Kind: captions
Language: en
when it comes to housing where it's a
chicken or the egg thing and again the
people that are in the middle of it
there is nobody actually looking out for
their interest. So I'm just saying I
don't think socialism is the answer but
I'm starting to understand why so many
people are going towards socialism
because when we talk about
>> if it worked we could do it but it won't
work.
>> But but when we talk about housing you
give me a bunch of reasons why other
people can't do it and it becomes the
people who have the thing don't want you
to have the thing. Then when we talk
about corporations we talk about the
people have the thing these are all the
reasons why you shouldn't have the
thing. So now my house and my job where
I spend let's say twothird of my life
>> I can't have control over.
>> So now you understand why I might be a
little bit like okay [ __ ] it burned the
whole thing down.
>> Yes. Now is that like does that strike
you as the place to stay? So even though
I can understand it.
>> No no but that's the thing. It's not
even like a place to stay because then
that goes into the IQ argument which is
also lobby that says not everybody's
going to make it. So there are going to
be people that even want to be gung-ho
and want to do it. They're just going to
get screwed over. So just f dumb them.
It is what it is. We're just going to
shrug our shoulders. where I think that
these are tangible things that this guy
is listing that if we did reduce stock
buybacks and you can't reby a stock, you
can't increase your dividend to get more
stock dollars invested to keep more
people on the asset train to keep you
away from the effects of inflation while
your workers are getting caught by
inflation. So instead of stock buybacks,
why don't you give employee dividends?
So you're you're still employee, your
number goes up, your stock goes up, but
now at least people are now getting
bought into the system, the people that
are helping you get that stock number.
You see how it's the same thing, but it
can be something that can help build
somebody up the middle class again as
opposed to you need to figure it out.
True. And I think that's the frustration
that a lot of people are feeling in this
moment.
>> I am so grateful for how well you can
capture the emotion, but you're in Gary
Economics territory. This is all emotion
and there's no reality.
>> That's a distraction. That's not a
distraction because I we could talk
policy by policy.
>> Drew, go through them one at a time.
None of these are going to work. If you
try to tell a business, this is how you
need to allocate that capital, you will
[ __ ] them up and you will be like every
other dumbass socialist country.
I understand how you should capitalize.
>> Private equity has is has mental
gymnastics to three different
industries. When they blew up real
estate, they went somewhere else and now
they're buying up businesses. When
they're going to blow that up, they're
going to go somewhere else and they're
going to start buying up TikTok and
talking about
>> I'm I'm using a very specific private
equity. I'm using a very specific input
because once they went through the
housing bubble, that bubble uh
>> that's different. Private equity is
people that have made money and now
they're trying to put money back into
the system. So if you're saying, "I
don't like the way that you're putting
money back in the system." And you think
that there are regulations that could
and should be done to protect against
things like the 1870 type like you're
hollowing something out because people
don't understand what's going on. That's
entirely possible. And I've certainly
talked to VCs, private equity guys that
see that there is a problem there that
where they're allowed to like put a ton
of debt on these companies in a way
that's wildly inappropriate because
they're doing it to I don't even I don't
understand it well enough, but there is
some sort of weird problem there. But
we're moving away from what we were
actually talking about.
>> What I'm saying is is that if you were
to put these regulations on these
businesses, they're
>> what regulations?
>> I could put specific regulations. Tell
me what the regulations stock buybacks
for spec specifically on stock buyback.
So you're going to force them. We can't
do stop stock by if we just add a
regulation to there. They're going to
find a way to allocate those resources
in a way that's going to make that
business ultimately better. It's we do
the same thing every year.
>> Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. You're saying
no matter what burden we put on
companies, they'll find a way to make it
work.
>> They'll find a way to finesse it.
>> That's crazy.
>> We increase taxes and there's a Google
Ireland building people in the Bronx.
Like you do create scenarios.
>> You're talking about rent control. I'm
not talking about rent control. I'm
talking about stock buybacks. You're
talking about putting an external top-
down control on how people use their
capital and I abstracted it out to see
if that was the principle that you were
really putting forward which is as a
principle that's we can put a burden on
the companies and no matter what burden
we put on them they'll find a way to
make it work.
>> All I'm saying is there should be a moat
around certain things if you want your
country to actually thrive.
>> There should be a moat. Be specific.
>> There's a literally there should be a
moat around certain industries so your
country can survive. Housing should not
be
>> you're saying they should be
publicowned.
>> No, I'm just saying that there should be
certain restrictions around these
industries so that way
>> so regulations cuz I don't know what you
mean by moat.
>> Moat is regulations. You can't you can't
there's certain waters you cannot cross.
Private equity owning houses you should
not cross it. Stock markets owning house
like mutual funds owning houses that's
something you should not cross. That's a
very specific example. What I'm trying
to articulate is that we just spent 20
minutes talking about housing. We got to
the end of the housing. And you were
like, well, people who own houses are
going to try to push and lobby so that
way they don't get more housing and
that's going to keep the number up.
Government is also going to do that cuz
they're going to get lobbyed up. It's
going to be an uphill battle to change
that. Cool. Got that. That's hard. Now
we're looking at companies. Okay, wages
don't need to grow. You can do things
with record profits. You can incent you
can push up your price as high as it
goes. Blame it on COVID even though
there weren't actually any supply chain
issues. And yet we when we try to
criticize that you're saying, well, no,
we can't mess with the company either.
So housing market, although the little
guy is getting screwed over, don't do
anything with it. You're just going to
have to get screwed. The companies that
are now extracting the wages from
extracting the labor from people, giving
them record profits, we can't do nothing
with that. You're screwed there. But
what you can do is invest your $10 and
maybe you can get on this property
ladder. Do you see what I'm saying? Like
that's kind of
>> I see what you're saying. And this is
one of those where we're going to have
to take these issue by issue because if
you can't tell that you're approaching
this from an emotional standpoint, then
I don't know how to access your mind.
>> I feel like a woman right now cuz he
keep calling me emotional.
>> Yes. Because
>> Drew, nothing you're saying is making
sense. You're just emotional.
>> What I'm saying is there are physics to
this. So let's take each of these things
that you want to do. Look at the physics
of how this will actually play out
versus like it ought to be this way. It
doesn't matter how it ought to be. What
matters is what is. People can make an
argument that it ought to be that rent
shouldn't be expensive. Okay, great. But
you have two ways to approach that. You
can do what Houston does and just say
we're going to let people build and it
is what it is. And sorry homeowners, but
your prices aren't going to go up up up
up and great. Then let's do it. But what
I'm saying is we live in a system where
you have to get things through
politically. The reason that I say all
these things is not to make people feel
defeated. It's the exact opposite. I
want people to understand how these
things actually work so that they can
go, "Oh, I see what we have to do. We
have to be armed with receipts. We've
got to be able to walk in and say, "This
is how it's being handled in Houston.
This is exactly how they handled it in
the Bronx. Look at the catastrophe. This
is what happened in Austin, and prices
doubled or tripled in like 6 months, two
years, like a really short period of
time. But this is how they got the
properties back down again.
deregulation, letting the free market go
in and do its thing. And so everybody
has to have a guiding light, a way by
which they parse the world and say this
world's very complex. So how do we deal
with these different things? And the
answer, I think, that has been proven
time and time again across countries,
across time, over and over and over. The
government is god-awful at allocating
capital. They are absolutely atrocious
when they try to get in into people's
business. They need to back off. Do some
regulation effectively. Don't let
monopolies get into place. Make sure
that you're not getting um so much money
in politics that nothing can get done,
which obviously is happening. And I'm
saying those are the things that you
want to target. You want to find
policies that have a track record of
actually working inside of a real
economy. Dude, when I look at China and
I go, China had I mean, just god knows
how long of mass poverty. They starve
their own people to death all because
they thought we can do a top- down
economy. we know uh we're not going to
let them do buybacks, this that or the
other. And then they finally realized,
oh [ __ ] like the only way for us to go
free or to get out of poverty is to
embrace the free market. They had
Americans come over and teach them
essentially everything. And then they
started doing it and they went from 88%
poverty to like 1% poverty in I 40 years
or something. I mean, just it is the
most miraculous thing that ever
happened. When a communist country
realizes, oh my god, what we have to do
is lean into the free market. That's
when you're like, bro, that is the thing
that works. And so, for sure, I'm not a
no regulation guy, but I'm man, you've
really got to be careful with that. And
if your beef is we've hollowed out the
middle class, ask yourself, what does it
take to get a thriving middle class? And
what it gets to what it takes to get a
thriving middle class is to make sure
that homes, which is the only asset that
the vast majority of people understand,
access to that. And you have to stop
inflating the money supply. You have to,
Drew, there's physics. And if you
inflate the money supply, it won't
matter. Nothing else will matter. These
were policies that are already enacted.
They got withdrawn. So just like we're
mad that money is in politics and Elon
Musk gave Donald Trump $250 million and
that was gross. That was a policy that
was allowed. So there was a world where
the middle class kept up with inflation.
There was a world where the middle class
can own homes. Then there were these
restrictions. Okay, everybody's doing
good. Let's take off this restriction.
Let's talk off this regulation. And as
we kind of walk down, these things
compound over time. And that's it. It
feels like we're confused like, oh,
what's happening? When we can literally
go point by point, 1970s, go all the way
down to the 2000s, how many regulations
have changed and how those regulations
have impacted the too big to fails.
Well, the middle guy has to like the
little people haven't been protected.
And even right now, we're we're we're
withdrawing the Consumer Protection
Bureau. Like there's so many things that
are supposed to help that we had to kind
of avoid this problem that we
restricted. Now we have this problem and
now we're saying, "Oh man, we just got
to stop inflating money." It's like
there was other things that were taken
away that it sped up this problem that
exacerbated this problem that if was
still there, it could not it could have
had a different outcome than what we
actually led to.
>> So no matter what would have happened,
we would have been in the same exact
spot.
>> No. So then what's the point of a
regulation anyway?
>> I literally just said no. I woke up one
day itching so badly. I wanted to cry. I
wished that I could cry. I went to the
skin doctor and they were like, "Huh,
we're going to have to give you some
cream. This is crazy. Uh you must be
using a new detergent. You don't realize
it, but something's getting on your
skin." And I'm just like, that didn't
sit well with me. And I was like, what
would I advise somebody if they asked
me, "Hey Tom, I'm itching all over.
What's wrong?" I would say, "It's
something you're eating." And so I said,
"Okay, it's something I'm eating." And
lo and behold, it was something I was
eating. And as soon as I stopped eating
basically artificial sweeteners in
unimaginable quantities, uh, it went
away. And I was like, it's so
interesting that people think that
there's an exogenous thing that you do
from the outside that will help you heal
when the reality is it's usually a thing
you just need to stop doing. The thing
that we have to stop doing is printing
money. And I know that's frustrating
because it seems so impossible to stop.
But the reality is everything else is a
topical ointment. And if we just put
cream on it and we do all these things,
it isn't going to solve the problem
>> when the other 98 countries over the
last 500 years have done the exact same
thing. Excuse me if I'm not optimistic
that we're going to be
>> that they all embrace because so
>> the one if there's one country that
turned the corner and was able to do
>> it is Argentina. But you need to look at
this and ask yourself, okay, well, wait
a second.
>> If every country is doing this, and I
look out at the world and it's pretty
awesome. Even now, there's a lot of
strife, but it's still pretty awesome.
So, it's like, huh,
>> modern monetary theory, as much as I
want to dunk on it and say that it's
just total dog [ __ ] the reality is
everything's a trade-off. Modern
monetary theory is a trade-off. And the
trade-off that we make is that we smooth
out the big bumps. 2008 in hard money
would have been a 10-year recession,
depression, would have been a nightmare.
Now, the people that were stupid would
have gotten washed out of the system as
they should have. But just like when
China does really dumb stuff and
Everrand goes down and it causes ripples
around the world, it's like there are
things that affect a whole lot of other
people.
>> And so, we have decided for better or
worse that we want to run modern
monetary theory. It will blow up roughly
every 150 years, but for 150 years it's
dope. After that country blows up, a new
country in this case almost certainly if
China can get their [ __ ] together and do
a hardback currency. But anyway,
irrespective of who it ends up being.
Somebody else will rise. They'll get
their 150 years. They'll do the same
thing that we did, which the British
did, which the Dutch did, which the
Spanish did, so on and so forth. And
that's the system that we're running.
So, we either say we're going to address
the system and change over to a hard
money system or at least now with
Bitcoin, there is a parallel hard money
system that people can take advantage
of. It's highly volatile, so do at your
own risk. But like over time, it's
theoretical if the governments don't try
to seize it that we could at least have
a parallel thing. What bothers you and
me is that the average person doesn't
understand that and they're never going
to do that. What they understand is a
home. And so I keep coming back to while
I would like to abolish the Fed, we're
probably not going to. Though they
really seem like they're going to in
Argentina, he's gonna need another year,
but like he's really making the moves.
We'll see.
>> We'll see.
>> Even if we don't abolish the Fed, we
understand what we have to do to get out
from under the debt. We understand what
we have to do. By getting out from under
the debt, we can stop printing money,
which means housing prices won't keep
racing away from people. And so the
average person then will be able to get
back into it. Ideally, we would do a
beautiful deleveraging, but
unfortunately, just telling companies
that they can't buy back their stock
does not mean they're going to start
paying higher wages. The economy just
doesn't work like that. And if you tell
people we're raising the minimum wage to
$20, they'll hire more robots. And if
you tell people, we're going to tax the
robots, fewer people will start
companies. It's just that simple. And
people are not being honest that the
makers in the world will stop making.
So, um, Drew, you're you're an insanely
hard worker. So, trust me when I say I
do not aim this at you. But there are so
few people that would ever be willing to
match me and the hours that I work. Even
of the people that are willing to match
me in the hours that I work, there are
very few people that will take the risks
that I've taken. I get it. It's super
stressful when everybody, you have to
make sure that everybody else gets paid
before you. Uh, stressful. It is what it
is. that matches some people and it
doesn't match others. But if you strip
away the rewards, people will stop doing
that. I need only point at every other
country. We beat them all combined in
terms of the number of billion dollar
companies that we generate. We and if
people think that uh billion dollars has
become like this negative word, it's
innovation. They're innovating. They're
building the future. It's hard and it's
risky. But there's a certain type of
person that wants to do it, but they
stop doing it.