NVIDIA’s $500 Billion Gamble, A.I. Doctor Revolution, & Rent Strikes Gone Wild | The Tom Bilyeu Show

ITU: Ready to break through your biggest business bottleneck? Apply to work with me 1:1 - https://impacttheory.co/SCALE Sign up for my AI Masterclass: https://tombilyeu.com/ai-masterclass?utm_campaign=TBS-Livestream&utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=social What's up, guys? Today I've got a mind-blowing episode for you with one of the most innovative thinkers in the world of artificial intelligence—Jensen Huang, the legendary CEO of NVIDIA. This is the guy who’s reshaping entire industries and basically powering the AI revolution itself. Now, I wanted to have Jensen on because he’s not just building chips; he’s pioneering the future of intelligence as a commodity. We get into the weeds on how AI is transforming the way we work, how data centers are becoming the new artificial brains, and what all of this means for you—whether you’re an investor, an entrepreneur, or just someone trying to keep up with the pace of change. We go deep on the risks and rewards of AI financing, how to thrive in a world of rapid technological disruption, and why the next decade is going to redefine who wins and who gets left behind. If you care about making sense of our wild economic system, protecting your future, and using technology to level up, this is an episode you cannot afford to miss. I hope you guys get as much value from this conversation as I did. And if you do, don’t forget to drop a review—that's how we get this message out to the people who need it most. I’m Tom Bilyeu, and welcome to Impact Theory. Sponsors: Quince: Free shipping and 365-day returns at https://quince.com/impactpod Whatnot: Download the Whatnot app today and get free shipping on your first order. Quo: Try for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months at https://quo.com/impact Incogni: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code IMPACT at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/impact Pique: 20% off at https://piquelife.com/impact Shopify: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial period at https://shopify.com/impact Surfshark: Go to https://surfshark.com/TOMBor use code TOMB at checkout to get 4 extra months of Surfshark! ATT Business: Switch to AT&T Business at business.att.com http://business.att.com Ketone IQ: Visit https://ketone.com/IMPACT for 30% OFF your subscription order Netsuite: For the first time ever you can try NetSuite Next for free. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, go to https://NetSuite.ai/Theory https://netsuite.ai/Theory. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Let's talk about the moment your side hustle becomes a real business. Now, I see way too many founders stay stuck running their business like it's a hobby, and then they wonder why nothing ever feels real. It doesn't feel real because it's not. I've helped thousands of entrepreneurs build real businesses through Impact Theory University, and the first step in the path to building a legit business is registering it. And Taylor Brands will help you do just that in a few clicks. An LLC, a limited liability company, is an official business structure. It's inexpensive to form and very simple to maintain. It's how you open a business bank account. It's how customers know they're dealing with a real company. And Taylor Brands doesn't stop at the filing.

• 0:45Speaker 00

  Their dashboard tracks what comes next based on what your business actually needs. So EIN number, registered agent, licenses and permits, bookkeeping, business banking. I tell every founder the same thing. Just make it official. Click the link in the show notes to check out Taylor Brands and get started on your business today. This is a paid advertisement. Welcome, everybody, to the Much Belieger Tom Dooley Show Live. Okay, sorry about that, guys. I don't know if it was Russia. I don't know if it was Iran. I don't know if it was AI, because I'm going to talk smack on each and every one of those today. But it is a wild day. We're off to quite the start already. I appreciate you guys sticking through the technical difficulties, and now we will get into it.

• 1:28Speaker 00

  Jensen Huang is putting forward a new AI financing initiative package, incentive package, excuse me, that is further fueling concerns that AI debt is an unsustainable circular mess. We are going to go deep on that one. Trump reportedly is having to act like James Bond to avoid assassination attempts as Iran tries to take him out and possibly as they took out our chat. Obviously, I'm kidding about that, but nonetheless, Mamdani says he wants to make things more affordable, but then attacks Amazon for keeping prices too low. It's all resentment all the way down. We're going to go into the details there. In DSA news, my favorite kind of news, they admit that illegal immigrants are part of their plan for taking power,

• 2:13Speaker 00

  and Tracy Rosenthal teaches the DSA-approved method for stealing from landlords. We're going to hear it in her own words. A man with multiple convictions, technically not convicted. He was awaiting trial. He had an ankle monitor. They removed it. Anyway, he gets released, stabs an innocent man to death just hours after being released on bail. And Google just built an LLM doctor that outperforms human doctors when dealing with real-world patients, even patients that are actually antagonistic to the process. Actually, pretty exciting. So on the AI side of things today, we've got the wacky world of AI financing, which we're going to cover in depth.

• 2:58Speaker 00

  But we've also got some incredible news about breakthroughs that are happening. I saw in the initial, when we went live, people were asking questions about what does the world look like in the future where AI is bringing this world of abundance? Who's actually going to win? Are the average people going to get ahead? Or is this only going to be for asset owners? And that really is going to come down to the division between what does a world of abundance truly look like? We're going to cover all of that. But first, I want to talk about what actually happened in the world of AI financing with Jensen Huang of Nvidia leading the charge. From where I'm sitting, AI financing just continues to get more and more insane. The AI industry is literally acting like its value is going to go up forever,

• 3:41Speaker 00

  and we have yet another eyebrow-raising financing scheme. And it's not like this is straight out of Enron's playbook or anything like that. These aren't ideas that haven't been explored before. It is the sheer volume of everything getting sucked into this one bet. That's what should have everybody nervous, because historical trends tell you that we are likely to go through a very volatile period where a lot of investors are going to get wiped out. And AI has just become this incredible systemic bet where everybody looking for growth, all of the asset holders, all of the people playing the stock purchasing game, which unfortunately, in the economic system that we have now,

• 4:22Speaker 00

  you are essentially forced to do if you want to get ahead, because saving your money is a path to ruin. So people are forced into these bets. But the problem is, this one is really starting to get unnerving in terms of how much debt has been accumulated and the ways in which it is being accumulated. So let's look at the details of what's going on with Nvidia. It's a pretty clever idea that they have. Like, if you're really, if you knew that this couldn't break, this is a great way of getting dollars into the system, new dollars, as they continue to build things out. The problem is, the looming question that everybody should have in the back of their minds is, can this really be an only-up phenomenon?

• 5:03Speaker 00

  And I would say, given that there has never been one of these before ever in human history, we should not assume that AI is going to be the first. So Nvidia has announced partnerships with Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs, and KKR to build what it calls compute financing platforms. Now, we're going to get into why this idea of turning it into a compute platform becomes important. It's a psychological thing for the people that they're building these partnerships with, because these guys are used to a certain type of investment that, right now, AI does not look like that type of investment. So I think Jensen Huang is essentially running a PR campaign

• 5:44Speaker 00

  to get people to see investments in AI infrastructure build-outs as a far more familiar thing. So the target right now is to raise another $500-plus billion in third-party capital for AI infrastructure. That idea that this is third-party capital, that it's not coming from Nvidia, is going to be an important part of the story, so just hold that one in suspension right now. Now, the things that have been put forward, all the news is being generated on something that is technically just a memorandum, memorandum of understanding. And if you guys know the MOUs from the Iran War, doesn't necessarily mean that this stuff is going to go forward. There's still plenty of ways that this could fall apart.

• 6:25Speaker 00

  But if they do go through, the structure would allow Nvidia to pull new debt into the data center build-out universe by offering what is essentially partial insurance on up to 25% of any given deal against Nvidia's own chips losing value. So they're saying, hey, we know that people are a little tense about investing in these data center build-outs, because people like Tom are screaming from the rooftops, saying, hey, hold on a second, guys. The depreciation schedule for these chips may not be what people are putting on the books. And so there could be this looming danger that's being pushed out into the broader economy

• 7:05Speaker 00

  around the fact, based on the fact, I should say, that we have a certain schedule that these chips are going to go down in value over. And if Michael Burry is right, and these numbers are overstated, then you could be investing in something that is going to blow up the system effectively, that we're far more unprofitable than you would think. So what we're walking through now is basically Jensen Huang's attempt to convince us all, essentially, that that isn't true. So this new plan, I wanted to say scheme, but that sounds a little negative. This plan would attract another avalanche of outside money into the AI infrastructure game. This will undoubtedly redound to Nvidia's benefit.

• 7:48Speaker 00

  So you've got Nvidia really canvassing for this idea, but do keep in mind that this is something that would advantage Nvidia, so as you would expect. Now, the proposed structure would get this money in a way that doesn't sit on Nvidia's balance sheet. That is a big part of this game, is what does this look like on paper? I think this obscures a growing risk that, hey, may pay off. The stock market is all about risk and reward. So if people are reading this right, and I'm the one that's being too paranoid, maybe there are going to be just unbelievable amounts of money that are going to be made off of this. But this is also fancy financing, is also how we found ourselves in the 2008 problem.

• 8:31Speaker 00

  And so myself, other commentators are trying to show all the different places that this debt ends up hiding. So that's the two competing ideas. Now, in plain English, what all this means is that the AI build-out has really gotten too expensive for companies doing it to fund everything out of their own cash flow. And that's true of Google, man. Google has gone cash flow negative for the first time since they went public. That was a very long time ago. So you've got these cash cows that are just pumping out all this money. Even they cannot keep up with the amount of money that's necessary to build these artificial brains. And if you think of the data centers as artificial brains, you're going to get a lot closer to what's really going on.

• 9:15Speaker 00

  So given that Nvidia, which is the company that sells the equipment that's needed to build these brains out, they're now helping to arrange loans so that they can keep getting more data centers built out, so people will keep wanting to buy their products. And what they're offering is to eat 25% of the loss if the equipment does turn out to be worth less than people are projecting. So if Michael Burry's right, and the depreciation schedule is effectively a lie, I don't think he would disagree with that sentiment. If people are right, and that is BS, and these are more expensive than people are saying,

• 9:58Speaker 00

  meaning they die off faster and have to be replaced more often, then Nvidia is saying, listen, we will cover 25% of that gap, because we so believe in it. An AI factory is, in Jensen Huang's vision, productive infrastructure. So Nvidia's compute architecture, this really is true, is globally adopted. It runs across every major cloud service. So their hardware can be redeployed when a customer goes away. Additionally, CUDA, which is Nvidia's software, has proven that it can improve performance over time, even on already-installed chips, which serves to extend that economic life.

• 10:41Speaker 00

  So Jensen is also pointing out that the A100, it was introduced in 2020, is still in commercial use six years later. And the one-year H100 rental price has risen from about $1.70 per GPU hour in October of 2025 to roughly $2.35 in March of 2026. Okay, so you start putting all of those facts together, and Jensen thinks he has a pretty strong case for why it would be a wise investment to put even more money towards AI data centers running their architecture. What I will say is that at some point, that financing runs out. We're already having to get more and more creative, more and more clever, offer things like insurance against the value going down.

• 11:29Speaker 00

  And all of that money is assuming that we're going to be able to bridge this gap of the revenue not coming in fast enough, right? So if you just look at it, revenue is growing, there's no doubt about that. But it is not growing fast enough to overcome the fact that it's getting harder and harder to raise this money. And I think one of the very indicators that people need to look at when deciding how much of their money to allocate into AI investments, and you're probably far more exposed than you realize you are. One of the things you have to look at is where's the other money going to come from? Like, at some point, you are going to run out of money. There just won't be more money to go and get. He's now going through a litany of the biggest sort of long-term investors.

• 12:14Speaker 00

  We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead, so don't go anywhere. There's a reason Quince sells cashmere for $60, and it isn't the cashmere. It's real 100% Mongolian cashmere. It's the same stuff luxury labels charge a fortune for. Quince just works directly with ethical factories and cuts out the middleman. So there's no need for a markup and no logo tax. The $60 goes to the actual sweater, not the fancy name on the tag. That's why everything they make runs 50 to 80% less. And it's not just the cashmere. I ordered a few things myself, their fleece joggers, a couple of their tees, which I wear obsessively. First thing I noticed was the quality.

• 12:58Speaker 00

  Soft, well-made, built to hold up. They make down jackets and wool outerwear now, too. So upgrade your stuff to things you'll actually wear. Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers or go to quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns, now available in Canada and the UK, too. And when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was Impact Theory. It's the best way to support the show. Let's talk about what it means to actually be visible in today's day and age. When you build something public, whether it's a business or an audience, anything on social media, you become a target. This is something that legitimately keeps me up at night because our data isn't just

• 13:43Speaker 00

  on the obvious broker sites, it's on old news portals, public forums, obscure directories, places you would never think to look. That's where Incogni's exposure scanner comes in. It hunts down your personal information across the wider web, not just the 420-plus broker sites. Incogni already removes your data from automatically. They can't harm you if they can't find you. Go to incogni.com/impact and use code IMPACT for 60% off an annual plan. Try it risk-free for 30 days. That's incogni, I-N-C-O-G-N-I, dot com slash impact and use code IMPACT.

• 14:26Speaker 00

  Let's talk about how much you're paying to stay safe online. Count it up. A VPN, a password manager, something to block ads and trackers? The service to scrub your data off of broker lists? A tool to flag scam emails? That's five. Five subscriptions, apps, logins, and most people still have gaps. That's the problem Surfshark solves. It's not a VPN. It's an all-in-one security suite. One tool that protects your connection, your personal info, and your devices all at the same time. Go to surfshark.com/tomb or use code TOMB for four extra months of Surfshark, backed by a 30-day money-back guarantee.

• 15:10Speaker 00

  That's S-U-R-F-S-H-A-R-K dot com slash tomb. Surfshark dot com slash tomb. Use code TOMB for four extra months of Surfshark.

• 15:28Speaker 00

  Thanks for sticking around. Let's get right back into the action.

• 15:32Speaker 00

  Now, according to Huang's logic, investing in these data centers is more like investing in something that kicks off rent, rather than investing in something that depreciates quickly, right? That's been a large part of the counter-narrative that's been pushing back against AI. The kind of capital investors that Jensen Huang is going after right now with this new structure, they understand long-term rent payments. They don't understand depreciating hardware. You'll see people sort of round it to, they don't understand depreciating widgets. I don't think widgets is the right way to think about AI, but understanding them as artificial brains that are built out in these gigantic facilities that I think will ultimately providing something that's better understood as intelligence as commodity.

• 16:16Speaker 00

  So like electricity, where the data centers will ultimately be commodified, they will provide the intelligence to a whole bunch of different things. Smart blenders, smart refrigerators, the AI doctors that we're going to talk about later. Now, if Jensen Huang can convincingly make the case that these Nvidia-stock data centers hold their value, then he really will be able to draw more capital into the AI bet. Remember, these are all people, they have to get a return for their investors. And so everybody's looking for that eternal growth story. They need that narrative. They need something to believe in. They need somewhere to put their money.

• 16:57Speaker 00

  Now, I've tried to cover on the show that you've really got two different types of thinker pushing forward right now. One of them is going to be right, one of them is going to be catastrophically wrong. It is very difficult to know which is which right now. But on the one hand, you've got AI is the greatest technological advancement of all time. We've never seen anything like this. It is obvious that it is going to become essentially the backbone of everything moving forward. I don't think they're wrong about that. What I think that they're wrong about is that it's going to be an only-up phenomenon, that we won't run into problems of servicing the debt before the sufficient amount of revenue comes in. I'm not saying that eventually the revenue won't get there. I'm just saying, I think that the burden of the debt is going to become a problem

• 17:42Speaker 00

  before the revenue comes in. And historically, that has caused massive economic turmoil. And so the question becomes, when the whole world is betting on the US stock market, the US stock market is predicated essentially entirely on AI? What happens if we run into that debt trouble? And should we be looking at this moment where we're going out to these pension funds, investment funds, that are used to investing in these things that just have long-term stability? And they may not pay out the highest dividend, but they pay out nice and consistently over time? Does AI data structure, data, data center infrastructure build out? Does it actually match that?

• 18:24Speaker 00

  Now, all of this, the way that Huang is approaching this, brings up these accusations of circular financing. So it's, what they mean by that is when Nvidia invests in a company or spends money with a company, and they know they're going to use that money to turn around and invest in Nvidia, it's like you haven't brought something new in from the outside. You're essentially double-counting your revenue. And people have built all these charts that show all these companies are investing in each other, and they're using those dollars to reinforce the business opportunity of each of those companies. And so if one thing goes wrong, then it's just catastrophic. It would be potentially catastrophic for the whole industry.

• 19:05Speaker 00

  Now, to Huang's credit, he wrote this essay that's basically addressing this concern head-on. And he says, listen, the capital that we're talking about right now is coming from these consortiums. It's not coming from Nvidia. So in your diagrams where you're showing that this is circular financing, I'm talking about creating an incentive structure that would legitimately bring outside money into AI. Each institution would be underwriting its own deals. So if you're a pension fund and you want to invest in one of these data centers, you're going to be underwriting that. Now, sure, Nvidia may provide residual value protection, if you will, up to 25% of a

• 19:46Speaker 00

  given opportunity on specifically a project-by-project basis, but that's limited and lower than other compute financing arrangements. So there are other people that are taking bigger risks. This isn't one of those. Now, I want to be honest, the, that is not a completely unhinged position to take. And so this comes down to how much systemic risk do you think is building up and building up and building up in the system? There's a ton of debate about whether Jensen is right or not, but if I were going to steel man the argument, it would look something like, demand for frontier labs, enterprises, and sovereigns using AI is incredibly real. That is for sure.

• 20:31Speaker 00

  The biggest battle that's going to be waged, even if you just think about this from a weapon system perspective, is going to be AI. When you think about what is the future of things like medicine, we're going to go very deep on this later, it's definitely AI. The wins that we have already seen with AI as it exists today are already extraordinary. I think that they will already transform the world, even if they don't continue getting better. But odds are that they will continue getting better. So outside capital, taking genuine loss risk is structurally different from a vendor lending its own customers the purchase price. And on this particular example, he's correct about that. Bank of America's Vivek Arya argues that the burden sits with the consortium rather

• 21:16Speaker 00

  than Nvidia's balance sheet. Okay, that's the big part of this. This thing is about getting these guys to bring in new money. And what you have to understand about what Nvidia is doing with this one is simply guaranteeing asset quality, not the debt itself. Okay? So every prior industrial build-out in history was financed by outside money. Cool. So we're just saying, just like everybody else has used outside money to build these things, that's what this play is. Again, mile marker, there's a lot more going on than just this deal. This deal in isolation might not make me nervous, but this deal, when added to the pile of other things that are unstable... You run into some question marks. Now, if I were going to question all of this,

• 21:59Speaker 00

  I would start with when the 25% that Nvidia is putting forward actually gets paid. Okay? If Nvidia only owes that insurance money, those are my words, but if Nvidia only owes that insurance money when used GPUs are worth less than projected, then when AI demand slows, when rental rates fall, or when Nvidia ships a faster chip, those are the same conditions that hurt Nvidia's own revenue. Okay? So if Nvidia only owes this money, when they are at their most unable to pay, you now have a problem.

• 22:40Speaker 00

  Because the very circumstance that would trigger them owing the 25% makes it basically very difficult for them to pay that 25%. It means the obligation grows exactly when the company backing it is at its weakest. So you would be very much moving in the wrong direction. Okay? And that's what nobody's talking about. So Jensen Huang has not answered that question. Nobody knows where this 25% sits. Nvidia has not disclosed who absorbs the first dollar of loss. Until the contracts are public, that 25% is, it's not really a guarantee, or certainly we on the outside can't understand it as a guarantee. It may be the least promisable dollars that they have.

• 23:23Speaker 00

  So the rental data doesn't prove what it's being used to prove. So people that are coming in and saying that this is all gonna work are not necessarily doing a one-to-one comparison. So rent tells you what the demand is today. So saying that the prices have gone up tell you that, yeah, right now, today, the demand is still there. Resale, though, the ability to resell these chips, that tells you what a lender would actually be able to recover in default. And those are two very different things. And Amazon has been shortening its server depreciation schedules, which cuts against Huang's entire durability argument. So when you look at Amazon, you see, uh-oh, somebody is saying, yeah, we were probably extending these too far,

• 24:07Speaker 00

  and we really do need to start assuming that we're gonna have to replace these chips faster. And because those durations don't line up, you've got some big question marks for pension and insurance capital that exists to match liabilities that run for decades, right? So they've got these long-dated obligations to people who are like, I'm gonna die someday, somewhere off in the future, and so I need to make sure that I'm making a certain amount of money every year that I'm always gonna be able to match the actuarial reality of the frequency that people die and what I have to pay out. And if there ends up being a discrepancy between the rate at which I have to, the rate at which the data centers have to re-up these chips and therefore have a bigger cash need,

• 24:52Speaker 00

  whether it comes from debt or it comes from actual paying customers, if there's a mismatch there, now you have a problem with the people that are trying to invest. So when you make a three-year piece of silicon, fit a 30-year liability, that requires structuring, tranching, raiding, all of that mechanistic repackaging of things like mortgages back in 2006, hopefully you see why. People just get, anybody that lived through it anyway, the hair on the back of their neck stands up because they're like, oh, my God, I've seen this kind of fancy financing before, and it doesn't always end well. When you look at the telecom equipment, the makers of that, they ran a version of this play in the late 90s,

• 25:36Speaker 00

  financing their own customers' purchases, and it worked until the customers couldn't pay. And so when we had that delay in the build-out of the internet, where people were like, hold on a second, the revenue ultimately does come in, but it took like 20 years longer than people were expecting. So the internet does become the transformative technology everybody thought, and yet massive economic disruption comes out of it. Countless people lost virtually everything. I mean, it was a real bloodbath to live through the 2000.com bubble crash. So if we're facing something like that with AI, where AI still goes on to become the greatest thing since sliced bread, but there's that massive period of disruption,

• 26:19Speaker 00

  all of these people that are pouring their money in, they're in a brutal situation. So not too surprisingly, when Nvidia made this announcement, their shares fell just under 3% on the announcement, but it did recover the following session. So it's like you have all of this uncertainty, but nobody really knows where this is going to go. Now, Wall Street ultimately stayed positive with about, what, 78 of the 81 analysts tracked by Bloomberg rating the stock a buy, but the structural problem sits in the design of all of this itself. And so that's where nobody has anything to offer you but a bunch of question marks. Nobody knows how this is gonna play out. The thing that I really want people to understand, I'm just looking for people to be paranoid.

• 27:04Speaker 00

  I don't think anybody has the right answer. I've told you guys before what I'm doing with my money, which, by the way, should have little to no impact on what you do with your money. You need to build your thinking up from first principles and be very sober. You can use me or anybody else as a data point. For me, I'm just trying to diversify away from equities, not down to zero. I don't have enough confidence that I'm right, that this is going to fail, that I just wanna be completely out of equities. But I am trying to diversify away from the magnificent seven. I'm trying to diversify away from the AI bet. I'm trying to make sure that I have optionality if things go down, meaning that I've got more in just cash, short-term treasuries, things like that, so that should something wacky hit at a time when, of course, I'm not going to see it coming,

• 27:50Speaker 00

  that I'm able to move. And for me, if that means that I have to give up on some upside, I am perfectly happy with that. That's my personality. But you guys need to figure out where you fall on this. But this really is, man, I know that the vast majority of people are just not paying attention to what's going on with AI financing at all. They have no, no mental sense whatsoever that the entire world is making a gigantic bet on AI. They understand it from like, oh, it's a technology that's being deployed, and they may love it, they may hate it. But I don't think people understand the systemic risk. Risk doesn't guarantee failure, but, ooh, buddy, there's just a lot riding on it. So be careful out there, boys and girls.

• 28:30Speaker 01

  When Jensen was asked, where is the return on investment? This is what he says, this is based off the article he released on X. The return is in the usefulness of AI. Companies are using AI to write software, discover drugs, design products, serve customers, automate operations, and build new services. AI factories make this possible. More compute creates better AI. Better AI creates more usage. More usage creates more revenue. And more revenue drives more compute. This is the virtuous cycle of the AI industrial revolution.

• 28:57Speaker 00

  So all of that is true. Here is the big problem. If the math that you're running assumes that the prices today hold steady or go up, then maybe you can make the math work over a 20-year period. And if somehow magically you're able to keep raising money for that 20-year period, then all is going to be well. It's gonna take some amount of time for AI to keep working its way out into the system and get put into your blender and your washing machine and your refrigerator and your doctor, et cetera, et cetera. But that is going to take time. And so if we saw the income was coming in at a rate that matched the rate at which they're having to bring on the debt and match the depreciation schedules, and the depreciation schedules match the needs

• 29:41Speaker 00

  that the big money, like that list of companies, BlackRock, et cetera, et cetera, that we went through, if it matches the timelines that they need to be on, great. But when we look at the revenue, we see the revenue isn't coming in as fast as people thought it was going to, and you're under assault from China and the open AI, the open, yes, the open-source AI, not OpenAI, but the open-source AI model. And they're proving that that's driving costs down, like dramatically down, something in the neighborhood of 60% cheaper than we're expecting now. So if right now, we're already in this precarious position where they're pulling forward 10, 20 years of revenue into today

• 30:23Speaker 00

  at the stock valuations, and they're raising money with that growth rate expectation, and we see that actually, sorry, psych, it's coming in 60% lower because of innovation, by the way, the very thing that you want driving costs down is actually happening. And China's not only incentivized to do that just to make sure that they win the AI race, they're incentivized to do that to damage the US economy. So it's like, eh. Who knows? It is for sure, it is a never-ending string of question marks. And this is where the markets reward or punish people for taking those bets. And this is why I am a big believer, you need to understand that the stock market is a bet.

• 31:05Speaker 00

  Now, if you don't know what you're actually betting on, that's where it becomes a problem. And more and more of this very fancy financing structure, all of this stuff is being broken up and sold off into the economy. And when it shows up in your insurance fund, your pension fund, your 401K, that's where it starts to be that the average investor is making a big bet on AI and they don't even know it. And God bless the guys that I interface with to help manage my money, but they're not incentivized to tell me to back off of the AI bet. They're incentivized to get me in to get my returns as high as they can be for as long as they can be. And then if it wipes me out, whatever, on to the next.

• 31:49Speaker 00

  So you have to understand that the incentive structure of the system is not to keep you paranoid. It's not to keep you safe. The incentive structure of the system is to keep you invested. So this is where, boy, do people need to really think this one through. And I feel terrible. Most people are just not going to do it. And so they may win big and hey, all is well, but god damn, they could get slapped hard. And there was a guy in our community that posted on one of the videos that we did. I saw his comment come through and he was like, man, I got wiped out both by 2000 and 2008. And his strategy for AI is to, well, if I get wiped out at least again, and now he's like, I'm getting near retirement. If I get wiped out again, I guess I have a bunch of people to commiserate with. And I'm like, ooh, not the strategy that I would deploy.

• 32:35Speaker 00

  I get that this is overwhelming. I get that you're going to feel really dumb if you start backing out and then AI just continues to grow and it grows forever. But boy, oh, boy, at some point, the thing that people need to pay attention to is what is your downside protection? So I am of the mind that people should not try to optimize every upside dollar and leave themselves downside unprotected. You should be trying to balance the two. So yes, you want to avail yourself of those upsides, but boy, oh, boy, do you want some kind of downside protection? Now, remember, Mark Cuban becomes a billionaire specifically because he gives himself downside protections in the volatile, I think it was around 2008 period, when he had sold his company.

• 33:18Speaker 00

  And then I can't remember if it's dot com or 2008, I think it was 2008. Anyway, a very volatile period. He had hedged against the market because he didn't think it was going to go up forever. And lo and behold, it doesn't go up. And he makes, I don't know if it was more, but he ends up protecting his wealth and increasing it by hedging so that he had some bets on the upside and some bets on the downside. And it ended up paying out more. And that's the thing that shot him into the stratosphere. So there certainly are anecdotal tales of people that have done very well by protecting themselves. We did a very in-depth reacts to what Warren Buffett is doing. Buffett obviously is pulling back out. He's going into cash and by that, people really mean cash equivalents.

• 34:01Speaker 00

  But he's coming back out essentially into cash because he knows that times like this, it could be a year or a couple of years. But when you start looking at, I forget what he calls it, the Buffett warning line or something, that when the entire stock market is more than 200% or the stock market is more than 200% of the entire economy, he's like, that's when he starts backing out. We hit that number in 2006 or maybe earlier, but recently. And so he started backing out. If you look at the Cape ratio, which is the one that I pay a bit more attention to, which is if you average the last 10-year gains for companies, I think in the S and P 500, how do they? How does that relate to the amount that they're charging for their stock?

• 34:45Speaker 00

  And the average is about 16 to 17%. And right now, we're sitting at 40%. So, or 40X, excuse me. So that ends up, to me, that's just crazy. When you're saying that these companies are worth 40 times the average revenue that they bring in over the last 10 years, that's wild to me. So yeah, I think that we, just by the numbers, we are out over our skis.

• 35:11Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 35:13Speaker 00

  We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead, so don't go anywhere. Let's talk about your sales pipeline reviews. If your CRM is half-empty fields and notes nobody finished, every review turns into guesswork. I've seen it so many times in my own sales team and that's where today's sponsor, Pipe Drive, comes in. An intelligent AI-powered sales CRM that is loved by growing sales teams. Pipe Drive just launched Meeting Intelligence built right into the CRM. Before the call, it pulls the deal history and past conversations into one brief. During the call, it records and takes notes. After, it drafts the CRM updates for your rep to review and approve. The record stays complete and you see what's actually happening.

• 35:58Speaker 00

  Switch to a CRM built by salespeople for salespeople and join the over 100,000 companies already using Pipe Drive. My link gets you an exclusive 30 days free instead of the usual 14-day trial. So make sure you use it. No credit card or payment is needed. Just head to pipedrive.com/impact to get started today. That's pipedrive.com/impact and you can be up and running in just minutes.

• 36:28Speaker 00

  Thanks for sticking around. Let's get right back into the action.

• 36:32Speaker 01

  In times like this, though, it's good that Google's pivoting because they just launched their Dr. LLM system, which I think is a way better use for AI and that actually goes to the promise of what we thought we were going to get.

• 36:43Speaker 00

  Yeah, dude, this story is insane. I'm blown away by this. And so I am really trying to be honest about the risks that are in AI and at the same time, be honest about what AI is doing. Now, I don't think anybody's confused about the fact that I think AI is absolutely extraordinary and that it's going to be completely transformational. But when you start looking at some of the stats that are coming out of this setup with Google. So Google just proved that LLMs are already outperforming doctors, even in the messy reality of dealing with patients that are oftentimes actually adversarial, which is something we'll talk about. But if you think about you as a patient, are there going to be times where you're wrong about the symptoms? Or you have a hard time describing them?

• 37:28Speaker 00

  Or you just think that your doctor is wrong? That's one of the areas where, and you're going to push back. And so that's one of the areas where people thought an LLM is never going to be able to handle this. And so Google just released these three research papers that show that that's not actually true. The AI doctors provided better care than human doctors as evaluated by a board of humans. So these are people that are used to evaluating doctor performance. And so it's not like laypeople off the street that were just like, I like the AI better. They're talking about its ability to actually diagnose the real problems. Now, if you look at the findings themselves, Google ran an AI through a random randomized clinical exam. There were 100 scenarios.

• 38:09Speaker 00

  These were 300 live video consultations, professional patients, patient actors. So they were performing, they were based on real cases, but they were performing everything from cardiac complaints to musculoskeletal injury. And there were 20 board-certified physicians that graded these encounters. And it's not even close. Like the AI doctors are just absolutely trouncing the real doctors. So the AI doctor scored 83% and the doctors themselves scored 68%. Correct diagnosis on the first guess, 91% for the AI versus 77% for the humans. Clinical reasoning, 90% versus 76% in favor of AI.

• 38:50Speaker 00

  Guiding a patient through a physical exam over video, the AI scored a 72 versus 39 for the actual real doctors. Empathy graded by physicians was 82 for AI versus 71 for the doctors. So the AI is perceived as more empathetic. We've actually seen that before in similar studies done for therapy, where the AI is considered more empathetic than the actual human therapist. The AI finished their exams, an average of 8.9 minutes. The doctors took 9.3, so they took longer to reach worse conclusions. Then in the second paper, you've got a similar setup. You've got 100 patients, three appointments each. The symptoms and lab results are shifting between visits. So basically, they're getting updated information.

• 39:35Speaker 00

  Specialists rated the AI's management of these plans appropriate 95% of the time at the first visit and 98% of the time by the third visit. Okay, so they're getting better over time, as you would expect. The physicians, 72% after the first one and then only reaching 81% after all three. So it ends up being 98% versus 81% in favor again of the AI. And on ordering the right investigations. So what will happen a lot of times with real doctors is that they back off too soon. So they think they found the right thing and then they back off. Human doctors actually get worse with each follow up.

• 40:16Speaker 00

  Now, I don't have the answer to this question, but my gut instinct is that's because they end up stopping too soon. They think they've found it and they really haven't. Whereas the AI gets better over time. So humans get worse. Human doctors get worse. The machines actually get better. And then the third paper sort of puts this all together. The Google trained a clinical agent by making it practice. So it's taking an LLM. It's using reinforcement learning to put them through their paces to see like, how far can we push this? How much better are they going to get over time? We had 57,000 simulated encounters, including thousands built specifically where the patient is trying actively to deceive the doctor. So patients hide their medications.

• 40:58Speaker 00

  Patients who insist that chest pain is heartburn refuse to go to the ER, as patients actually do. And there were up to 60 turns per conversation, meaning that the AI goes back and forth with the patient up to 60 times. So what you end up having is the model when it is practiced in this back and forth and placed against other models. What we're seeing is this reinforcement learning is making them even better. So all the earlier data that I gave you, that's basically what these new ones that are getting the reinforcement learning are being put up against and they're getting even better. So they're outperforming them 87.6% of the time in head to head reviews.

• 41:39Speaker 00

  So the AI that's already beating the humans by a substantive margin is getting beaten by this new reinforcement learning AI that's doing these like synthetic evaluations over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Okay, by doing those, it's now getting better than the AI that was already better than the humans. So what you're seeing is, and look, it could hit that ceiling. There could be some sort of asymptote where it can't keep going. But what you're seeing is that these guys, the AI, is getting better and better over time. So the gap between human and AI doctors is going to grow presumably over time. Whether that caps out or it just becomes malpractice to be a doctor that doesn't work with AI is the question.

• 42:24Speaker 00

  And honestly, I think within a few short years, we're probably going to start considering it actual malpractice to not at least consult the AI, see what the AI puts forward. No one's going to expect you to just take its word blindly. But you're going to see malpractice suits where they say, show me what the AI was saying. And if the AI ends up being right and it told you what the right answer was and you insisted going down a path that ended up proving to be wrong and the patient was injured or God forbid, killed, then that is going to be a huge problem for the human doctors. Now you start stretching that out to five to 10 years. If this gap creeps, keeps growing between the humans and the AI, you can expect more and more people to rely.

• 43:09Speaker 00

  I think it will be human assisted doctors. I don't think you're just going to go in and speak to a machine at a terminal. But I do think that that is going to become the standard. It's, it's pretty incredible. So this is one of those times where again, the technology probably really is going to become what we all wanted to become. But that doesn't mean that you don't have a massive economic event that is very tumultuous between here and there.

• 43:38Speaker 01

  Yeah, I feel like that's like the V1 of it, right? First, it's going to be humans using AI robots. And then the V2 is going to be only AI robots.

• 43:45Speaker 00

  I don't know, maybe, maybe we get to that point and people are really like, I just want my full blown AI. My gut instinct is that there's going to be some element of, given that it is probabilistic and not deterministic. And so you don't know what output you're going to get. You're always going to have a human that sits in the middle to just make sure that this doesn't do some crazy ass thing. In the same way that planes can fly themselves, but we always have human pilots there just to make sure that in the case of catastrophic failure, the systems go offline. It starts saying something that's obviously crazy that you can step in and say, okay, this is hallucinating. It's glitching, whatever. That just comes down to AI is probabilistic.

• 44:28Speaker 00

  You cannot get it to give you the same result over and over and over unless you essentially hard code it to do so. And right now that doesn't exist. And so anybody that's ever tried to like, go, hey, here's a photo of me, take me, put me on this background. It struggles to do that because it's actually probabilistically trying to recreate all those pixels. And it ends up looking just a little bit off. So on balance, they give you the right answer, but you can't guarantee it again, because it's not deterministic.

• 44:53Speaker 01

  Got you. We shall see, there's a lot of moving thing, parts happening in the AI sector. I'm curious to see how it all fans out. Because honestly, I think our entire economy is riding on it, so we need to.

• 45:03Speaker 00

  Eric, check Slack, please.

• 45:07Speaker 01

  All right, moving on, we got to do an update with Trump.

• 45:10Speaker 00

  Let's go.

• 45:11Speaker 01

  Cause I was laughing at this story when it first came out that he was, you called it, he was James Bonding, trying to like, avoid getting the assassination attempt.

• 45:20Speaker 00

  This is wild.

• 45:21Speaker 01

  Some people said that he left Marco Rubio aside and somebody posted this meme on Twitter that made me laugh. No, they'll expect one of us in the wreckage, brother. And as he like got out of that, shout out to The Dark Knight Rises. Is this like, is this like a, a story here or is this just kind of noise that we're hearing on the internet? But it was kind of sketchy, him switching planes and stuff like that.

• 45:41Speaker 00

  I don't know how much of that is real. Everybody's saying that it happened, it's being widely reported. So odds are that something really did happen. I think it would be almost ridiculous to think that this kind of thing isn't necessary. So when you think about the fact that we've had two just absolute brazen attempts on Trump's life. You had a third, I mean, yeah, you've had three. So you had obviously the guy that shot at him in, what was it, Butler, Pennsylvania? That guy just got killed. That's still crazy to me that they just then like wiped everything. No one ever had an investigation of what that kid was all about, but anyway. You had the guy hiding in the bush at the golf course. And then you had the guy that tried to storm the event that he was at.

• 46:26Speaker 00

  So at least one of those people were saying was backed by Iran. I don't think anybody would have a hard time, given that the Trump administration is assassinating their leadership en masse, that they would try to assassinate Trump. This is a, for me, this is a live by the sword, die by the sword moment. So I don't think anybody should be surprised if that's really what's going on, so.

• 46:49Speaker 01

  Well, we shall keep it posted. We'll keep that underway. It was just a funny story. Mop90 says he wants to make things more affordable. This is his latest video that he used talking about Amazon and their contractor setup that they have right now. Right now, Amazon subcontracts to other technical delivery guys, although they have Amazon on their trucks and Amazon on their outfits, they're not technically Amazon workers. So his new initiative is to take them on. This is the video that he released.

• 47:19Speaker 00

  Let's go.

• 47:21Speaker 02

  Special delivery. It looks like an Amazon delivery.

• 47:27Speaker 03

  And it drives like an Amazon delivery.

• 47:30Speaker 04

  And it's an Amazon delivery. Amazon is spending millions of dollars to convince you that this isn't an Amazon delivery. But all you have to do is see for yourself.

• 47:41Speaker 02

  My uniform says Amazon. If I don't wear this Amazon branded vest, disciplinary action will be taken against us. The workers' routes and hours are set by Amazon.

• 47:50Speaker 03

  So why isn't Amazon responsible for these vans?

• 47:54Speaker 02

  Because Amazon and other corporations have built a vast network of subcontractors.

• 47:59Speaker 03

  That shield them from responsibility. Amazon tells these subcontractors where to drive.

• 48:06Speaker 04

  Who to hire and what hours to work.

• 48:08Speaker 03

  I do all the work that makes Amazon all the money.

• 48:12Speaker 04

  This is why I'm proud to support the Delivery Protection Act, sponsored by Councilmember Tiffany Callahan. Because if Amazon is delivering your packages, they should follow the same rules of every other delivery.

• 48:23Speaker 02

  When injuries and worker accidents skyrocket,

• 48:26Speaker 04

  Amazon says they have nothing to do with it.

• 48:28Speaker 03

  They can't have it both ways.

• 48:30Speaker 00

  What I like about what that person said is you can't have it both ways. So, Mom Donnie is saying, hey, everybody, I want to make things nice and cheap for you, but psych, just kidding, I'm going to make things more expensive. So, first of all, if the companies are doing something illegal, then of course you're going to step in and you're going to say, hey, this is legal. You can't do that. But the reality is, this is exactly like the unions that were trying to protect the taxis, taxi drivers were trying to keep Uber out, but Uber is better for the consumer, and so Uber ended up winning out. You're going to run into the same thing here. What, what Amazon is doing is saying, listen, our job is not to make sure that we have this gigantic pool of people that we can constantly draw on, do all the vetting and all of that. We're, we're a logistics company over here trying to sell everything on the internet.

• 49:15Speaker 00

  And so what we want to do is partner with companies that are going to do that side of things, and they're going to follow all of the laws and regulations. They're just not being employed directly by us. And this definitely is a way that you can keep costs down because now you're working with a company that is going to go and find people that will work again for a legal wage. They will vet the people that, for whom this is a good job. And now you're able to keep your costs down as Amazon, and you can pass those savings on to other people. So instead of you having to become bigger and bigger and bigger from an employee perspective, you partner with these other, whether it's an individual that's a solopreneur in the same way that an Uber driver is a solopreneur,

• 50:00Speaker 00

  or it's somebody that's doing their own shipping and logistics company, small but in a neighborhood, and then you get probably, I would imagine, aggregators that go and they interface with Amazon, and then they employ all of these much smaller delivery companies. And now you can create something that's incredibly fast-moving. It's incredibly localized, decentralized, and they'll move very fast, be able to keep costs down low. So as they go after these guys, because what they don't like is people being able to make their own decision about what job they want to take. Remember, nobody's being forced to take these jobs. They could go apply for other jobs. So there are reasons that they may want to go after this. These companies are operating legally, so they don't like that Amazon is able to get workers out of wage.

• 50:44Speaker 00

  I'm assuming this is partly because they're outside of unions and they aren't getting paid what they believe should be the nationwide minimum wage. And so what they want to do is leverage unions basically to go in and browbeat these companies. And once you understand this from the position of this is all resentment, this is just resentment from top to bottom, because this is not good for the workers who want the job. Because what will end up happening is if you tell Amazon that they can't do this, Amazon's going to leave the city, they're going to go elsewhere. So all those people lose their jobs. Even if Amazon decides to stay in the city, now they're going to be employing people directly. So odds are that there are going to be fewer jobs, and they're going to have to pass on the price increase to the customer.

• 51:28Speaker 00

  So now you're creating something where the government is coming from the outside, doing something that's actually going to make the packages more expensive, is going to give the employees fewer options. It, it literally is just like them saying, you, you have to be a taxi driver, you have to have the medallions or whatever system they're going to use to curb this, and it ends up being worse for the consumer. And so when you look at the studies that have been done on this, the cross-cultural studies, and this is going to be something that you hear me talk a lot about when it comes to addressing the DSA. When you look at the cross-cultural studies that they've done, and they give people the option, you can do something that's good for the poor, and it will benefit them in some material way, but it also helps the wealthy. You can't get them to vote for it.

• 52:13Speaker 00

  What you can get them to vote for is something that will hurt the poor as long as it also hurts the wealthy. So this is about being punitive. This is not about actually helping people. So you can't, going back to what that woman said, you can't have it both ways. You can't try to make things more affordable while making things more expensive. They, they literally are matter and antimatter.

• 52:38Speaker 01

  They, when you say they are matter and antimatter, the, trying to...

• 52:43Speaker 00

  If you go in and increase the cost of a business, I know what they want to happen is that the employees just start making more money. That's not what actually happens. What actually happens is you start making things more expensive. So then you go, okay, well then these guys are greedy. So I'm going to force them to limit the amount of money they can make. And now you're a communist country. And I know that they like to say that they're not going to do that, but they are going to do that. These are private companies, and if you want to beat them, you have to beat them. So if you think that they have a monopoly, then go in and break up the monopoly. But doing things like this where you're telling somebody who's like, I am happy doing this job, this job give me, gives me the flexibility, or I can't get a job that pays this well because I don't have other skills,

• 53:27Speaker 00

  but I can go and do a delivery, and this pays well, given what my skill set is. And so now you're saying, no, no, no, you don't understand yourself. You're too dumb to know what job to take or not to take. And so we want to come in and tell these businesses who we think are just being predatory, hey, hey, hey, you can't keep innovating and finding ways to lower your costs. So we're going to come in and try to control this. And it never ends there. And so what they end up doing is breaking these systems with overregulation, which is why everybody from the beginning of governmental interference will tell you, oh, you're in a hard spot, you need to grow, you're going to need to deregulate. Because the regulations themselves create the choke points, like with the inability to build housing.

• 54:11Speaker 00

  Whereas when you back off on those regulations, look at somewhere like Houston, look at somewhere like Austin, where you have prices absolutely skyrocket in Austin. They let builders build and the prices come right back down. Houston, I don't think ever choked people out, so they just keep letting people build. Housing prices don't go up. This is not a great place to invest in a house, thank God. It's a great place, though, to buy a house because you can actually afford one because they've just kept rates low by not putting all these regulations that stop people from building. And so I wish I could say that this actually comes from a great place. This does not come from a great place. This comes from a place of resentment. You're literally saying, I care about workers, I care about affordability, and I'm actively doing something that's going to make this less affordable. Now, if they could show me their cause and effect,

• 54:56Speaker 00

  where this is actually going to drive down the cost of delivery, then I'd be like, okay, well, at least they're fighting for something that's internally consistent. But they're not. It is obvious that Amazon is doing this to drive their costs down. And so now they're doing this as a way to punish them because they don't think it's righteous or whatever word they're going to insert, but it certainly isn't about affordability.

• 55:15Speaker 01

  So when we talk about like manufacturing, things like that, we say that there are certain things that is supposed to go up for the betterment of the country in order to do good and things like that. If Mom Donnie's point is we need to stop the subcontractor system so that way we can make sure employees have necessary benefits and protections. There was a whole big thing with Uber and Lyft where you're a subcontractor, you're driving for us, you're getting paid through us, but you don't have health insurance. If something happens to you, you're liable for yourself. If somebody happens in your car or your incident, I can step away completely. It's all on you. So is there some type of responsibility, might be the wrong word, but there is some type of employee protections that are quote unquote deserved? Or is just the name of the game and it's different situation?

• 55:56Speaker 00

  The right way to look at it is, okay, we've got people that are employed by Amazon. There are laws in the books that tell you what they have to do, how they're going to be taking care of everybody. Then you've got these companies, which are companies, that are hiring these people. Independent contractors fall under different regulations than people that are employed by a company, and there are trade-offs. And so if what we're saying is we don't want people to be able to be an independent contractor, that would be fucking insane. The reason that would be insane is there are people who want that trade-off. I want to control what, when I pay my tax dollars, as one, for instance. You will routinely get people who are like, listen, Tom, I really want to work for you, but I'll only do it if I can be an independent contractor. That's not me. I don't like independent contractors.

• 56:41Speaker 00

  I would much rather have somebody in my company, you know, because you suffer from it. I make people be in the office. And so I want people in the office, I want people to be employees. Now, there are times where the work maybe isn't as consistent as it would otherwise be, or you have somebody that can do a certain thing, but that, that talent is so obscure, like take Kaizen, for instance. We have a guy doing our procedural generation. So you have people that are in that position where they want to be an independent contractor. They have a really obscure skillset. And so we have to figure out, what do we do in order to get that person? And if we have to create a exception that, okay, the only way I'm going to get this guy with the skillset that I need is to let him be an independent contractor.

• 57:26Speaker 00

  So the only way to eliminate that is just say, you can't be an independent contractor. And again, taking choices away from people, to me, is not the right answer. If that person wants to do that, why not let them do that? And if they want the protections, then like if they want, no, no, no, I want health insurance. I want, you know, the things that come with the company. Then one, don't work for a company that doesn't offer that. And you can get to the point where these, the, these companies being these outsourced companies. If the only way that they're going to be able to attract the people that they need is by offering them those kinds of protections, then they'll do that to stay competitive.

• 58:05Speaker 00

  What people don't like is that one of the ways that you deal with, and when you have too much cheap labor, is you don't need to offer those incentives. And I understand that people don't like that you can get the people you need without offering those incentives. But such is the reality of people want to work. And some people just do not have the skillset. They don't have the ability to get a job at a company that offers those kinds of things because they have not developed the appropriate skillset. And this is where unfortunately, you have to get into immigration. So one of the reasons that people should be very upset about the fact that we have disguised a declining economy by importing immigrants, illegal or otherwise,

• 58:48Speaker 00

  is that you have plenty of people that are willing to take these jobs because they can't get other jobs. They may not be able to speak, speak the language very well. They may just not have a strong skillset. And so now they're going to companies where the company's like, okay, you can work here, but you're going to have to do it as an independent contractor. So you're not going to get these advantages. And if you just say, you can't even be a company unless you offer those advantages. Again, you make things more expensive and you create a subclass of people who can't get work. Because it's not like if you raise the minimum wage, or you say, hey, sorry, you can't use contract labor. It's not like those people suddenly get the higher paying jobs. People just go, I'm not going to pay that. The, the way that people need to think about this, this is why when you raise the minimum wage,

• 59:33Speaker 00

  it helps some people and just absolutely demolishes teenagers. Because teenagers don't have the skillset. So being able to pay them less than you would pay somebody more experienced is the reason a company takes, you know, takes a shot on a young kid. And when you get rid of that, you get rid of all the entry level jobs. It's not like people go, well, I guess I'm just going to pay this teenager that wage, or this unskilled person, I'm going to pay them that wage. You go, sorry, you're not worth that. I'm going to find a way around it. I'm either going to do less, or I'm going to automate, or some other solution. But you don't just pay people more than they're worth.

• 1:00:07Speaker 01

  Is it better to kind of think about M'Adani and the government as middlemen? Because I feel like that's what I'm hearing, is that they get in between the relationship between the subcontractor and the contractor?

• 1:00:16Speaker 00

  No, definitely not. The right way to think about them is political activists who want to change the way that the world works for largely reasons of resentment. And once you understand that revolutions only get started, especially if we're talking Marxist communists, they only get started when you overproduce elites. So you put highly educated people out into the world who are thinkers by nature. They are not doers or thinkers by training, that's a more accurate way to say it. They are not doers, they're not builders, they are thinkers. They go out into the world and the world does not greet them warmly. And the world says, go drive an Uber, go deliver as a contractor for Amazon. And they're like, whoa, this is not what I was promised. I took on all this debt. This is crazy.

• 1:01:00Speaker 00

  You guys don't understand how smart I am. Insert Tracy Rosenthal, who comes in and is like, let me teach you how to not pay your rent and steal from your landlord. And that becomes the revolutionary energy is, oh, I know how I'm going to be important in the world of ideas. I'm still not going to build.

• 1:01:19Speaker 01

  That's specifically DSA. Do you paint the DSA that brush with every government program? Or is that just the DSA diagnosis? Because when I like, because when you said with the government and you were talking about people are messing up the relationship, I was talking about government programs, regulations. Regulations are that middleman?

• 1:01:35Speaker 00

  Regulations are not a middleman. I don't think that's the right thing. If you want to hear a pro-government speech.

• 1:01:41Speaker 01

  No, it's not pro-government. I was just trying to see, what would you call the intervention of markets that are done by?

• 1:01:46Speaker 00

  You want a name.

• 1:01:48Speaker 01

  Yes, because on some aspects, it's good, on some, sometimes it's barnacles, sometimes it's necessary. So I'm trying to think is, when is the intervention should happen versus when it shouldn't happen?

• 1:02:00Speaker 00

  That's two different things. First, I'm going to give you a name.

• 1:02:02Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 1:02:04Speaker 00

  I, I think government already has a name. So those things are called government. Why are governments not understood as middlemen? Middlemen help facilitate what would otherwise be difficult. So there is a time period where middlemen are extraordinarily useful. If I'm good at a, like, take for instance, Kaizen, video game. I want to get the video game out into the world. I'm going to go to an influencer who's already built the audience. Now, you could say, I really just want the audience. But I'm going to go through the middleman of the influencer who's built that audience. Because I'm a 50-year-old man, I don't have a, a community of kids that are interested in video games because I'm not the aesthetic

• 1:02:47Speaker 00

  or just even the way of thinking or talking going to be the thing that they relate to. They want the big YouTube voice. They want, you know, people that are like hilariously enthusiastic. That's what they want. And so that person becomes a very useful middleman for me. If you're trying to raise capital and you don't have those, those relationships, then you can go to somebody like a VC who does have all the pension funds and insurance funds. They can go in the endowments at universities. They literally fly around the country all year, meeting those guys, raising money all the time so that an entrepreneur like me can walk into them and get access to the capital. So they perform the middleman role for the capital. I don't want to go do that thing.

• 1:03:30Speaker 00

  Those are middlemen, providing a middleman service that is extremely valuable to somebody in my position. Okay, the government, what they're actually doing is creating a fair playing field. And when you create a fair playing field, you're still going to get a Messi who's going to score way more goals than the next person. And if you send 30 referees out into the field and their job is a trip Messi so that everybody scores the same amount of goals, that's fucking retarded. And this is that. And so whether you get it from the DSA, you get it from Republicans, it doesn't matter. If you're sending too many refs out on the field, they will fuck up the players. And it may even things out, but it makes the game way, way, way, way, way less fair

• 1:04:13Speaker 00

  and far less successful in doing what it was meant to do. So that's why, understanding the government, like, hey, create the rules, enforce the rules. Because all games are better when there's rules that are enforced. So we want government, we just don't want it to get to the point where the referees outnumber the players, which is what people are trying to get to when they say that something has become overregulated.

• 1:04:40Speaker 01

  Cool. All right, you brought up the DSA, so let's go to them. I have the Tracy Rosenthal thing first. I figured that one.

• 1:04:46Speaker 00

  Let's go.

• 1:04:47Speaker 01

  Been waiting to hit this video.

• 1:04:48Speaker 00

  Let's go.

• 1:04:49Speaker 01

  All right, so let's just start with the video, then we'll start with the commentary.

• 1:04:52Speaker 05

  My question is, it's hard to imagine not paying rent. Do you have any ideas about what?

• 1:04:59Speaker 00

  Okay, pause, just in case people couldn't hear what she said. She whispers, I'm doing it right now. I forget how long she's been doing it, but a long time. People estimate the amount of rent that she hasn't paid is about $108,000. Okay, that's insane. This woman is stealing from the person who's building she lives in, for sure. Now, I haven't gone deep enough to verify all the facts, but as it's being reported, her landlord is an immigrant and now has either already lost the building or is in the process of losing.

• 1:05:29Speaker 01

  Yeah, he was in foreclosure. US Bank took it over.

• 1:05:31Speaker 00

  Absolutely insane. And this woman is proud of that. It's wild. This was not a guy that grew up wealthy. This is an immigrant who came to the country to try to make something of themselves, himself, manages to buy a building, which is a business, tries to run that business, and then has the very unfortunate luck of getting this woman who grew up wealthy, now doesn't need to, you know, earn a living and runs around as an activist, teaching people in her own building how to steal from the landlord. And there are consequences to that stuff. And I know everybody just wants to, and again, this is how you know it's resentment. They just want to hurt those wealthy landlords, but that's not who it ends up hurting. It hurts people who are trying to run a business and make ends meet.

• 1:06:14Speaker 06

  So good.

• 1:06:16Speaker 07

  Do you have any ideas about what would look like a lot of people, not just a few

• 1:06:20Speaker 06

  Yeah.

• 1:06:20Speaker 07

  things, but a lot of people were not paying rent.

• 1:06:22Speaker 06

  Mm hmm. I mean, I, I think that part of what you're talking about is a long-term strategy to creating the kind of scale of crisis that we would need in order to extract any of the fucking concessions.

• 1:06:38Speaker 00

  Please back it up because I want her to say what she's about to say in context again, but she is actively trying to create a crisis. Mm hmm. Like, this is not somebody who's like, I just want to make your life better. It's like, I want to break the system and if I have to ruin everybody's life to do it, I will do it happily. We're going to create the crisis. So wild. All right, back it up a smidgen because she's about to say a slightly more unhinged thing. Mm hmm.

• 1:07:01Speaker 06

  This that we would need in order to extract any of the fucking concessions that would like save our lives, you know? And so I think-

• 1:07:10Speaker 00

  Save our lives, save our lives. So this, this is a wealthy girl who grew up with money. Her dad is a four-time Grammy Award winner. Uh, she grew up in a wealthy neighborhood, like all of this stuff is insane. What are you talking about? Save your lives. It's such unhinged, over-the-top rhetoric that is totally devoid of reality and they are just convincing each other that that's what's really at stake. As a reminder, the very principles that she's putting forward killed more people in 20th century than anything, killed more people than disease, killed more people than war. It's so crazy.

• 1:07:48Speaker 06

  But I think that, you know, on the one hand, it's like I can, I admit that I am a romantic.

• 1:07:55Speaker 00

  Okay, what does she mean by I'm a romantic? She means that my parents cover my bills. That's how she can be romantic. So Drew said something to me yesterday that you guys would have found very funny. And I can't, what were we talking about? Do you remember? The reaction to you? Ah, fuck. I don't know what funny thing I say. I say a lot of funny things. Oh, you'll, you'll remember as soon as I say it. I forget what we were talking about, but I was like, I can't believe people would do that. That's crazy. And Drew goes, well, you do have the superpower of being independently wealthy. And now I earned my wealth through an unending number of years of clipping coupons and shit like that and working myself near to death, but she's at a point where parents pick up the tab, her worldview is so distorted, it is crazy.

• 1:08:40Speaker 00

  And so she's in a place where it's like, okay, I know that I'm going to be fine on the other side of all this madness because I can always go back to mom and dad. Oh, and by the way, she's probably counting the days till mom and dad die and she inherits their money. I very much doubt she's going to give it away to a cooperative, which by the way, make sure you stick around to the third hour today because we've got a deep dive on socialism, uh, where we're going to be looking at the true cause and effect. This was a video chosen by Drew, uh, because, and I think he's right, it really approaches socialism from a very different angle. It approaches it from the mechanisms of why it breaks down, not the, uh, bang the table and I don't like Tracy Rosenthal of it all, or I don't like Mom Donnie. It's, it's a totally different thing.

• 1:09:22Speaker 00

  We'll get to those underlying mechanisms, but she is completely blind to all of the ways that the economy works. And so she's just thinking, oh, I'm going to go back. Uh, one day I'm going to have mom and dad's money anyway. Uh, I'm going to be able to survive all of this. And some of the most outlandish, and this is what we're going to cover in the third hour, some of the most outlandish utopian experiments that have been run on American soil, uh, were run by people that were already wealthy. Um, and so those are the people that push this kind of stuff because they're so unaccustomed to the day-to-day grind of actually making ends meet.

• 1:09:57Speaker 06

  Rent strike, right? Like that, you know, we described, right? Like one way of thinking about abolishing rent is a permanent and general rent strike.

• 1:10:07Speaker 00

  Just don't pay rent. Make housing impossible to maintain. Yeah, brilliant.

• 1:10:11Speaker 06

  Think about how we get there. Um, and I think that for me, you know, like, um, and yeah, I mean, my whole building's not paying rent. It, it really rocks. Um, and-

• 1:10:23Speaker 00

  Dude, that's so crazy. Sorry, I have to like really, uh, okay, my whole building is not paying rent. All right, this is going to be the same person. I bet part of the reason that they're going to go after them or, or the words that will come out of their mouth is that they're not upkeeping the building. Well, yeah, no shit, Sherlock. If you're not paying for anything, how are they supposed to upkeep the building? This is where people have this distorted sense that people that own a building are just swimming in cash and they're just hoarding all of it and they, they are unwilling to upkeep the building even though they've got all this money. This is exactly what happened to the Bronx and parts of the five boroughs when New York did the same disastrous policy in the sixties and seventies. And it ended up getting to the point where people could not maintain the buildings.

• 1:11:06Speaker 00

  And so the Bronx literally looked like Beirut after the civil war. This, this is so ridiculous. This is somebody who they are reasoning from the point of resentment, from the point of, uh, we've got to tear these people down. They are not looking at what's actually good for poor people.

• 1:11:23Speaker 06

  In many ways, I'm luxuriating on the like historic tenant movement of-

• 1:11:29Speaker 00

  Luxuriating.

• 1:11:29Speaker 06

  New York City in order to be able to do that. Cause I can just sort of say like, yeah, fuck it. Like come get it. Like, I don't know, we'll see what happens.

• 1:11:37Speaker 00

  So stop saying come get me.

• 1:11:38Speaker 06

  I think that there is like a lot of, um, I, I think that like because of maybe some of these calculations, right? That, um, are about like, what do I know I have? And like, what do I, like, when I think about how my own building, um, went on rent strike, right? Like at first people were really risk averse and they like, didn't want to get even like, you know, if you even get in the court records, like some landlord's going to look at that and be like, well, you can't rent in the future.

• 1:12:06Speaker 00

  She's right about that and people are right to be paranoid about that. And right now, maybe not a lot of landlords are looking into that, but let me tell you, as more and more of this stuff keeps getting pushed forward, more and more landlords are going to check, have you been a part of a rent strike before? And you will find yourself just suddenly unable to get housing. Now, when again, you can go move in with mom and dad, or again, you're waiting for mom and dad to die so you can have their money, you might not be worried about that. But for somebody who has a family and you convince them to do something that is patently ridiculous and they end up on that kind of do not rent to list and then have trouble finding housing and then have to move far away and find themselves around fewer economic

• 1:12:50Speaker 00

  opportunities because that's the only place they can find somewhere that they can afford, that someone will actually rent to them. This is so idiotic and it's taking people down a path. They're listening to you, but they don't have your same reinforcements.

• 1:13:01Speaker 06

  Think that the slow process of getting more attached to our homes, more attached to each other, more attached to the organizing project really like changed people, like changed people's minds, like to like a person didn't move, like, um, someone was like, I'm going to go all the way, you know? And so it's, I, I think that, um, in my own building, I had the experience of watching people go from being like not imagine, like not knowing how that would look, like not being able to imagine it to be like, oh shit, it's been two and a half years.

• 1:13:42Speaker 00

  So listen, these are people that, uh, they fully understand that they're using extortionary tactics to penalize, uh, the, what they see as the capital class and they want to hurt their landlord. And when they think through who is going to own these buildings when we make it absolutely impossible for somebody to run this as a business, their answer is the government. Now, the government can throw tax dollars at this only so far because if you break the engine of prosperity, there are no tax dollars to fund all of this stuff. And this is why every single country that does this gets into a position where they look like Cuba. Everything is backwards. Every building looks like shit.

• 1:14:25Speaker 00

  They are stuck in a period of time that is long ago in the past because they're not building, they're not able to innovate, they are not able to purchase the innovations of others. And it ends up being absolutely dire for the people that are trying it. Now, if what they really want to do is a Chinese model, that's a very different argument. And I think that I don't have it to cover today. I'm happy to talk about it, but it's not on our list, but, uh, what's his face? Um, Hassan Piker, his producer, lives in China and is, has literally said, uh, he's on, in fact, you can find that video right there. Uh, he has said, we want to, um, the- Communification, I think is the word that he used. We can list it directly from him. Here he is.

• 1:15:09Speaker 00

  This is Hassan Piker's producer saying stupid communistic shit. But at least he's going to bat for a government that has proven that even though they put people in concentration camps, even though they are 1984 on steroids, even though they kept people on lockdown from COVID for god knows how long, even though on and on the list goes, they are perfectly happy to disappear. They're entrepreneurs. They are perfectly happy to purge, what a nice word, to purge people out of the political party. Imagine if Trump had that power. You guys are hilarious. So if you want to get down with that system and you don't mind opening yourself up to

• 1:15:53Speaker 00

  that type of tyrannical evil, then sure. You can't argue that what China has done by putting an authoritarian layer on top of capitalism, you can't deny that it isn't very effective at pulling people out of poverty. So at least this argument is worth contending with. So anyway, here's my man.

• 1:16:12Speaker 01

  You know, communize the United States of America, brother.

• 1:16:15Speaker 08

  Eric Hovegim, Hassan Abihead, content creator. He's worked with Zoron as well. For folks who are new here, I help produce Hassan's interviews.

• 1:16:25Speaker 01

  There has never been a good president in US history. A couple of weeks ago, I received a DM from this oversized Turkish man that I knew would change my life forever. No, that's awesome. We should ban the American stock market, too. The New York Stock Exchange should be abolished.

• 1:16:40Speaker 08

  Yeah.

• 1:16:41Speaker 01

  I would say I'm a socialist. I would say I'm a socialist. I think I am very interested in the various communist nations around the world that have uplifted so many people out of poverty.

• 1:16:50Speaker 00

  Okay, pause. I would like that list, motherfucker. I would like you to provide that list. And I swear to God, if you use China as your example of a communist nation that has pulled so many people out of poverty, I'm going to vomit all over everything because that is full retard. The Chinese government, when they were actually communist, they killed 45 million people and left them so impoverished that when Mao finally died, they were like, Jesus Christ, we have got to stop doing this. And so Deng Xiaoping's famous statement, "I don't care if the cat is white or black,"

• 1:17:30Speaker 00

  meaning I don't care if it's communism or capitalism as long as it catches mice, meaning as long as it makes people wealthy. So guess what they did? They stopped being communist and they started being authoritarian on top of capitalism. They went to free motherfucking markets. So dude, I really want to hear these people in their own words. Like, I want that list of countries because he's not going to have any. They haven't worked. They have led to extraordinary amounts of misery. And the one country that keeps communism in the name, partly for branding purposes because they didn't want to admit that Mao was as wrong and murderous as he really was.

• 1:18:12Speaker 00

  So they kept that part in the name, but they stopped doing the actual principles. Remember, China has more home wealth inequality, household wealth inequality than the US. So this is not some great even society where people give according to their ability to each according to their need. That's not what it is. That doesn't work. And we're going to talk about why, from a mechanistic standpoint, in the third hour. Make sure you join me. We have a very detailed and fascinating video that we're going to be reacting to. Yeah. Boy, do I wish that that was not said on, we got to get better at the China thing. This was not said because he actually has a list that's backed by data.

• 1:18:54Speaker 00

  This is somebody who is, I don't know, man, I can't figure this guy out. He's clearly smart, but boy, oh, boy. He's going on podcasts where he's able to make claims that nobody pushes on.

• 1:19:05Speaker 01

  You think we got it?

• 1:19:07Speaker 00

  Yeah, no, we got it. He just says the same thing over and over and over and over.

• 1:19:14Speaker 01

  I was listening to Mehdi Hassan and Sam Seder have a conversation and they were talking about the rise of the DSA. And then Mehdi asked them, what do you say about the comparisons that this is a Democratic Tea Party? And he says, this is not a fair comparison because on the far, far right, when you get to the very corners of the right, you have Nazism, you have white nationalism, you have things. When you get to the far, far left, you have people who want universal healthcare for all. And I think that there's still that blind spot that a lot of people are saying, no, yes, we have some crazies, but they just want healthcare for all. They want affordable housing.

• 1:19:48Speaker 00

  Those are centrist Democrats. They really do want that. And I want to be in dynamic tension with people that want things to be affordable. I think that's a very noble thing to pursue. I want to be in dynamic tension with people who want to make sure that if healthcare is a thing that we want to pay for, that we get that. I love that people want to make sure that you can fall and you don't hit the ground and splatter into a million pieces. I love all that. What they're being so disingenuous about is that on the far left, you find Maoists.

• 1:20:22Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:20:23Speaker 00

  The single most murderous person since Genghis Khan. It's so crazy. And man, did I really hope that the more that I started going into like the rise of Islam, that I would find that, no, this really is going to be like a great thing. When you get these two going to bat for each other, people that are Islamists, not Muslims. But when you get that ideology, you realize that this is extreme. It's extreme. And they both want very extreme outcomes and they are teaming up to pull all the way in that direction.

• 1:21:06Speaker 00

  Dude, I found something yesterday that is mortifying, which is about a thousand, I thought I was being trolled, but about a thousand people a year in Pakistan are young girls, primarily, it's not exclusively, but primarily young Christian girls, so call it 13-ish. They'll get abducted and they'll be forced to convert and marry a, obviously, much older Muslim man. When the family of the girl is like, what the fuck? She was just kidnapped. About a thousand people a year go through the Sharia courts and they give custody to the person that kidnapped the girl. They had video footage of this girl literally being drugged off the street. And I was like, there's no way this is real, right?

• 1:21:49Speaker 00

  Yeah, no, this is verified, happens about a thousand times a year. I was just like, holy shit. So yeah, that's the wrong team to team up with.

• 1:21:57Speaker 01

  Man, I got nothing for that. In other news, 68-year-old Todd Stewart was attacked yesterday with somebody who was waiting conviction. I know we have to be specific about this because he got arrested a bunch of times, but didn't actually get convicted.

• 1:22:12Speaker 00

  Like a bunch of bunch.

• 1:22:13Speaker 01

  I'm not playing the video because it is unaliving.

• 1:22:15Speaker 00

  Can we play it in a way where people can hear the audio? You have to hear this guy scream for his life. You can cover it up. Are you playing it right now? Looks like you're playing it right now. There we go.

• 1:22:26Speaker 01

  Oh, it's the news in you.

• 1:22:28Speaker 09

  68-year-old Todd Stewart was stabbed.

• 1:22:30Speaker 01

  I'll play it from top.

• 1:22:32Speaker 09

  The chilling surveillance video captures the deadly attack outside of Martinez's home Thursday evening. 68-year-old Todd Stewart was stabbed multiple times on Francis Court. Neighbors say he had been working on a project in his garage. Stewart died at the scene.

• 1:22:49Speaker 10

  I'm still processing because I still expect to see him over the fence. It's nowhere as bad as his family because they lost the father, they lost, his wife lost her husband. And they finally were spending more time together because they now both retired, they were traveling.

• 1:23:05Speaker 09

  Investigators.

• 1:23:06Speaker 00

  All right. Unfortunately, you don't get much more from the report, but it goes like this. So Todd Stewart was 68 years old. Last Thursday afternoon, he was building a shed in his own garage and a man in a tactical vest was sitting outside in a car for like an hour. His wife saw him sitting there, but she was like, oh, maybe he's just visiting people, whatever. And then all of a sudden, this guy, and as far as anyone can tell, they have no relationship. So guy goes up, they have some sort of altercation and he stabs him to death. You guys just heard the man screaming, trying to get him to stop, but of course, he doesn't. Now, my beef with all of this is this is a guy that's been arrested many times and he was in the court system. He had an ankle bracelet on.

• 1:23:51Speaker 00

  They, for reasons unknown, end up taking his ankle bracelet off. He gets immediately picked up again for some other crime, but they don't even put the ankle bracelet back on him. He then goes out and within 24 hours of being released, he ends up killing this guy, but now didn't have his ankle bracelet on. And so they weren't able to monitor him and keep track. We are getting to the point where. The delusion that people are forced into bad situations and so we can't be incarcerating them is just becoming absolutely ridiculous. I have deep empathy for people that grew up in poverty. I have seen this up close at Quest. First of all, we were manufacturing

• 1:24:36Speaker 00

  in the inner cities. We were willing to hire people that had felony convictions. So I was surrounded by people that were ex-convicts, former drug dealers, people with teardrop tattoos, like the whole nine. So I've seen this up close and I understand how destructive poverty is to a human life. And there is no doubt that we should be doing things to break that fucking cycle. But, once somebody does something, they need to be held accountable. And it does not matter how they grew up, or all of that trauma, the way that our childhood can break us. Unfortunately, if you are in a position where you are doing something like this, you've got to be locked up. Not this case, but there have been other cases

• 1:25:19Speaker 00

  where you've got somebody who's like a paranoid schizophrenic, running around, like, I don't know if you saw, we didn't play any of the videos, I don't think, but, there was that guy running around and he would go accost women, and he knocked this one woman out, and was like slapping her in the face and yelling about his son and all this stuff. And it was like, what is happening? His own, so he's a paranoid schizophrenic, his own family, and by the way, he filmed those videos himself and was posting them to his own Instagram channel. His family has been begging people to put this guy away for quite some time, saying, listen, I think his sister said that he's broken. He's broken, you're never gonna be able to get this guy to be a normal functioning member of society without getting

• 1:26:01Speaker 00

  him medicated. He's got to be put into an institution, put on drugs, so that he can hopefully get back to normal and start building from there. But as long as you just leave him running around the streets, you're just gonna get more of this kind of violence, because he's a fucking paranoid schizophrenic. So, we see people that are captured by the ideology of, it's not their fault, it's victims and victimizers, and these guys have been oppressed by something, and we cannot further oppress them by putting them in prison. It is absolute insanity. The first job of a government is to make sure that their citizens are safe. This is so stupid. And we've got to start holding judges accountable for letting

• 1:26:44Speaker 00

  these people out. It's just absolutely crazy. This is literal criminal neglect, on the part of the judges. Man, alright, we got some super chats.

• 1:26:55Speaker 11

  Yes, we do. First super chat comes from Marushia Dark, "Something to incentivize progress on the healthcare and Mark's deep dives, plus shallow dive videos for the masses who can barely balance a budget. Also, I've been getting into Warhammer 40k lore, noting many parallels to today."

• 1:27:09Speaker 00

  Yikes. That you probably don't want something called Warhammer 40k representing what's going on right now. But yeah, it's wild. And thank you, Marushia, as always, for your continued support of the show, man. You were like, the first person in.

• 1:27:27Speaker 11

  Disclosure32 says, "When AI does all labor, what incentive does a government have to govern? Voters pay no tax to provide any labor and are a burden to govern. They won't build utopia for the poor, but utopia for asset owners may be possible."

• 1:27:39Speaker 00

  There's no way to build utopia for asset owners if you don't have broad-based economic prosperity. This is a thing that wealthy need to understand, this is a thing that the government needs to understand, this is a thing the middle class needs to understand. We need to have a thriving middle class. You will live in some sort of, what was the name of that movie, Ryan? Where they're like, up in space, they, it's like, all going well for them. Matt Damon, he's getting-

• 1:28:08Speaker 11

  Martian?

• 1:28:09Speaker 00

  No, no. Oh, come on.

• 1:28:11Speaker 11

  Matt Damon's space movie?

• 1:28:13Speaker 00

  Yes. He's trying to get to space. What is it? Oh, come on, chat, chat will know the answer to this, guaranteed.

• 1:28:20Speaker 11

  Elysium?

• 1:28:21Speaker 00

  Elysium, thank you. So, you'll end up in some sort of Elysium hellhole, where you have to go into low Earth orbit to get away from everybody, all the poor people that are running around. It is the dumbest fucking thing in the universe to not aim for broad-based prosperity. It's absolutely crazy. So, yes, we want broad-based prosperity, it is the only way. Now, will AI take us there? I think it will, because if AI really does get to the point where it makes labor effectively free, and it makes, it makes it possible for, well, energy will be free, for labor to be free, so you've got those two things. But it'll make it possible for anybody to have basically anything that they want. And

• 1:29:03Speaker 00

  at that point, even if there is inequality, does it really matter? If you've got a house, if you've got safety, security, food, you've got all of that, your concern becomes mouse utopia. It doesn't become that people won't have the things they want. Mouse utopia is where, when there's no problems, people make problems. So, that, I think, is a far bigger concern than there being this like crazy dichotomy between the rich and the poor. If AI does its AI thing, that's not what you're gonna end up with. You're gonna end up with what happens to the human mind when you don't have to work for anything. And that could be very dangerous.

• 1:29:43Speaker 11

  Next up is BurnbombSL, says, "How did they get the LLM's doctor personality to show up consistently across interactions with the patient? What specifically made the model maintain a recognizable, stable personality instead of drifting between responses?"

• 1:29:57Speaker 00

  Well, the models themselves have a pretty stable personality already. So when you're, if you spend a lot of time engaging with Claude or ChatGPT, you'll find that the way that they talk to you is almost annoyingly consistent. It's only the answers that they provide you that can be different. So, if you have trained them on a constrained set of data, and then you, so you're running, let's say, the Claude personality, but through this constrained set of data, you now have consistency at the level of the attitude, the vibe, and then you have a very small dataset that is drawing from, and so it's very likely to give very consistent answers over and over and over. And if it's specifically been

• 1:30:38Speaker 00

  trained on people that are pushing back, fighting against them, it's not likely to fall into what an AI can fall into, which is, I'm trying to please you, because it's specifically being told, hey, you have to assume that they could be adversarial, that they're trying to trick you, that they are, they have internal incentive to not want a bad diagnosis. And so, they're literally training those kinds of things out of it.

• 1:31:00Speaker 11

  Jordan Sheffield with a 40, thank you, Jordan.

• 1:31:04Speaker 00

  No kidding.

• 1:31:05Speaker 11

  Says, "I made the claim, I made the claim your last live, that DSA is closer to the Nordic model than Maoism. You said the policies of rent control, no borders, no police in prison proved otherwise. However, there are absolutely rent controls in Nordic countries, and the other policies you named are ideologically libertarian. Mao did not seek to reduce the size of the police in prison state, he greatly expanded it."

• 1:31:25Speaker 00

  Okay, so, you have to look at, what was Mao saying? Mao wasn't saying, like, oh, I'm gonna rule with an iron fist. Mao was saying, I'm gonna make everything better. You have to look at the things that Stalin was saying, that Lenin was saying, we're gonna make everything better. The thing that I always love to point people to is the rhetoric from Stalin, from Putin, they have better rights on paper than we have in the US. It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you put on paper, what matters is, what are the mechanisms? The things that people do not understand is that the policies that are being put forward by the DSA absolutely go way farther than a little bit of rent

• 1:32:09Speaker 00

  control that you might find in some of these Nordic countries. What they're talking about is, we're gonna get all of the money from the wealthy, we're not going to, at least in what they say, we're gonna make things more and more affordable to the average person, we're not gonna be raising taxes, though, every now and then they might slip up on that. They're talking about, you just heard it today, we're talking about abolishing rent. Okay, so now a building is free, what are the mechanisms there? Who's gonna pick up the tab? The government. What's gonna happen when the government realizes that they don't have the tax revenue coming in, because they broke the engine of prosperity? Then they have to get you to maintain the building by force. What happens to buildings that are maintained by force? They look like all the communist countries, whether that's Pol Pot, and what he was doing in Cambodia, whether that is Venezuela, whether that is,

• 1:32:54Speaker 00

  which by the way, you saw those buildings fall in the earthquake, right? They were made out of fucking styrofoam. You've got what's going on in Cuba, you have Mao's China, where people were starving to death because they tried to top down the agriculture. When you get to the mechanisms of why all of this stuff breaks, you understand that when you start pushing past what they do in the Nordic countries, which I'll get to in a second, when you have these far more radical things, like abolishing prisons, just think about what's gonna happen when you actually do that, and you have all the criminals on the street, are you gonna be able to go hands off, or do you have to like, really start tightening control on everybody? You have to start tightening control on everybody. And will everybody go along with that? Or are people gonna say, I don't want these criminals on my street? So now, you've gotta deal with them as well, because they're pushing

• 1:33:38Speaker 00

  back and they're rising up, so you're gonna have to use force to make them stop. And so, people just do not play this out. Like, what are the mechanisms that end up happening? You break the engine of prosperity, the government has to do everything. You start forcing things like homeboy running around stabbing people on the average person, you do that enough, they're gonna start pushing back. So now you get people challenging your authority. And what do authoritarians do when people challenge their authority? You can see this, even in China, post Mao, they go into Tiananmen Square and they just shoot everybody in the face. And so, you force compliance. Or hey, just look at Iran. So, I don't understand what people are arguing for. So, if you would like to say, Tom, what I want is a group of American politicians that actually want to do the things that they're doing in the

• 1:34:22Speaker 00

  Scandinavian countries, awesome, let's look at that. So, what are the Scandinavian countries doing? It's broad-based tax across everybody, not just the wealthy, across everybody. It's lower corporate taxes, not higher corporate taxes, like they're, the DSA is pushing. It is making sure that we have a broad-based social safety net, love it. And, it's realizing now that, ooh, we can't just keep inviting immigrants in, because it's taxing the system, and it's making it impossible for us to keep doing these things. So, now, all of a sudden, the DSA messaging about open borders, about amnesty for everybody, about letting them all vote, all of that starts to sound pretty crazy. It starts to sound pretty different than what you see going on in the actual Nordic countries. So, that's where I'm like,

• 1:35:06Speaker 00

  kids, what are we really doing here? So, I get it, if what you're saying is, like, I'll entertain somebody going, I wanna mimic China. Cool. I get where people are coming from that say they wanna mimic China. That is a reasonable thing to put on the table. I think I can explain why it is absolutely suicidal, you'll have periods where it works, and then catastrophe that is truly unbounded, okay? The Chinese model is the same reason that I don't trade on debt. Because when you're doing option trading on debt, you can have infinite downside. Imagine that where you can go from I'm up by a million dollars to I'm down 140 million dollars and that person is just never going to get out from under that debt. And you saw people on Wall Street Bets committing suicide because they didn't understand

• 1:35:49Speaker 00

  unbounded downside. Okay, so that's terrifying. China has unbounded downside. If you get a leader that starts killing people, there's nothing you can do to stop them. Okay, that is what the American experiment was meant to protect against. America comes to fruition at a time where there's just kings and despots everywhere. So these guys go, I would rather risk starving to death in a winter than being under one of these guys. And they end up building a republic if you can keep it as they say. And so it's like, what we need to protect against is tyranny. Men have a tendency to bend towards tyranny. And so I want to put in a system with all these checks and balances to protect against that. Okay, that's a speed run of the argument

• 1:36:31Speaker 00

  against China, which is using some free market principles to do some amazing things. And it can be very efficient if you have a benevolent leader, but when they stop being benevolent, you have a real problem. Okay, the Nordic model is another thing. If people said, hey, I would like to look at how do we get to the Nordic model? I don't think that person is crazy. I don't want to do it because I think that they make trade offs that I'm not willing to make. I also think that there are society that we're not. And so it's never going to work when you have the kind of like warring factions is a bit extreme, but we have, we do not have a society that is homogeneous. And so it becomes very difficult for everybody to be like, I'm just going to pull my weight. That isn't the society

• 1:37:14Speaker 00

  that we built. Okay, that's not the ethos that we are built on top of. And we don't look around and see a bunch of people that look like us that were raised like us. We look around and we see what used to be a melting pot and is now a bunch of different factions. So I don't think it would even work here, even if we tried. But nonetheless, hey, that argument I understand. And if we want to talk about how do we do something like that in America, I'm very open. But it is anathema to the policies that the DSA are actually putting forward. Anything we want to touch on? All right. You guys are incredible. Thank you so much. My next AI masterclass is coming up Thursday, September 10th at 1pm Pacific. Like I was saying in that reacts, I have spent the last 25 years, almost 25 years

• 1:37:56Speaker 00

  of my life as an entrepreneur in the grind, building businesses. And we are in a fascinating time with AI. Do not miss these classes. They're free, free, free, free. So come check it out. I'll show you guys how powerfully AI can be used. Yes, AI falls on its face. I'll tell you exactly where, how to avoid it, and what parts it is extraordinarily good at. And again, Thursday, September 10th, 1pm Pacific. All right. Links in the description. All right, guys. Love you bunches. We will see you Friday. Until then, my friends, be legendary. Take care. Peace. Let's talk about a pattern that is guaranteed to be killing your progress. You know what you need to do. You need consistent nutrition. We all do. You need vitamins, probiotics, greens. We all know that we should be doing more of it. When your morning gets chaotic,

• 1:38:38Speaker 00

  you skip it. When you travel, you skip it. When your routine breaks, everything tends to break and that inconsistency compounds against you every single day. AG1 is designed to solve the execution problem. One scoop, eight ounces of water, and you're done. You're getting 75 plus ingredients, vitamins and minerals, pre and probiotics, nutrient dense superfoods, everything that used to require six, seven different supplements, and perfect planning now happens in one drink that takes about 30 seconds to make. Right now, AG1 is giving you $87 worth of free gifts with your first subscription. You get a welcome kit, travel packs, vitamin D3 plus K2, and flavor samples. Click the link in the show

• 1:39:22Speaker 00

  notes or visit drinkag1.com/impact to claim this offer.