this. You look at how these people are freaking out and you also realize they have no idea what AI costs. It's not just like, wow, this is a lot of money. It's they're not even thinking in terms of cost. It's not like they know, I don't know, they're refactoring something. They don't know how much that cost, they don't know how much anything costs. So it's not like they can smoothly transition to token-based billing, because they don't, they don't know, they have no idea.

• 8:08Speaker 07

  No, and this is, this is the deep, this is the deep structural problem, because they were brought in through the side door of bundled pricing. And now that's, that's becoming unbundled. And of course, that also has, is reflected in what we're told. And I think the Wall Street Journal and others have written about this. And it'll be interesting, we see the final S1s for some of the upcoming IPOs, that there is this attempt to try and even mask it in the financial filings, where you get into this phenomenon of what we used to call earnings before bad stuff. And so what they're trying to do is hide the costs of training the models and saying that's not Actually an operating cost, that's a capital cost and we shouldn't have to show that as a function of what actually the margins are on producing tokens.

• 8:53Speaker 07

  And that is of course a cheat, right? Because if that's true, then you should be able to capitalize these things and expense them over a long period of time. And we know full well that these are actually operating costs because they tell us that every 18 months, we're launching a new, a new major model. These things are not capitalized. These are operating expenses that should be treated accordingly with respect to the actual cost of token production. So there's a multifaceted game going on here, both in terms of how it's being presented to users, but also in terms of how they're trying to sell it in the context of the upcoming S1s for the Anthropic and OpenAI IPO filings.

• 9:26Ed Zitron?

  Well, what's really funny as well about the idea of capitalizing training costs is they're never going away because it's not just pre-training shoving, shoving the stuff in the models. They have to constantly tweak them because

• 9:39Speaker 07

  That's right. And so it's right, which from a, you know, from a classic, my years ago accounting, whenever you have a regular predictable cost that you have to expand, you have to incur to continue operating your business, that is no longer a capital cost. That's an expensable item that should be as such. So you, you get into, as I said, like back in the dark days of dot com and even the telecom boom, you get into this problem of earnings before bad stuff where they want to, they want to exclude all of the things that make the numbers look bad. And then of course, on the other side, you have this run rate problem where we continually hear about what the run rates are at these companies and the window with respect to the run rate could be the last 15 minutes for all you know, right? A run rate is just, you extrapolate whatever is most convenient for you. So it's a problem on both sides.

• 10:23Ed Zitron?

  Well, yeah, actually that's, that's, I love talking about run rate. Everyone who listens to this show knows I'm a real run rate pig because, because like Anthropic, I've reached out to both OpenAI and Anthropic and said, hey, how do you define this number? And they will not respond. They will not, they're very unfair to me, very nasty. They will not respond, probably because

• 10:45Ed Zitron?

  From what the information is reported, I don't know how OpenAI does it, but Anthropic not only includes the amounts of money that Amazon and Google make in their revenues, like when they resell them most, but they also, they do 13 times the last month's API spend and 12 times the current day's subscribers. So it's just, there's so many ways, also, API, so token spend, so just organizational token spend, that's not a recurring cost. That's, that's just, you can kind of, I guess, think, well, maybe people are spending this today, but that person who spent half a billion dollars, that company spent half a billion dollars on AI, right?

• 11:30Speaker 07

  Yeah, yeah.

• 11:31Ed Zitron?

  That's not happening again. That person is, that person is, you're not going to get one half a billion dollar Mr. Bean every single month, as someone just goofily, I, I also genuinely, like, I know the reporter Madison Mills, she's a respectable reporter, she's very, she's, she's good, she is well sourced. It's just like, I hope Anthropic didn't include that 500 bill, million in their annualized revenue.

• 11:59Speaker 07

  Yeah, I'm looking, I'm looking forward to it showing up in a public company filing because it almost inevitably will. This is going to be somebody's one time item, right? And, and then-

• 12:08Ed Zitron?

  You think that that will though?

• 12:10Speaker 07

  Oh, absolutely. I mean, half a billion, it's material for almost anyone. So my, my guess is it's going to show up somewhere. It'll be really interesting to see. And my guess is at that scale, it's, it's a public company. So my guess is we will see that. We will know where that actually happened. And so it's going to be, it's going to be very entertaining. But this is the deep structural problem. And it gets worse, of course, because once you unbundle token pricing, and then you're looking at the actual year over year decline in quality adjusted token pricing and token pricing, and you see that the inherent deflationary curve underneath the hood. Now let's connect that to how all of these data centers that are producing these deflating tokens are being, are being constructed, and an increasing fraction of that-

• 12:55Ed Zitron?

  Can you elaborate what you mean by the- Deflating token, I'm not sure I understand.

• 13:00Speaker 07

  So, so over the last, since 2022, on an annualized basis, on a, on a performant basis, so ignoring what the, this continual jump to the frontier, if you imagine sort of on a, comparable token basis, per, across models, across the period, token prices have fallen anywhere from 70 to 90% year over year, consistently back to 2021.

• 13:25Ed Zitron?

  Right, but they're burning more tokens in the process.

• 13:27Speaker 07

  Right, right, right, so, but, but let's put that aside for one second, you think about it, turn it the other way around. So if I'm now, my business is now, I'm unbundling and I'm selling tokens, and that's the way customers, you're telling my customers to think about it. So now they're looking out and they start to see what's happening with token prices, and if I go back one generation, maybe those prices are cheaper. Now we have this classic financial problem of what's called a duration mismatch, right? So I have, I have debt funding the data centers that's 10 to 15 years duration and longer, which is predicated on fixed payments, but being made on the basis of tokens, where you're telling the customer to control your costs, you may want to look back in time and use, you know, an

• 14:12Speaker 07

  older model. So I'm paying for a fixed cost with a deflating commodity, right? This we know, from the, over and over and over again, these duration mismatches, especially duration mismatches that are built on top of debt and a deflating commodity are absolutely atomic with respect to causing a blow up in people's obligations with respect to these, these kinds of duration mismatch problems. So there's a, there's a deep structural issue that this will expose and people haven't quite realized it yet.

• 14:44Ed Zitron?

  So you're saying that as the token costs get cheaper and everyone's being encouraged to use this less or more thoughtfully, that's happening, but they're building the data centers as if number will only ever go up and they'll only ever use tokens.

• 14:58Speaker 07

  That's exactly right. And so you've got this, again, the term of art, you've got a duration mismatch on top of a deflating commodity, that can only end very, very badly. And it was masked because for a while, you weren't exposed directly to that, you were just paying a straight up subscription, almost like Amazon Prime. And of course, that doesn't work because Amazon Prime's costs across the border declining, whereas costs are increasing at the frontier, declining in the, in the, in the back catalog, if you will, of tokens.

• 15:27Ed Zitron?

  And that's the thing with like an Amazon Prime, for example, yes, they have found like Amazon or not like Amazon, people I know many listeners don't love them, then yeah, I agree. But it's like Amazon Prime, they fix those costs by building their own logistics network and they found ways to they they had, I don't know, ways to make that cheaper. No one has that in AI. No one like it's just we have three, four years in and everyone's like, oh, we'll do ASICs. No, we won't. That didn't work. Like, we have, we're like two or three generations of a tranium, inferentia, TPUs, still not profitable.

• 16:01Speaker 07

  Still not profitable. Right.

• 16:03Ed Zitron?

  We know, we would know.

• 16:04Speaker 07

  Yes, we would, we would know. But I think and and of course, the problem is that if you look at, I was just looking at some data yesterday with respect to how small language models are increasingly closing the gap with large language models, which is causing training cycles on large language models to have to accelerate, become more expensive, throw more compute added, more reinforcement learning. The costs are not are particularly not not declining. They're actually increasing sharply at the frontier because they're essentially being chased like, you know, like the the rabbits and like Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner. And so they're they're being chased into this very costly corner as a result. And that's a classic commoditization problem. If you go back to the 19, I don't know, late

• 16:49Speaker 07

  19th century, a very similar thing happened in railroads as people were racing desperately to try and, you know, find a way to build a corner and control themselves so that they could compete with all of these other upstart railroads. And of course, all that really happened was capex exploded, margins went to shit and multiple railroads failed and we led to the crash of what 1873, 1893 and arguably was a was a cause in the Great Depression. So, you know, so you're playing out this exact same game because you're sitting in this high capex world that's increasingly funded by debt and built on top of this duration mismatch with token prices being now exposed and raw in front of people.

• 17:34Speaker 03

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 18:04Speaker 04

  Empower is all about helping you invest well so you can go out and live a little. And their Free Empower Personal Dashboard shows you your full financial life in one place. You'll be able to see your net worth, monitor budgets, analyze your portfolio, set retirement goals, and more. Whether you're saving for something big, want to treat yourself, friends, or family, or meet long-term goals, Empower helps you see where you stand. You've worked hard for your money, and Empower can help you make the most of it. Download the Empower Personal Dashboard or visit empower.com. Not an Empower client paid or sponsored.

• 18:35Speaker 05

  Hi, I'm Jenna Oshkowitz. You might know me from Glee. This is At the Table, the food allergy podcast, a show about food, connection, and what it really looks like to live with food allergies. Each episode, we hear stories from real people like Daniel. People would always think I was lactose intolerant, so I just kind of shortened my explanation to I'm deathly allergic, in a big way that defined a lot of my childhood. And while there are challenges, there are moments that remind you you're not alone.

• 19:06Speaker 01

  One of the best guys that I dated, he made a point to memorize all my food allergies.

• 19:12Speaker 05

  So join us and hear their stories and more, because living with food allergies isn't just about what you can't eat, it's about still having your seat at the table. Brought to you by Genentech and Novartis. Listen to At the Table, the food allergy podcast, on America's number one podcast network, iHeart. Follow At the Table and start listening on the free iHeartRadio app today. Hi, it's Kathleen Griffith, co-host of the Unshakeables podcast. Listen in as Ron and Kelly Moore share their story.

• 19:41Speaker 02

  I'm Ron Moore.

• 19:43Speaker 04

  And I'm Kelly Moore. And starting our own business in our 50s was a little scary, but exciting.

• 19:51Speaker 02

  The biggest advantage was our community. The whole thing about business is relationships.

• 19:56Speaker 04

  We'll say team a lot, not just our internal team, it's the team of our vendors, the team of our clients.

• 20:03Speaker 02

  We help the Veterans Resource Center and we give scholarships. I'm doing this for my heart, for my children, for you, for your children's family. I don't want anything back. And I tell a lot of people, don't give back to me, pay it forward.

• 20:17Speaker 04

  If you work to give, you just see the world differently.

• 20:21Speaker 02

  I'm gonna help as many people as we can. I can't take it with me.

• 20:24Speaker 03

  To hear more from Ron and Kelly, listen to The Unshakables wherever you get your podcasts.

• 20:35Ed Zitron?

  And the other thing is as well is people, just literally in my piece today, people make this point about, oh, it's like the dot com bubble in the we will, we will simply just, we'll reuse these things in the future. Like, we will just pick these up. And it's, I re, I, I hear this from very smart people, people who are not like beguiled by AI industry. But it's like, okay, let's talk about what happened to the dot com bubble. So when it exploded, you had those some micro systems, the ultra, whatever it was, I forget, 43, 50 grand a server, but that one server could run an entire company. You could run everything on it. They had databases, messy CRMs, they had like, did they have on prem loads? Anyway,

• 21:20Ed Zitron?

  you had those things, but you could run that. And you could probably run that in a garage. You might need to use the washing machines plug, but you could do it. And those things were 50 grands, you'd probably get them at, what, 20, 30 large.

• 21:32Speaker 07

  Yeah.

• 21:33Ed Zitron?

  Okay, great. Um, what happens when the AI bubble bursts? You can't just plug in an AI GPU. A B200 GPU is about 50 grand. It requires about, I think, as I looked this up very recently, it's like 1,200, 1,500 watts for a Sun Microsystems server, about the same for a single B200, which will require bespoke cooling, a server, hardware, RAM, all of this other stuff. And then you'll find out that you can't do jack shit with a single GPU.

• 22:02Speaker 07

  Yeah, it's gonna be a huge source of disappointment. Once you power it up, your neighborhood lights all blink out and you can't, still can't do anything. So, yeah.

• 22:09Ed Zitron?

  I just think you can actually use it.

• 22:12Speaker 07

  But that's, but that's, I call this, I was just, I got into this with someone recently who was making a similar, I call it faith-based argumentation. It's this kind of, you know, quasi-religious orthodoxy that requires you to believe the following five things. You know, they always create more jobs than they destroy. We can always reuse assets after the fact. And one of the things I always point to people is that almost half of US railroad lines built during the boom years in the late 19th century were eventually abandoned. And did they find reuse? They absolutely did. It only took 100 years and now they're mountain biking trails. So, you know, let's, let's wait around for that.

• 22:49Ed Zitron?

  But even then, those were railroads. They were railroads that didn't require electrification, I guess.

• 22:56Speaker 07

  That's right, right. So they were much more stable as assets, right? They didn't have the problems that GPUs and data centers do. We're not just the huge power and cooling requirements, but also the inherent, the trajectory of the underlying technology where it changes quickly enough that, you know, is, is a 20-year-old, you know, Blackwell have any use to anyone other than as a paperweight? Of course, the answer is probably not, whereas a railroad.

• 23:20Ed Zitron?

  They are pretty heavy.

• 23:21Speaker 07

  They are extremely heavy. I actually was messing around with one recently. And so, yeah, and so this is the problem. And again, it's this sort of naive argumentation, not to mention, you know, the old Keynes line that it may be, it may be great in the long run, but in the long run, we're also all dead. So it really depends on your time horizon. And I find it honest, honestly, in the face of the kinds of consequential changes in the US economy, I find it a very glib style of argumentation where you're essentially patting people on the head and saying, you know, don't worry, you're pretty little head, this will all work out because it always has. And they're arguing from a data set sample size of five, which we wouldn't launch, we wouldn't launch a drug on that basis.

• 24:00Ed Zitron?

  Also, I think it helps them rationalize bad behavior. Because if you say, okay, it worked. The one that actually upsets me is, well, the dot com bubble worked out. It's like, yeah, the stock market lost 80% of its value. Hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs. People lost everything in some cases. And at the end, it's like, okay, that was also completely different. But you're being quite glib about the first part. But it's also, yeah, it's okay that people burn a lot of money for basically no reason. And it also allows you to not think about bad stuff. It allows you to do the coward.

• 24:38Speaker 07

  The Andresonian argument that there's no point in introspection. It's just a really bad idea. Right? Well, I think about these things, it'll all sort itself out. But I also think there's a deeper issue. And we may have talked about this before, but the idea, a lot of people treat as an article of faith, Carlotta Perez's book, Technological Revolutions in Financial Capital. And one of the things that they quote, take away from that, which I'm not convinced they do. I think they only look at the pictures. But anyways, one of the things they take away from her book and her work and other people's work with respect to these violent technological revolutions is the idea that it really doesn't matter because it always works out. Here's the difference, though. In past episodes, we didn't tell ourselves that. So there's an element of reflexivity going on here.

• 25:20Speaker 07

  Because once you know the plot and you act as if the plot is somehow F equals MA. It's a law of physics. Then the whole game changes because now you're acting as if it doesn't matter what I do. Because you think it doesn't matter what you do. Because you've got this idea in your head as an article of faith that it always works out. That wasn't true historically. No one in building out the railroads, rural electrification, the fiber bubble. No one was telling themselves in the time, this always works out. That was not part of the, that was not part of the playbook. The idea that we now tell ourselves these things is such a deep structural change in terms of the way this stuff happens that it amazes me that no one understands it.

• 25:59Ed Zitron?

  Well, I think it's just. It's the rationalizing and it's also, it gives you a way of avoiding thinking about true structural issues.

• 26:09Speaker 07

  Right. It's thumb sucking, I always call it. It's really kind of gives you comfort.

• 26:15Ed Zitron?

  It allows you to be like, well, Google isn't stupid for raising $80 billion in equity sales. Yeah. Google, the largest companies in the world couldn't just destroy their companies by wasting all their money. It's like, yeah, go and type something into Google search. Go and type anything into Google and tell me if this looks like a company running a good business or a good product, or just a company throwing shit at the wall and being like, ah, this works, right? You know?

• 26:45Speaker 07

  Well, and we have, we have so many examples of companies that were lauded during the run-up of prior episodes for being really understanding the way the world works and being a real pathbreaker and so on, baiting to the, whether it was the global financial crisis and the banks at that time. And my friend Jim Cramer's unfortunately timed comments about Bear Stearns and all that kind of stuff. Because people are so backwards looking and so extrapolative with respect to the way they look at things, they just can't see the discontinu- the obvious discontinuities ahead. And so they extrapolate and extrapolate and then they eventually, you know, extrapolate their way right off a, right off a cliff. And I, I see a lot of that in this going around. And I don't know if you saw it, but there was a paper came out as a good example of

• 27:30Speaker 07

  this. There was a paper came out yesterday and this goes to the heart of the token pricing problem. And it came out, I think it was on SSN or Enbar, or yeah, National Bureau of Economic Research. And so the paper basically was about how there's been, as you and I both know, there's been this explosion in the number of GitHub commits and repositories or repositories and commits within them. And it's up something like 200% over the last 18 months, largely driven by harnesses and everything and all of these coding tools. And of course, then they looked at the other side of it was this is this prolific use of tokens. What has it, what has it led to? Because producing more stuff that shows up on GitHub is just a need immediate variable. And nobody in the real economy cares other than maybe Microsoft. They probably wish there was probably a little less activity on GitHub.

• 28:14Speaker 07

  And so they showed that, and this was just, they used iOS apps, Android apps, and one other category. Anyways, and they showed that the number of reviews per app has declined sharply as the number of repositories and commits has gone up. So essentially what we're seeing, and this is the thing that I think is really important, is these can be very effective if wildly subsidized productivity tools for coders. But the end economic result is mostly the production of sort of slop everything. Slop apps, slop content, slop. And so you're flooding and commoditizing these markets that are becoming both saturated and declining margins. And this is an incredibly important distinction, that just because it's helping you produce more stuff,

• 28:58Speaker 07

  it doesn't mean that in the broader economy, its ability to absorb it is increased, nor does it care. And that's what this paper shows. And I think the idea that we're doing all of this work and what's increasingly become expensive work, using tokens to produce things and makes coders very happy, having, you know, things running in agentic loops. But the broader economy, you know, doesn't give a fuck.

• 29:22Ed Zitron?

  And by any chance, did you read Semi Analysis's AI Dark Output?

• 29:28Speaker 07

  I did, yes.

• 29:28Ed Zitron?

  Which is, it is one of the funniest things I have read in my life. So for the listeners, you'll have a link to this. But it's basically, yeah, AI is so, AI output will be real before it is measurable. We can capture token spend, and we can capture jobs lost. But unless AI's output is sold at a visible price, only token spend is captured in GDP. By which they mean, we don't actually measure whether something is good. We just measure whether something. Like, we just, it's actually so, this is the shit a teenager would say when lying about having a girlfriend.

• 30:03Speaker 07

  Yeah, this is voodoo teen economics. Yeah, it really is. And again, it goes to that National Bureau of Economic Research paper. It's exactly the same thing. I was mentioning at the top, there is this tremendous, and I can, I'll send you the link if you haven't seen it. And it's called, Where Is AI in GDP Statistics: Filling the Measurement Gap?

• 30:22Ed Zitron?

  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 30:23Speaker 07

  A couple of days, or a couple of days ago. And they argue that

• 30:28Speaker 07

  Essentially, AI, quality-adjusted AI output is up more than 2,000% per year. They come up with estimates of like, you know, 250, 300 billion dollars on top of the and then but they could then essentially come to the conclusion that this is all true as long as you accept our redefinition of GDP. And of course.

• 30:46Ed Zitron?

  Ah.

• 30:47Speaker 07

  Right.

• 30:48Ed Zitron?

  Right, okay.

• 30:50Speaker 07

  If you allow me to redefine GDP, I could present you with some tremendous numbers. And the entire paper is absolutely fascinating as an example of what's often called motivated reasoning. I need to believe this, therefore I construct an argument to allow me to continue to believe it. And the way I get there is by redefining a variable that's already very squishy in the first place. Let's not pretend that, you know, measuring GDP is much easier than like, I don't know, measuring muans in a cloud chamber or something. It's still very hard and we're about to, you're trying to make it harder to justify something that's just not defensible.

• 31:25Ed Zitron?

  And the AI dark output one is great because they, substitution dark output is work that was previously done by humans and is now done by AI. In our dark output monitor, we have identified roughly one and a half trillion dollars in tasks that current AI could substantially augment or automate, to which I say, why hasn't it done it?

• 31:45Speaker 07

  Right.

• 31:46Ed Zitron?

  It's that, this is the AI thing though, because specifically with AI, with other things, productivity is hard to measure. It's hard to measure outputs with workers in knowledge work especially, like it's, it's doable, but it's not like a, a linear path. Except you're selling a tool that can theoretically do anything. If this did what they said it did, we would have gunfights in the street. We would have the destruction of most knowledge work and it would be happening a year ago. It would be half happening a year ago, happening fully today. We would have the destruction of law firms. We'd have the destruction of hyperscalers because anyone would just be like, build

• 32:29Ed Zitron?

  me a Microsoft Word and it would build them a Microsoft Word and they would use it and it would be functional, bug-free, all of these things. They would be. Well, I mean, we've already seen a spike in litigation from pro se people representing themselves, but nevertheless, we would see law firms turning into two or three person shops that would beat the leading litigators because they would have Oh, absolutely. It would be very easy to see.

• 33:06Speaker 03

  Cash Flow Crunch on Deck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 33:37Speaker 04

  Empower is all about helping you invest well so you can go out and live a little. And their free Empower Personal Dashboard shows you your full financial life in one place. You'll be able to see your net worth, monitor budgets, analyze your portfolio, set retirement goals, and more. Whether you're saving for something big, want to treat yourself, friends, or family, or meet long-term goals, Empower helps you see where you stand. You've worked hard for your money, and Empower can help you make the most of it. Download the Empower Personal Dashboard or visit empower.com, not an Empower client, paid, or sponsored.

• 34:08Speaker 05

  Hi, I'm Jenna Oshkowitz. You might know me from Glee. This is At the Table, the food allergy podcast, a show about food, connection, and what it really looks like to live with food allergies. Each episode, we hear stories from real people like Daniel.

• 34:23Ed Zitron?

  People would always think I was lactose intolerant, so I just kind of shortened my explanation to I'm deathly allergic, in a big way that defined a lot of my childhood.

• 34:34Speaker 05

  And while there are challenges, there are moments that remind you you are not alone.

• 34:39Speaker 01

  Best guys that I dated. He made a point to memorize all my food allergies.

• 34:45Speaker 05

  So join us and hear their stories and more because living with food allergies isn't just about what you can't eat. It's about still having your seat at the table. Brought to you by Genentech and Novartis. Listen to At The Table, the food allergy podcast on America's number one podcast network, iHeart. Follow At The Table and start listening on the free iHeart radio app today.

• 35:06Speaker 04

  Hi, it's Kathleen Griffith, co-host of the Unshakeables podcast. Listen in as Ron and Kelly Moore share their story.

• 35:14Speaker 02

  I'm Ron Moore.

• 35:16Speaker 04

  And I'm Kelly Moore. And starting our own business in our 50s was a little scary, but exciting.

• 35:24Speaker 02

  The biggest advantage was our community. The whole thing about business is relationships.

• 35:29Speaker 04

  We'll say team a lot, not just our internal team, it's the team of our vendors, the team of our clients.

• 35:36Speaker 02

  We help the Veterans Resource Center and we give scholarships. I'm doing this for my heart, for my children, for you, for your children's family. I don't want anything back. And I tell a lot of people, don't give back to me, pay it forward.

• 35:50Speaker 04

  If you work to give, you just see the world differently.

• 35:54Speaker 02

  I'm gonna help as many people as we can. I can't take it with me.

• 35:57Speaker 04

  To hear more from Ron and Kelly, listen to the Unshakeables wherever you get your podcasts.

• 36:09Speaker 07

  I'll give you a related example, which made the rounds yesterday, and it kind of gets to the heart of this misunderstanding. Is there was someone who shall remain unnamed, but has a popular newsletter and used to work at a certain venture fund. Put out something about, put out the radiologist, the radiologist paradox, which was the idea that back in 2016, Geoffrey Hinton, computer scientist and Nobelist, a really pioneer in image models and deep neural networks, said in a talk that probably within five years, if not 10 years, large language deep at the time, neural networks, learning models would be better than radiologists. And there's really no reason. And to continue training them. Now, of course, he said 10 years on the outside.

• 36:53Speaker 07

  Well, it's now 10 years later. And if you look at the data, we're continuing to produce more radiologists. And that analyst then put out a note yesterday, and so did, I think, Kotu or someone else. And said, like, well, checkmate. Jeffrey Hinton, look, we have a lot more radiologists. And of course, this is a classic example of a profound misunderstanding of so many things. It's once it's hard to keep track. One is that, again, it's not clear that being selectively better than radiologists at certain things like identifying, I don't know, prostate cancers or whatever else. If that, obviously, that's not good enough. Radiologists do more than that.

• 37:33Speaker 07

  But it also misunderstands the nature of the employment market because radiologists, like most of medicine, has created a very comfortable little cartel for themselves. So even if there was gale force winds blowing at radiologists because of AI, the likelihood of you seeing it in such a short time, even if Hinton was right, that they could in theory replace, you know, a significant slice of what radiologists do. It's a misunderstanding of the nature of the markets themselves. So it misunderstands both the technology and the nature of cartelized employment markets. Whenever you these kinds of arguments, and yet it's used as an example of how the inexorable march of these things, you know, continues apace and it will always be augmenting.

• 38:17Speaker 07

  And I just think there's so many sort of nested misunderstandings of how, how, what pressures AI is having on employment markets and how we might see it, where it might show up. But then to take it up a level, to then do these calculations and say, oh, look, I can now come up with a defensible measure of how the augmenting function is working and then incorporate that in GDP. I kind of have to say bullshit. No, you can't. We're failing at the simple stuff.

• 38:46Ed Zitron?

  Well, also, just a very simple response is, okay, let's say can identify them better than a radiologist, right? Now what? Like, the radiologists, they don't just look at stuff like, they are doctors. They've required, like, there's more to the process than just like, yes or no. And also, you are buying the experience. You're buying their experience and their connections and their ability to work within a hospital system.

• 39:13Speaker 07

  And there's tremendous papers on this.

• 39:15Ed Zitron?

  And treatment.

• 39:17Speaker 07

  Oh, absolutely. Showing how models.

• 39:19Ed Zitron?

  What do we do next?

• 39:20Speaker 07

  Right. Models in general, in a medical context, and this is writ large, applies to models use in all complex environments. They tend to over-triage trivial cases, meaning that if you come in with like a cut, they're like, dude, this could be sepsis. Let's take you in and start doing tissue biopsies. And it's like, no, no, it's just a cut. Leave me alone. And at the other end of extreme, a woman comes in with chest, well, with pain in her back, which sometimes is indicative of some kind of cardiac event. They're like, yeah, it's probably just a strain. And so this idea of marching straight through and saying that the only thing that matters is the input data and therefore I can use these things in these complex environments. We know these tendencies towards over-triaging trivial cases and under-triaging critical ones.

• 40:02Speaker 07

  That's also true, just as a side note, I gave a talk about this recently to the Fed, where I was showing how models do the exact same thing in financial markets, where they tend to become over-aggressive when they should be conservative and vice versa, which leads to much more fragility in financial markets. And yet, you know, we march on. And this is the deep problem, is this kind of complete misunderstanding of the nature of how these things respond in these complex environments. And then the systemic consequences of doing it. Like, for example, you replace radiologists with something with a tendency to over-triage. Guess what you're going to get? Far more testing, much more testing getting done, which may or may not be profitable for hospitals, but will have cascading consequences for people who have to have follow-up biopsies

• 40:45Speaker 07

  because of things that look like possibly malignancies and turns out they weren't. And what we know from medicine is that for the most part, most things should be left alone.

• 40:54Ed Zitron?

  Yeah. And again, I keep coming back to the really simple thing, which is. If these things were going to replace people, they would just do it. They wouldn't be, everything wouldn't, I keep saying this, but everything wouldn't read like the Riddler wrote it. It would just every, every single AI jobs thing is like, well, it's AI affected careers that might be doing this in this time in this way. There was a CNBC headline last year. It was like 11% of jobs can already be done by AI. But when you looked, it was like, yeah, it was the labor simulator we made. We didn't like, we didn't look at anything. We didn't like.

• 41:32Speaker 07

  It was the same problem with the, with the meter studies, obviously, in terms of the duration, right? The duration of tasks.

• 41:39Ed Zitron?

  METR, right?

• 41:40Speaker 07

  Right, right. Those ones. And were you the duration of tasks where you can get to 50% likelihood of completion? And of course, if that was a human, using that as your, as your, as your benchmark, if that was a human, I would fire those guys, right? I mean, that's not a useful measurement in terms of how a human might think about a productive coworker. I don't think about you just half the time you get shit wrong, right? That would be kind of, that would be something that would probably lead to review problems in the, at the end of the quarter or year. And so we do, what's the line? Sam Harris's line? This is playing tennis without an ad, right?

• 42:12Ed Zitron?

  Yeah. It's, it's just this, and it's also just, we treat these things like they're fucking, they're like gifted children. It's like, wow, you could 50% of the time do this, maybe. And that is, it's time for the New York Times to write an entire article about, we need an Odd Lots episode that covers that 50% of the time this could do this. And it's just because you can't do the thing that every other obvious innovation has done. You can't do it where you just go, wow, this does this. We could do this now. It's if this happens, and that is a like load bearing if

• 42:53Ed Zitron?

  we might be able to possibly do this. We can't measure it in the way you measure other things, which is how we would otherwise distinguish whether something was good or not. So we made up a new thing. And wow, has it beaten the met, the benchmarks we made up for it?

• 43:08Speaker 07

  Right. And the problem Problem of course is is this is all becomes a bit facile and glib and everything else in terms of the arguments being made, but it has spillover consequences in the real world, which is the unfortunate thing is that let's follow the logic forward. If my job is I'm selling tokens and tokens, I need to sell more tokens rather than less because I have to pay the the not on some fixed obligation. Well, I'm going to construct more data centers and construct more larger data centers. And you end up with these massive mega projects like this controversial one that Kevin O'Leary has been promoting.

• 43:43Ed Zitron?

  Mr. Dogshit.

• 43:44Speaker 07

  Right, north of north of Salt Lake City, you know, this that in it's in the limit might be the size of Manhattan or larger, as people point out. This has consequences because the arrow of time only moves in one direction. I defy you to find an example of, you know, the old Talking Heads song where it, you know, this used to be a parking lot and now it's covered with flowers. The data center is not going to reverse. Once you build these giant things in the real world with real consequences in terms of, you know, sprawling out physically, but also sitting on top of water and power, untangling that becomes really, really difficult, as does, for example, having to spin up all of these new natural gas plants to power these things because

• 44:28Speaker 07

  we're increasingly asking that hyperscalers come with their own power behind the meter.

• 44:33Ed Zitron?

  Yeah, the behind the meter, yeah.

• 44:35Speaker 07

  Right, right, right. When we're doing that at the worst possible time because the combination of batteries and alternative sources ranging from wind and solar, for example, are becoming much more effective and able to be more persistent with battery backup. And yet we're installing these CO2 intensive things with 30 and 40 year lifespans funded by debt that are almost all likely to end up being stranded assets like this. They'll be like the statues at Easter Island eventually, except natural gas plants.

• 45:04Ed Zitron?

  Well, that's and this is what I've been saying, it goes back to the dot com thing I was saying. It's not like like an incomplete data center, which I think the vast majority, I don't think any of these things get finished, the vast majority of them don't get fully powered.

• 45:17Speaker 07

  Like, yeah, I think anything that's targeted over a gigawatt doesn't get finished.

• 45:21Ed Zitron?

  I fully agree. And the funny thing is with that is people like, yeah, the dot com bubble when it burst, people had the useful infrastructure. That will cost just as much to finish in the future, except the debt, you'll go to a credit for you go to a well, probably not private credit in the end of this, but go to a bank like, yeah, I want to finish this data center. They will shoot you with a gun. They will, they will. But you will get headshotted by the bank manager for saying the words AI. It's just, and it's

• 45:52Speaker 07

  Right. And it's very, I'll give you an even more, it's an even more insidious than that. And I spend a lot of time talking, trying to talk off the ledge, if you will, various regional economic development people. I was just talking to some people in New Mexico about this. And the problem they have is, you know, they, they've been trying to land some large employer for 25 years in these high unemployment regions. And so I'm entirely sympathetic to the problem that a data center hyperscaler shows up and says, listen, let me install this. Give me the following, you know, giveaways with respect to taxes and all this will eventually after construction will have this many jobs and so on. And you don't have to keep fighting for the Hyundai battery factory or the Ford assembly plant or whatever else. It'll just

• 46:35Speaker 07

  be here spinning off tax revenues. And so what happens is, A, that looks like a pretty good bet because it's a fixed obligation in terms of what will be flowing back into your county for years to come. And what do they do then? They start pre-budgeting that and saying, okay, we'll start building new playgrounds. We'll start fixing the water supply. We'll be able to fund schools. Great. Now, okay, you've front loaded all of that stuff. What happens whenever the data center doesn't get finished? You're actually in a worse situation than you were previously. So it has real world consequences in terms of these annuity streams that are being dangled in front of people whose regions have suffered economically for decades. And that's going to be the, the story over the next 25 years.

• 47:16Ed Zitron?

  Yeah, it's going to be years of data center collapses, even after the AI bubble bursts, in my opinion, there, there's going to just be years of this because you're already seeing a lot of this stuff is speculative. And even then, even if these things get turned on, as you said at the beginning, we are in an era where people are going to be trying to cut back on costs. But then there's the really basic answer. Do more data centers do? What do we get out of these? Because OpenAI has more compute than anyone. What are they doing? What's the difference? What does, what, what, I keep hearing the term AI factory. And I'm like, what do you mean? What do you mean by that?

• 47:56Speaker 07

  Our factory full of geniuses. That's my favorite.

• 47:59Ed Zitron?

  Oh, the data center, I, oh, jeez, a data center full of geniuses. I, I really dislike Dario Amade. I hate how he sounds. I hate how he speaks. Just like, no, what are you fucking talking about? Because more data centers so far has not actually improved these products. It's not like there's not, I, if you gave OpenAI another 15 gigawatts of data centers, doesn't exist, but let's say they did. Nothing like, nothing is gonna change about this. Yeah, I, I don't, and I don't think I, but the other thing is as well. Hey, uh, is Vera Rubin gonna make AI profitable? Because if it isn't, this is probably the last generation. But that is, I think, at this point, the thing.

• 48:43Speaker 07

  I think, I think very much so. And I think that's one of the other consequences here that's going on. And I think it's part of the, one of the reasons why, and I don't know if you've noticed, but the Jensen has been, has gone from being very promotional to extra special, very to the third power promotional in terms of, I saw today. He was anointing Marvel as the next trillion dollar company. And I, for me, this is really unprecedented. And but it only works if you start thinking about it in terms of the ecosystem of buyers and sellers in the context of AI capex. And realizing that the more valuable all of these companies become, the more money is sort of flowing around this. What we used to be called like a, a, a captive economy. And, and then it just recirculates amongst all the players as they become increasingly wealthy because their stocks get bid up.

• 49:28Speaker 07

  And so this notion of having people suggesting that one of their sort of peers or quasi competitors should also be valued at a trillion dollars is really unprecedented. And it's only under, you can only really understand it once you understand it that they are all essentially running printing presses in their basement and the printing press is their stock. And they're hoping that the value of the printing press and the currency keeps going up. And that way they can circulate more script, script among them, which in turn turns into purchasing. And that's the, that's the fundamental circularity at the core of all of this.

• 50:00Ed Zitron?

  So as we wrap up, I wanted to get like, because I've already had emails and texts somehow. I don't know how they got my number. What do you think of this? What does this Google thing mean? So Google doing their $80 billion raise at the market. What does this tell you?

• 50:16Speaker 07

  Well, that they a couple of different things. One is that this is this is the equity raise.

• 50:21Ed Zitron?

  Yes, exactly. So 10 billion from Berkshire.

• 50:24Speaker 07

  Yeah.

• 50:24Ed Zitron?

  And then some other like 10 billion for Berkshire. And then I think two different at the market sales.

• 50:29Speaker 07

  Yeah. So I mean, so this it tells you that the appetite continues to be incredibly high for their pay for for not for equity, which is surprising because for the most part, the the funding has been increasingly moving towards credit, obviously, right?

• 50:44Ed Zitron?

  Yeah.

• 50:45Speaker 07

  And because of the saturation of their cash flows with respect to having to sort of inoculate themselves against all of the other commitments they have. My favorite example being that Microsoft is a good example of this is that their stock based compensation is so high that they have to, which is obviously only handled through cash flows, that the way they they inoculate themselves against it is they have to do stock buybacks. And once you start doing that, you've got a much larger commitment of cash, which forces you after you pay for hyperscaler data centers, you then have to start doing raises off balance sheet using SPVs and other kinds of funding vehicles. So that they're able to do this is sort of surprising to me to a degree that there's still this much appetite for, you know, non credit equity financing of of some of their

• 51:30Speaker 07

  future obligations, because it gives you no call on future cash flows. So what's in it for you as a provider of equity here? It's not clear.

• 51:36Ed Zitron?

  Yeah. Is it also a sign that the debt is running out? Like, why would they do this instead of raising debt?

• 51:43Speaker 07

  So there's no question about that as well. So that's the other side of this is that as of Q1 2020, what a year are we in 2026? I have to look around the room. That's bad. So as of Q1 2026, where the hyperscalers are now the largest issue of investment grade debt on in investment grade markets worldwide, they just passed the banks. So yes, the other answer to this question is, is there is a capacity issue with respect to the further issue? Issuance of investment grade debt in a weird way, they would actually be better if they were issuing junk, high yield, because there's a higher appetite for high yield, but they just so happen to be currently anyways, prime credits, so they're issuing investment grade, and the appetite for that stuff is finite, which is why increasingly

• 52:27Speaker 07

  the marginal buyer for the most recent credit issuances from the hyperscalers is the usual suspects like European insurance funds, Middle Eastern sovereign wealth, these are the people who famously tend to show up at the end of almost every bubble, and so here they are at the door again.

• 52:45Ed Zitron?

  So yeah, this you think, do you think that this is toward the end? I'm not asking for a hard one.

• 52:51Speaker 07

  No, no, no, no, I think very much that. I think the blow off top is this year's three mega IPOs, and that kind of marks the gonging of the bell with respect to take the seriousness with respect to have to take this inability of these companies to make money.

• 53:08Ed Zitron?

  Paul, it's always such a pleasure to have you. Where can people find you?

• 53:12Speaker 07

  PaulKudrowski.com is the best place.

• 53:14Ed Zitron?

  Hell, yeah. Everyone, thank you so much for listening. I'm of course Ed Zitron. You can catch me on this podcast, Better Offline. Where's your Ed at? Subscribe to the newsletter, my principal form of income. I will be back with a monologue on Friday. Thank you all for listening and goodbye.

• 53:37Ed Zitron?

  Thank you for listening to Better Offline. The editor and composer of the Better Offline theme song is Matt Osowski. You can check out more of his music and audio projects at mattosowski.com, M A T T O S O W S K I dot com. You can email me at [email protected] or visit betteroffline.com to find more podcast links and of course my newsletter. I also really recommend you go to chat dot where's your ed dot at to visit the Discord and go to r slash better offline to check out our Reddit. Thank you so much for listening.

• 54:09Speaker 03

  Better Offline is a production of Cool Zone Media. For more from Cool Zone Media, visit our website, coolzonemedia.com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 54:42Speaker 04

  Empower is all about helping you invest well so you can go out and live a little. And their Free Empower Personal Dashboard shows you your full financial life in one place. You'll be able to see your net worth, monitor budgets, analyze your portfolio, set retirement goals, and more. Whether you're saving for something big, want to treat yourself, friends, or family, or meet long-term goals, Empower helps you see where you stand. You've worked hard for your money, and Empower can help you make the most of it. Download the Empower Personal Dashboard or visit empower.com. Not an Empower client paid or sponsored. This is Danielle Fishel from Pod Meets World. Every purchase is a financial decision, so it's worth asking. What am I getting out of this? If you're using the Chase Freedom

• 55:22Speaker 04

  Flex Card, you can maximize your cash back on things you need. Groceries and gas, cash back. Dinner, cash back on that, too. More ways to earn, more ways to get rewarded. Sign up for the Chase Freedom Flex Card. Learn more at chase.com/getflex. This is a paid collaboration with Chase Freedom Flex. Cards issued by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., member FDIC. Subject to credit approval. Offer subject to change. Terms apply.

• 55:49Speaker 03

  She's been thinking about this sleepover all week, but I think about her food allergies all the time. Fortunately, her doctor prescribed Zolair, omalizumab. It's proven to significantly reduce allergic reactions if a food allergy accident happens. Zolair 150mg is a prescription medication used to treat food allergy in people one year of age and older to reduce allergic reactions due to accidental exposure to one or more foods. While taking Zolair, you should continue to avoid all foods to which you are allergic. Don't use if you are allergic to Zolair. Zolair may cause a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction called anaphylaxis. Tell your doctor if you ever had anaphylaxis. Get help right away if you have trouble breathing or if you have swelling of your throat or tongue. Zolair should not be used for the emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. Zolair is for maintenance use to reduce allergic reactions, including

• 56:33Speaker 03

  anaphylaxis, while avoiding food allergens. Serious side effects such as cancer, fever, muscle aches and rash, parasitic infection, or heart and circulation problems have been reported. Please see zolair.com for full prescribing information. Ask an allergist about Zolair. This is an advertisement for Zolair, paid for by Genentech and Novartis.

• 56:49Speaker 00

  This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed Human.