Kind: captions
Language: en
The DoD makes hundreds of millions in
Doge recommended cuts. Mark Cuban joins
the ranks of people who used to sound
Doge. Biden is rumored to be attempting
a Trump style comeback. Bernie and AOC
do America. Gary Economics hands the
Dems their comeback playbook. Howard
Letic lays out plans for a US sovereign
wealth fund. Elon says the Optimus robot
will be the biggest product ever by a
long shot. Nvidia and Disney drop a
robot that looks like a real life
Wall-E. And maybe aliens really did
build the pyramids. Drew, it feels like
life is stuck on 2x. Man, this is
getting crazy. The conspiracy theorists
were right, man. They're always right.
We just This is That one's nuts. I can't
wait till we get to that. But first, we
have to start with the uh the more
immediate news in terms of what's going
on in the DoD. We're going to play a
clip for you from uh Pete Hegse. What I
love about this clip is the growing
sense that the government is trying to
be transparent that they feel
accountable to the um taxpayers. I love
that we are entering into an era where
everything is just going to play out in
front of the camera. There's good and
there's bad. There's no doubt that I was
super conflicted about the fact that the
White House clash between Trump,
Zalinsky, and Vance uh played out in
front of us all. I think that that
deranged it. But seeing the um head of
the Department of Defense going through
line by line and telling people what
we're cutting, I actually like this. All
right, play that clip. We're back with
another quick update on our efforts to
cut wasteful spending and cut it quickly
at the Department of Defense so we get
the dollars to the things that the war
fighters need. So today, I'm signing a
memo directing the termination of over
$580 million in DoD contracts and grants
that do not match the priorities of this
president or this department. In other
words, they are not a good use of
taxpayer dollars. Ultimately, that's who
funds us and we owe you transparency and
making sure we're using it well. So,
here's a quickly what we're cancelling
today. There's an HR software effort uh
that was supposed to take a year and
cost $ 36 million, but instead it's
taken eight years uh and is currently
$280 million over budget, not delivering
what supposed to. That's crazy. So
that's
780% over budget. That's crazy. We're
not doing that anymore. Number two,
another batch of DoD grants, $360
million worth this time, decarbonizing
emissions from Navy ships, part of the
Obama Biden Green agenda. That's 6
million bucks. $5.2 million on something
that would diversify and engage the Navy
uh by engaging under reppresented BIPAC
students and scholars. another $9
million at a university to approach
equitable AI and machine learning
models. I need lethal machine learning
models, not equitable machine learning
models. And number three, uh in our
ongoing effort to cut wasteful spending
on external consulting services, 30
million bucks uh in contracts with
Gartner and McKenzie, that's it
purchasing, unused licenses. So when you
add it all up, $580 million in DoD
contracts and grants. Doge is helping us
cut today. Uh what does that bring our
total number up? Total cuts, running
total, $800 million in wasteful spending
canceled over the first few weeks as DoD
partners with Doge here to make sure
that our war fighters have what they
need by cutting the waste, fraud, and
abuse. They're working hard. We're
working hard with them. We appreciate
the work that they're doing, and we have
a lot more coming. All right. What I
absolutely love about this is now people
get to decide if they hear that list and
they're like, "This is ridiculous. This
is not what I want cut. How dare you?"
Now, you know, so I don't need people to
agree with what they're doing. I like
the transparency. I want to see more and
more of this so that people understand
exactly what's happening in government.
They understand the kinds of things that
the government is interfacing with. They
understand the kinds of things that
we're spending money on. and now they're
more informed and can start making their
voice heard whether they love or hate
what they're hearing. This is fantastic.
Long may it continue. Now, I'm not a
fool. I understand that these guys are
going to tell us uh the things that they
think maximally make them look good. But
the reality is when we speak, we cannot
help but reveal ourselves. And so, even
if they're trying to position, posture,
whatever, the more that we're able to
get a glimpse into what we're doing, the
more the taxpayers can decide if this is
what they want or if they're like, "No,
man. This uh we can't have this. this is
taking us in the exact wrong direction.
At least it's not being done in the
shadows anymore. Yeah. And my favorite
part was the fact that he acknowledged
we owe the transparency to you, the
American people. And I just like that
that shift in government in general. I
like that the Democrats are now going
live and they're talking more to their
con constituents. Like I don't like
this. I talk through bills or I talk
through CNN to talk to you. No, let me
hear it live. What's actually happened?
Giving me the full list. Give me a
website I can link to. Give me the bill
PDFs. I can throw it in the chat. like
let me actually follow those steps and
have more of a partnership versus here
you take my money out of my check every
two weeks and I'll figure out what I get
two years from now. There uh you know
Peter Schiff. Yeah. So he the intro to
the Peter Schiff show there's a clip
that he plays. I can't remember which
senator it is that says it, but there's
a very famous senator, one that um we
would all recognize her voice. And she
goes, "Well, we'll have to pass the bill
for you guys to find out what's in it."
And I was like, how can you let those
words cross your lips? Like that's so
crazy. So between AI, between cameras
just being everywhere, between the
public having an increased sense of I
want to know what's going on and holding
people to account. I'm here for it, man.
I love it. Yeah. Increasing
transparency. We had a spicy exchange
between Gary Economics and Daniel
Presley on the Diary of a CEO show. And
I wanted to get your read on the real
problem of can you become a millionaire?
I think the reality is for kids from
poor backgrounds, it is almost
impossible to realistically get even
financial security, never mind wealth.
But why do you think you could do it, I
could do it, he could do it, but you
don't think other people could do it? I
won every math competition I've ever
been in. You know what I mean? Since I
was a little kid, I was one of the top
students at LSC and I still had to win
my job by cheating in a card game. You
know, that's the world that we live in.
I don't think that's a very replicable
strategy. What I see is the most often
the people who do really well
financially who are young, they dropped
out of school, they dropped out of
university, they started learning how to
do things uh by doing their own
research, they start their own business
or co-found a business, they take a very
alternative path. When people sidestep
that uh and say, "Okay, I'm not going to
get into university debt. I'm just going
to go off and actually figure out how
the world works." There's actually loads
of opportunities. Okay, so I guess we've
sorted it then. All of our viewers need
to do just being more entrepreneurial.
It's as simple as that. More
entrepreneurial. Start a business.
Listen, my friends can't feed their
kids. Okay? And if it was as simple as
going out and being entrepreneur, I can
bet you they would do it. I can bet you
they would do it. Let us I'm sick of
multi-millionaires telling kids who
can't afford to turn the heating on, you
just need to be more entrepreneurial.
It's sick, Dan. It's sick. I This gives
people mental illness. It gives people
mental illness. The thing that I know
that gives people mental health issues
is feeling that they have no agency in
their life. That they can't do anything.
Your video where you talk about if you
don't have a rich dad, you're screwed.
There's no such thing as meritocracy.
You're never going to be successful. To
me, if I had have come across your
content at 19, 20 years old, I would
have been screwed. I'm so glad that I
came across people who said, "Daniel,
you weren't born into a a rich family.
You don't have any bank of mom and dad,
but it's cheap and easier than ever to
start a business. Start by working for
someone who's got a business. Then
figure out what's your opportunity. And
there's a way. There is a way. I'm not
saying everyone ends up as a
millionaire. And I'm not saying everyone
ends up uh equal, but I'm saying you can
make improvements in your life. And the
thing that causes mental health issues
is the feeling of having no agency or no
control over your circumstances until
the world changes the whole economic
system. I've never said don't work hard.
Okay? When I brought my book out last
year, the hardback, I was at some event
and I come out. I was drinking London
Bridge and uh I come out late. It was
like it was like 1:00 a.m. and um some
guy come up to me when I was unlocking
my bike. He said, "I've been watching
you on YouTube." This guy started
crying. This guy started crying on the
street right in front of me. He's like,
"I work so hard, Gary. I work two jobs.
Um my mom's sick and I'm trying to help.
I'm trying to support and I don't
understand why. and and I'm sorry that
I'm crying, but nobody ever told me that
it wasn't my fault before. That's what
he said to me. Okay? And listen listen,
I believe 100% aspiration, ambition,
entrepreneurial spirit. I would never
say see a kid that has that and say turn
it off. Okay? But the flip side of your
if you just work hard enough, you can
make it. Is if you didn't make it, it's
because you didn't work hard enough and
it's your fault. And I would like you to
sit and think very hard before you send
that message to young men and young
women in our society. The thing that I
found so engaging and so fascinating
about this clip is they are both right.
I think that Gary has really captured
the emotional
desperation, frustration that people are
going through. Now remember, he's
talking about the UK, a country that is
farther along on the socialism spectrum
than we are. They have put way more
time, energy, and money into the social
safety net. So the question I hope
people are asking and this is the side
that Daniel represents is it's still not
working. So to me the magical question
is and now what? And now what? If you're
in a situation where you've got people
that cannot make ends meet saying my
friends can't feed their kids. Uh you
can't tell somebody who can't even
afford to turn the heat on that they
just need to be more entrepreneurial.
My question to Gary is why is it that
even in a country where they have such
an aggressive social safety net more so
than we have in the US, why are they
still in that situation? And my thing
with Gary is if I'm if I'm the
Democratic party, I'm like, watch this
guy mimic everything from his body
language to the way that he um he comes
across exasperated like this is so
self-evident and how can people continue
to ignore this? um
to be very empathetic to people that are
in that situation
and make them feel seen and make them
feel heard. That will get you
reelected. The problem is he's not
offering any
solutions. And so when you ask and now
what I want to know like what's his real
answer? Because the reason that people
cannot afford to turn their gas on in
the UK, it's for a whole host of
reasons, but not the least of which is
that you have um energy uncertainty
because certainly as a small island
nation, you're going to have to lean on
places like Russia to get your oil and
natural gas, but you don't want to do
that because of the war that's going on.
Mhm. Uh England is the most recent
failed empire. So they've inflated the
value of their um sterling to basically
nothing. I mean it's lost over the last
h 100red years, it's lost like 99.9% of
its value. And so when you're living in
a world where people cannot save their
way to um making ends meet, like I I'm
not saying that everyone's going to be
able to save their way to wealth, but
when you can't even save your way to
making ends meet, that's when you find
yourself in the kind of situation that
we're in. And the thing that I really
want to hear Gary articulate is why
exactly are we in this position? Not
just that we are in this position, why
are we in this position? And then what
do we have to do at the architecture of
society in order to get out of this
situation? And if his punchline is tax
the rich, if you're still just inflating
the money supply at infin item, you're
never going to get to the point where
someone can save their way to success.
Okay, I hear that. I feel like we've
been I'm ask questions because I'm just
want to confirm. We've been doing
inflation since what, Britain Woods?
Like we've been doing inflation last 80
years, last 100 years. really when the
US started when they broke the peg to
gold. They were doing it before that and
it was they finally had to break it
because they were they'd inflated it so
much you couldn't turn your gold in um
because people understood what was going
on behind the scenes. But yeah, call it
from 1971 is when it really just became
completely unhinged. Copy. So from 1971
to 2025, we've been doing inflation the
entire time. Yes. And if you look since
COVID, it it's something like 80% of
all, this isn't the literal number. You
should look it up uh while we're going
here. But since in the last 5 years,
we've printed something
like 60 to 80% of all the money that's
ever existed. The reason I'm I'm taking
it that approach is because I feel like
inflation is a problem that we've had
since the 1970s. Yes. Longer than that,
but Yes. Yes. But there is something
about the current cost of living that is
fundamentally different where there was
a time whether it was the 2000s, whether
it was the 90s, whether it was the 80s,
whether it was the 70s, you could go to
a you could work at a Starbucks and your
wife could be a teacher and you can
afford a
home. Okay? So maybe when you get a
little bit older, you can afford a
smaller home. But now we're getting to a
point where like I work at a Starbucks
and I have a nineto-ive. I work at I
work my 9 to5. I work at Starbucks on
the nights and weekends. I have a wife.
She's working and we still can't afford
a home. What I hear when I hear that is
uh shock over the fact that you had a
child that was born in 1971 and you're
shocked that it's now taller when it's
18 years old. It's like that's what
happens when you start printing money
and the rate at which you print money
escalates and escalates and escalates
and escalates. The problem is going to
get worse and worse and worse and worse
and worse. Now, we are oversimplifying
the problem. I want to be very clear.
You and I have talked many many times
about there are problems in housing as
well, but all of it stems back to when
you start inflating the money supply,
you create a relationship between money
and assets that is so dysfunctional that
people end up in this horrific
situation. So, let me walk you through
what has happened. just looking at
housing prices, energy becomes a whole
another thing which is tied to the green
revolution and things that we've been
doing that are making energy prices even
worse. So, it's like all of these things
designed to help people end up having
these second and third order
consequences that people just are not
paying attention to. But all of these
things are identifiable. You can point
at them. They become a very entangled
nest. And I'm happy to go literally one
by one if you want, but I'm going to
give you a simple story that people can
hold on to so they understand at least
the essence of the problem even if they
don't have all the specifics. So Gary is
right. People are stuck. They cannot
save their way to success. A person
who's working two jobs is still
struggling to make ends meet. The reason
that they're struggling to make ends
meet is because when you inflate the
money supply, the cost of everything
goes up. And the reason the cost of
everything goes up is because the value
of your pound in his case or the dollar
in our case is going down. The only way
to combat that is to what they call a
flight to safety. So you leave cash and
you go into an instrument like a house
that's going to keep pace with
inflation. So it isn't that the house is
actually becoming more valuable. There
are complexities because if you
artificially limit supply or you let
like you talk a lot about with Black
Rockck, you let them snatch up all the
family homes, that's going to exacerbate
an already big
problem. But the house isn't actually
becoming more valuable. What's happening
is the dollars becoming less valuable.
So it takes more dollars to buy the same
thing. Because people do not understand
that there is a 0.9 correlation between
printing of money and the rise of
prices. They get very confused as to
what's happening. What is happening?
This is an oversimplification but not by
a lot. What is happening is money is
being printed. That robs purchasing
power from everybody. And then the way
that they get that money back into the
system is by buying assets. So the
central bank buys literal uh debt
instruments which is an asset and so
they will buy that. So now given that at
least in the US 50% of people in the US
do not own assets which means that 50%
as you inflate money they only lose. The
50% that have assets, they lose because
they also had their money inflated, but
they then win in roughly the same amount
because they're holding the assets that
go up in value
illusurally to keep pace with inflation.
So at least by being in assets, if
they're careful, they're going to be
able to mash inflation. So Gary's
looking at the world and he's saying,
"Hold on a second." Like, why are these
guys all getting screwed? And the reason
is the people that he is fighting most
for are the people who don't own assets.
So they don't have a thing that keeps up
with inflation. So as the house becomes
more valuable and now speaking in the
US, you have the government going the
American dream is to own a home. Why did
they say that? Because homes are the
only asset that the average person just
gets. Intuitively, intellectually, they
understand it. I can live inside of it.
I can't live inside of uh a Treasury
bond. Um, I can raise my kids in it. I
can decorate it. I fall in love with it.
It I love everything about the way that
it feels. It keeps me warm. It keeps me
safe. And so the government wisely was
like, "Okay, cool. Let's just get
everybody to focus on just own a home."
Now, if they weren't inflating your
money, you wouldn't have to do that
because you could save your money and
your money would retain its value. But
when money is going down and 2% is what
they aim at. But if you look at true
inflation, it says over the last five
years, we've inflated the money supply.
So inflation has gone up by 25. It's
actually more than that. It's like
26.2%. But we'll just say north of 25%.
So not two, 25% in the last five years.
So if you had $100, you now have the
buying power of 75. And so whether
people understand it or not, what it
triggers is I need to spend my money
because it's going to be worth less. So
you derange debt and all that, I'm not
going to get into those complexities
right now. I just want people to hold on
to that idea. So Gary is right and I he
needs to keep banging this drum. But
what I really want Gary to start talking
about is to take his magical ability to
articulate the emotion of this and say,
"And now do this." But the only thing I
have heard him talk about is taxing the
wealthy. And here's the
thing, you can intake more money by
taxing people. So it's not like
unhinged. It's not deranged, but you end
up having second and third order
consequences when all you're trying to
do is confiscate more money, confiscate
more money. The government is not good
at allocating resources. They will
overspend. And to meet the because you
always have to balance a budget. When
people say we have deficit spending,
that's not the right way to think about
it. You're just going to inflate the
money supply to cover your bases. I'm
I'm going to jump in though because
historically we have played with the tax
rate to meet certain needs. If we were
to enter into World War I, we need need
to go against Europe. We at least get to
three first. It's already happening,
right? So yikes. We we would then say,
okay, just like we did previously, the
tax rate, the tax rate on the highest
1%, 2%, whatever that threshold is, it
goes from 50% to 70% for this certain
amount of time. we get these resources,
we get out of this tough
situated, but it's it's okay. But the
government is a faceless gray blob that
the person who works in the two jobs,
who can't buy a house, can't yell at,
can't he can't get to the Fed to tell
them to stop printing the money. But
what can happen is maybe there could be
programs that can help them. There
should be something that helps them who
didn't have it. Cuz if what you're
saying is it's the government's fault,
it is inflation and that's the bottom
line, then at that point it's a luck
thing. We're just not lucky enough to be
born 40 years before inflation got bad.
Let me talk to you about a period of
time where I had a skin rash. This is a
real story. Okay? I wake up one day and
I'm like, "Huh, my chest itches. I have
no idea why." And it keeps getting
worse. Now, I eat a super clean diet, so
I'm like, "This is weird. Something's
going on." And everyone's like, "Oh,
maybe the housekeeper like introduced a
new soap or something." So, we're asking
housekeeper, "Did you do anything
different?" "No, no, no. It's all the
same. It's all the same." So, I start
buying all these soaps that are like
they don't have deodorant in them and
all that stuff. Just really like trying
to purify. I'm like, "It's clearly
something I'm putting on my skin." And
it just keeps getting worse. And one
night I wake up in the middle of the
night and I want to cry. I itch so badly
that it it's waking me up. It's starting
to appear on my face. I'm scratching
like uncontrollably where it's starting
to bleed and I don't know what else to
do other than sit on the edge of the bed
at two in the morning and I'm like I
wish I were a crier because I I just
need to release this frustration. It it
everything about this is terrible. And I
said, "Okay, you've been to the skin
doctor. They've given me a cream now.
So, I'm applying the cream. The cream is
helping, but it says like you can only
use this for so long." And I'm like,
what would I say to somebody if they
came to me and said, 'Hey, Tom, um, I've
had this skin outbreak. What could it
be? I'd be like, oh, it's something
you're eating. I'm like, I don't even
need to know what you're eating. I just
know it's some your skin is an organ
that responds to that. So, I was like,
okay, take your own advice. I'm like, I
don't know what it is that I'm eating,
but I'm going to stop eating it. And so,
I simplify my life. If you boil things
down to just go eat a ruminant animal,
so beef as a simple way, uh, elimination
diet, I do it. Boom. 72 hours later, the
skin condition starts to recede. Taxing
the rich is the cream. It will help. It
will reduce the inflammation. It will
stop the like insane itching like I'm
out of control. But if you keep doing
it, you damage the economy. And so what
will end up happening, and we see this
in wars, you tax the life out of
everybody, and if you don't stop doing
it, you go into recession. Uh we were
talking about this in our last episode.
I don't have the notes right in front of
me, but it was like in the late 40s. Uh,
sorry, no, it was during the Great
Depression. They extended the Great
Depression because they just kept uh the
tax rates so insanely high. And so they
realized, okay, whoops, we probably now
just extended this. We need to back off.
So, it's one of those things that
will give you short-term relief, but
it's not addressing the actual problem
that's making this be an issue. It is a
topical solution. You have to stop
printing money. You have to stop
printing money. This is the derangement
and if people don't address it at that
level, all you do is kick the can down
the road. There is already a reason that
Europe is so far behind the US in terms
of the ability to innovate in terms of
the ability to big build big companies.
And if people have a a negative sense of
big companies, remember that's the whole
game. You don't have money to
redistribute if you don't have these
companies that are very successful. We
can get into also the products are the
thing that makes our lives better. So to
say a phrase that I hope becomes very
repeated by our community, the miracle
is not redistribution. The miracle is
production. The miracle is making
something that you can sell for more
than it cost you to make. Because what
that says is I want that thing from you.
It's so valuable to me that I would
rather give you this money. this money
seems um worth less than the thing that
you're going to give me. And that that
is the human experience. That that's the
whole game is that we have made a better
and better future. We've pulled how many
billions of people out of poverty. We've
ended uh death by microbes and all these
things through innovation that all come
because people have the financial
incentive to pursue it. So, if we were
in a war and they were like, "Hey, we
got a tax higher to um get us through
this," I'd be like, "Yes, you do. Very
much so. Let's go." Um, but they're
looking at this as if the cream on the
rash is the solution and that there will
be no long-term consequences to using
that cream, and there will. We'll get
back to the show in a moment, but first,
let's talk about the one opponent you
should never face alone, the IRS. The
IRS isn't just any adversary. It's a $13
billion machine designed specifically to
extract money from you. Now, if this
sounds familiar, I want you to know you
don't have to face it alone. Instead,
get Tax Network USA in your corner
immediately. Whether you owe 10,000 or
10 million, they have strategies
engineered to get you the best possible
outcome. And don't worry, the
consultation is completely free. Stop
looking over your shoulder right now and
put your IRS troubles behind you. Call
1800-9581000 or visit
TNUSA.com/impact. Again, that's 1
8009581000 or head to
tnusa.com/impact. This is a paid
advertisement. And now back to the show.
If I had a magical golden switch, I
could flip inflation off. Do you think
that that flip will then make income
inequality reverse? It will stop the
problem from exacerbating. Then you're
going to have to start addressing things
like, okay,
uh the reason that people are saying,
hey, maybe the Trump tariff hoke pokey,
that's like really battering the stock
market, maybe that's not so bad because
it's making assets more accessible to
people. you have to deflate the bubble
somehow because you've made all of these
things so expensive because you've got
all these dollars fighting for those
same things. At some point, the
government has to stop printing money to
go in and rescue banks or uh to save an
industry that's struggling or in
trouble. You have to let those things
die. And if the wealthy get hurt in
that, it is what it is, man. You've got
to let that creative destruction happen.
And I'm saying that as somebody who owns
assets. And if I own an asset that gets
in trouble, you got to let it go, man.
And so I I am perfectly willing to
suffer the slings and arrows of a policy
that is going to be better for the
average American. To me, that is the
only play. It is the only way forward.
This stuff is so knowable and partly
because it is complex. People don't look
at it. They know it's not a message that
they can explain to people. What they
can explain to you is own a house and
we're going to make that price go up.
Because I don't want a fractal. I'm not
going to explain how making homes became
so making homes the American dream
became problematic because now instead
of getting people to invest in something
like the stock market, which is actually
better for the country than a bunch of
people um owning individual homes, uh
they wanted to make sure you got a
return on it. Anyway, uh so there are
reasons why even things like that can
derange, but it's it's the government
stepping in and saying from the top
down, we're going to deal with this.
We're going to put the ointment on the
rash rather than saying, "What are we
eating that's causing the rash?" I want
to now take Daniel's side.
So, here here is what worries me.
Daniel's right about people um I'm
almost certain that data is out there
and backs up the following claim. Uh I
can't point you to the study right now,
but I'm very very convinced that this is
real. that learned helplessness is the
thing that spirals people out of
control. That's when people slide into
despair. There is a reason that lateral
eye movement is how you can pull people
out of anxiety and stress and depression
because it is what your eyes do when you
move forward. Now, why would evolution
reward you by getting you to move
forward? Because the way to solve your
problem is to attack your problem. And
so when you move towards something and
your eyes scan side to side so that you
can navigate the landscape, your nervous
system begins to calm down. And uh I've
been saying for years and years and
years trying to teach people mindset
action cures all. Now I couldn't have
explained it the way that Huberman can
explain like the eye movement and how
deeply it's embedded in the nervous
system. But I just knew every time I'm
feeling stressed, every time that I'm
tempted to feel overwhelmed, if I just
go, okay, what is the problem? How do I
attack it? Nobody's coming to save me. I
can get myself out of that stress. I can
get myself out of the anxiety. I move
myself into solutionoriented mode. And
so Daniel is right, but that's so at
odds with the emotion that people feel.
And that's why Gary is I just got the
chills. Gary is really capturing this
moment.
This though is where things get
dangerous. When people let their
resentment cloud their judgment in terms
of what is actually going to work and if
long-term your goal is I want to make
sure that I'm making progress in my own
life but that my kids and I mean
financially that my kids are going to do
better than I'm going to do. That won't
happen by the government doing handouts.
Everyone that can hear my voice right
now knows my take on look at mouse
China, look at Stalin's Russia. The only
way to go further down that path
requires tyranny, force, death,
destruction, forces you to make people
lie. And when they start lying, people
start dying. I It's literally a whole
mess. And I worry about moments like
this because I look at Gary and I'm
like, yeah, if I'm advising the
Democrats, I'm like, learn from
everything he's doing and saying, this
is exactly why Bernie was so popular.
And the problem is it won't work. If it
would work, then England would be closer
to success than we are, and they're not.
Uh, if it would work,
then Xihinping wouldn't have had to use
capitalism to pull his country out of
poverty. He would have used more
communism, but he didn't. He went the
exact opposite direction. It just is the
physics of the human experience.
I got nothing on that. But the the
problem is and the funny thing is I want
to keep attacking myself because I want
people to understand like um there is a
way to solve
this but it's hard to explain. It's
because the goalpost moved and it sucks
that the goalpost moved but it already
moved. So we can define the goalpost.
What is the goal post? The level of
output you needed to accomplish to get
you meet your basic necessities. Yes.
And now if everybody could go that's
because of money printing, we win.
But okay, that's because of money
printing. Bad government. Don't ever
money print again. Okay, my bad guys. I
won't ever money print again. That
doesn't move the goalpost back forward.
So, you know what I mean? C out to like
this is the I'm no longer adding to the
problem. So, step one of getting out
getting yourself out of the hole that
you dug is to stop digging. So, that
you're at least now we've stopped
digging. Okay, cool. Now we can start to
build the ladders out. Now we can use
light touch regulation. Let's just take
housing. You could use light touch
regulation to say something like Black
Rockck uh and any other company, you
cannot own more than three private
homes, whatever. Um that you start
lessening some of the zoning
restrictions so that people when they go
to buy a house, they have the option, I
can build a house, I can buy a house. So
now when people choose to build a house
instead of buy a house, that's another
house that's on the market. So um the
that neighborhood the values of the
houses all go down a little bit because
instead of being think of Manhattan
right the only way to go is up and given
that you can only go up the prices stay
really premium. This is why when people
use examples they're like buy Manhattan
real estate buy coastal real estate
because um the the coastline isn't going
to magically get bigger. The coastline
may in fact get smaller as global
warming. Uh,
so when you find something that is
inherently
scarce, now you've got a a shot of that
price going up. But when it's something
that's I mean, look, houses are not easy
to replicate, but they are far easier to
make more of than they seem to be
currently because of the restrictions.
So just like they socialize the losses,
we should also then in essence socialize
the correction as well. Well, I hate the
use of the word socialize. What you want
to do is address the foundations of how
the economy works. Modern monetary
theory is a joke. People need to stop
embracing it immediately. It is the
thing that is der. No, but I don't want
to f I'm going specifically to the point
that when you inflate the money,
everybody who owns a dollar now has 95
cents. Hypothetically speaking, of
buying power. Yeah. Of buying power.
Now, when we flip it on the other side
to your point of okay, now we increase
the housing supply. We allow build we
ease uh building regulations. the people
who there was 100 houses now there's 150
houses you've inflated the housing
supply the housing perfectly said Jesus
okay is brilliant and so in that way we
are social that's what I mean by that
like I hate the use of that word so I
would just use a different word inflate
inflate inflate housing supply now
houses cost less 100%
yay so in fact that's a great way to
thought experiment to is what I'm saying
actually true because once you realize
that yep if you inflate the housing
supply. Houses become worth less dollars
and now more people have access to them
and they still supply all of the things
that they did before terms of comfort, a
place to raise your kids, safety,
security, etc. Copy. But it becomes a
worse asset to hold
but that's a to me that is a wonderful
trade-off. Yeah, that's that's a good
problem to have. I have too much money
and I need to invest it somewhere else.
Cool. Go and build a local community
center. Go do something else. Go now
look Thomas Soul is right. There are no
solutions. are only trade-offs. Because
the next thing people should say is,
"Oh, I want the cost of eggs to go
down." In fact, why did the cost of eggs
go up? Because it killed a whole bunch
of chickens. They deflated the chicken
supply, which deflated the egg supply,
which made eggs more expensive. If you
want eggs to drop in price, you need
more eggs on the market. So, you need
more chickens laying more eggs. Uh, man,
that's maybe easier to explain than uh
people think it is. Create more of
something, it becomes worth less. Create
less of something, it becomes worth
more. But there's something weird
because you have the same number of
dollars in your bank account, but it
buys less. That's where people break.
Supply and demand curve. Supply and
demand curve. Moving on. Uh Bernie
Sanders and AOC where I don't want to
call it campaigning because I don't want
to talk about elections because we just
had one. Um but they are campaigning
wisely. So they got to build back, man.
Democrats have been alltime low
popularity. So Bernie tweeted about his
rally last night. Insane 15,000 in 10p
last night. Trump visited the same space
12 days before the 2024 election. He
couldn't fill it. AOC and II had
overflow crowds. America will not accept
oligarchy and authoritarianism. On to
Gley, uh, Colorado now. Denver tonight.
Huge crowds expected. Okay, he's
trolling with the huge, too.
Huge. It's big. No one's ever seen
anything like it. Uh, here is what I
love about this. When you are the um the
outsider, you get to be the rebel. You
get that cool energy. Uh you get to
paint a picture and nobody can say
whether uh it's going to work or not.
When you're the ones in power, all of a
sudden it's very easy to point at and
say, "Well, the things you're doing are
not helping." Uh it's very easy to point
at Trump, be like, "You're causing
chaos." So, this is their opportunity to
really push forward. And I think that
they're doing a good job of getting out
there, uh, getting people hyped up,
giving them a message that they can
believe in. Now, I have a feeling it's
all going to be a motive, which
admittedly is what I would advise them
to do, but isn't ultimately going to be
the thing that's good for the country.
But what I hate about this is, first of
all, oligarchy just means rule by the
few. Read James Burnham. There's no way
to not be ruled by the few. Bernie's
Bernie and AOC are the few that were
running the country when the Democrats
were in power.
So that's nonsensical. Um the
authoritarian part both sides right now
Trump obviously displays authoritarian
tendencies. Uh but so does anybody who's
like tax tax take their money. That is
also authoritarian because you are
saying I'm going to take your money. I
don't care whether you earned it or not
and I'm going to do with it what I want.
And the only way that you can do that is
with what? Guns. And if there was no
threat of we will put you in prison. we
will come and take your stuff. People
wouldn't pay. So, let's not pretend like
what they're saying doesn't come at the
end of a gun barrel. It very much does.
So, uh both sides have a tendency
towards
authoritarianism. The last uh real
check-in that we had with a group of
people that were absolutely terrified of
that were the founders of the country.
And so thankfully they put in uh checks
and balances, which is the thing that
everybody I think should be rightly
worried about with Trump because Homeboy
makes way too many um authoritarian
noises with whether it's teasing, I wish
he were teasing, he's not at all about
running for a third term, uh whether
it's ignoring judges, uh it's
just it's nerve-wracking like th those
are things moving in in the wrong
direction. Um, but yeah, the this is
calling the kettle black for me. The pot
calling the kettle black. I'm It's
interesting kind of seeing the the
pingpong of political office and when
one team is in power, everything you're
doing is terrible. When the other team
is in power, everything they're doing is
terrible. So, I'm curious to how they
sustain momentum over the next four
years. Cuz as much as the Democrats are
unpopular right now, there's a lot of
anti-Trump rhetoric. So, they have a
whole recruitment base. They have a
whole bunch of people that want to vote
for the other side. So, I think they do
have momentum coming into this next
election. It's just going to be
interesting how they execute on that.
Trump has a little less than two years
or he will lose the house. It it is so
cut and dry, man. And if he cannot pull
off getting
um getting on the other side of what
will almost certainly be for sure uh
you're going to have a rocky stock
market because you're already seeing
that. You could go all the way to a
recession. If you go all the way to a
recession and he doesn't start onshoring
more jobs, um making prices go down, if
he doesn't do that, then he loses a
house, lame duck for the last two years,
uh Republicans lose power, Democrats are
back in office, and the seesaw
continues. When you look at the last 50
years, and I wouldn't be surprised if
this carried out to 250 years. But if
you look at the last 50 years, it's
almost exactly even. uh 25 years there's
been a Democratic president and 25 years
there's been a Republican. If you split
the last 25 years, 12 have been
Democrat, 12 have been 13 have been
Republican. So, and or the other way, I
don't remember. But, um we just go back
and forth, back and forth, back and
forth because it's so easy to paint a
picture that we're the right guys when
we're not in office and then once we get
in office, you realize we're not solving
the problem. The one thing I will give
Trump, he he is really trying to
renegotiate everything in the
government. He is trying to redo so many
things. Now, it may just be a suicide
run, but you can't say that he's not
trying something novel. So, we'll see if
he's able to pull it off. I don't know.
You said they went back and forth how
many years going back. So, of the last
50, it's split almost evenly. 25. It's
not It's not perfectly even, but it's
very, very close. Last 25 years is one
had 12 and one had 13. I just don't
remember which had 12 and which had 13.
So, it's like almost no matter what
timeline you look at it on, it's just
this back and forth, back and forth. You
know who was around 50 years ago? Say
more. Joe Biden. Let's go. He said, "I'm
not going I'm not going out." Indeed.
Nice transition. That was too good not
to say something. He said, "I'm coming
back." Joe Biden is reportedly is
reportedly urging Joe Biden to make a
bid for the 2028 Democrat nomination.
Believing he can mount a Trump style
comeback. Biden, give it up, bro. You've
been you've been there since 1970s. You
you had a good run. You had a couple
houses. You got got a good A track card.
Go retire, man. It's okay to be an old
person. You could just go be an old
person. Write a book, something. But no,
please. No. He has
dementia. Cognitive decline. Whatever
word you want to put to it. That That
would be a level of crazy that I It's
never going to happen. There's no way
that this is going to pass. No one's
going to be talking about this in a
month. It is just not possible. Like
when you look at first of all Bernie be
a way better choice. People are talking
about Hillary Clinton running again.
Please Dems for the love of God. Give me
somebody that I can vote for. That would
be amazing.
Um moving towards the middle. I think
everybody knows my take. I want to see
somebody that is way more centrist.
Somebody that can articulate the
underlying cause and effect of all of
this. I really don't want to be in this
seessaw whiplash back and forth world.
And the only way to really avoid that is
to have both sides way closer together.
There's 350 million people in this
country. I don't know why Democrats keep
scrolling the last seven. Like we have
there's so many so many other choices.
Please. Well, people think that AOC is
going to run 2028. I think she'll I
don't know how old she is, but she'll
for sure be over 35. I have to imagine
in 2028, uh if she's not already, but
yeah, there's no way. It's not going to
be by No way. I'll plant that flag right
now. Yeah. Yeah. I I don't buy that
either. Um, I wanted to revisit this
Howard Lucknik all-in interview from our
Friday episode. Um, because one thing we
didn't get to was a sovereign wealth
fund and really kind of the actual
strategy and idea of it. So to your
point of Trump is trying to add novel
pro like novel novel strategies to the
government. This is something we haven't
thought about but on paper it does sound
interesting.
We can enjoin together in this concept.
crypto, obviously Bitcoin, you guys
announced the strategic Bitcoin reserve,
but broadly speaking, you also announced
sort of this idea of the sovereign
wealth fund. Can we talk about that sort
of what is the what is the vision behind
that? How do you want that to be
executed? How do you think it should be
run? What assets are on the table? What
assets and strategies may should never
be on the table? How are you thinking
about it?
The greatest customer in the world, the
United States government, the most
powerful, the greatest customer, buys
stuff. We walk in, we're going to buy,
this is the example I like to use, we're
going to buy two billion COVID vaccines.
Mhm. When we buy it, FISA and Madna
stocks are going to triple. They're
going to triple. So then we say
everyone's got to have this
vaccine. If I were After Jared Kushner
negotiated the best deal he could, if
Howard Lutnik walked in the room, Howard
Letic would say, "What do you think? 20%
warrants. 20% warrants." Right. Right.
What? So, we'd make $50 billion off of
who? Nobody. We didn't take from
anybody. We didn't do Okay. The
shareholders of Fizer who we've just
tripled them with our order. Right now,
how many of my customers in my life have
required that from me? All of them. all
of them. Like this, this isn't like, oh,
Howard, this is the greatest new idea
ever. This is just business proper. So,
I don't
view risk of the sovereign wealth fund.
I view the first couple of years of the
sovereign wealth fund or Scott Besson
and I making money Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday say,
"Well, but you can't invest and lose.
Don't you lose money?" No. Why? Well, if
I have big daddy of the United States of
America behind me, right? And I'll give
you I'll give you an example. We buy
missiles
episodically. Launch a missile, buy a
missile, launch a missile, buy some
missiles, right? The people who sell us
missiles have bad quarterly earnings or
good quarterly earnings, but they're
episodic. Yeah. Here we go. I will sign
a contract with
you, 10-year contract, cancel it at the
end of five years to buy X amount of
missiles and I'll pay you
quarterly. Then they can take that
contract, they can go finance it. Their
financing costs go, their earnings are
steady, and their multiple improves and
their stock doubles. The thing that I
love about the Trump administration is
that he has some of the best minds in
all the different areas. You've got the
greatest capital allocator of all time
going into the government saying where
we're spending money well and where
we're not. Um the commerce secretary is
one of the most successful um
financial managers. I don't know what
the right word to put on it is ever. I'm
literally when 911 wiped out basically
his entire staff. He just rebuilt the
company again. Like this is a guy that
understands money. And you have Scott
Bessant, the same thing. I've never
heard of him. I had no idea who he was.
And when I hear him talk, I'm like, "Oh
my god, like this guy really understands
finance." And so you have these guys
that understand finance
that I know cynical people think that
they're doing it to enrich themselves.
when you look at what they're doing, it
will be if it works, if it works, it
will be good for the average American.
And
so I am only just beginning to really
think about a sovereign wealth fund and
how that will play out well. So I
certainly reserve the right over time. I
may realize that there are some
downstream consequences that I'm not um
anticipating. But when I look at other
countries and the way that they've done
this and how they've been able to lower
the taxes of their people, so you look
at Saudi Arabia, Um, Saudi Arabia, no
tax. I don't think Dubai has taxes
either because they have oil money. And
so, um, I mean, the bad news is partly
to keep their uh, population quiet. They
give them money and have royal families.
Obviously, I would not want to see that
happen in America. But giving people
money such that you can reduce their
taxes, that is amazing. And there's
obviously a playbook for it. We're
seeing it with people that have been
able to monetize their national
resources as well as they have have been
able to um reduce the tax burden in some
cases entirely.
So it is entirely possible that we have
financial
guys involved in helping the government
structure
deals, leverage our own natural
resources to the point where something
like what he's talked about being the
goal of um this administration to make
it so that people making $150,000 or
less don't have to pay tax. Do that
would be amazing. That is how Trump
stays in office. If they're actually
able to show that they're moving towards
that um by the midterms, oo buddy,
people are going to be here for that. If
you start seeing manufacturing jobs
return, if you start seeing the tax
burden going down, uh if you see prices
on essential things coming
down, that will be excruciatingly
popular. But it's a race. Yeah. So, we
have on one hand the DoD reductions,
Doge happening, getting the cost of
government down. On the other hand, we
have the sovereign wealth front that
hypothetically can bring the revenues of
the government up. So that is kind of a
race to just that balance. When can we
get to a he talked about that in the
full interview which I highly encourage
people to watch. Again, I'm perfectly
fine if people watch it and they hate
it. They understand it and say this is
garbage. Cool. Great. That that's a
democracy. I want to hear what people
think. Um, but he lays out the strategy
of if Elon Musk and Doge can go in and
find a trillion dollars in waste, fraud,
and abuse and cut that. Uh, and then he
can make a trillion dollars in new
revenue, um, through things like better
deal structure, through the Trump gold
card, um, through a return on a
sovereign wealth fund that better
monetizes the assets that we have as a
nation on our balance sheet, like um,
natural gas, things like that.
uh then suddenly that becomes a real
thing and this is why I think people you
can be disingenuous on both sides and we
covered this in our Friday episode. Um
but there's two ways to be disingenuous
about that. Uh way number one would be
to make out like we never had uh income
tax and oh it's this brand new thing in
1913 and we only did it because of the
war. It's not quite true. Uh it's a nice
simple story. It's not quite accurate.
The other way to be disingenuous is to
make out like taxes are like people will
always say there's only two things that
are certain in life, death and taxes.
But reality that's not true. Um I think
we've had taxes for less than half of
our lifespan as a country. If it's if
it's more than half, it's not by a lot.
So there's a huge swath of time that we
had a country where we weren't doing
income tax, I should be very clear,
where income taxes uh are not a
necessary fact of life. And so I don't
want to see either side be disingenuous
about that. There are ways that we could
do this where you could uh certainly
dramatically reduce the tax burden. And
this is why I think that some of this is
just emotional. Some of this is just I
hate the rich and I want to take their
money. And so the thought experiment I
would have people run is ask yourself um
if you dislike the external revenue
service, why? And would you not be happy
if it didn't uh break our allies, but it
did make it so that we didn't have to
charge our own people um income tax?
Wouldn't you be excited about that? If
people are like, "No, I would hate
that." That that's emotional. That's an
I hate the rich thing.
Yeah. And it's interesting, too, because
we're also seeing the blowback that Doge
is getting. And I have a clip up here
queued up from 2017 where Mark Cuban
calling himself a libertarian pretty
much identified the one of the goals of
Doge. As as a libertarian, I think we
can reduce employment in government by
at least a third. Reduce the overhead
and administration by as that much or
more so that we can offer more to
services for for for our citizens. And
so if if when it comes down to it where
I tend to disagree with everybody and if
this is the libertarian in me, I I'm
happy to push down the size of
government and I'm happy to make work on
making government more efficient because
then more money can pass through and
help the people who need it and that's
what needs to change. Man, I really want
to be inside of Mark Cuban's mind. um
towards the end of the Trump race, he
really started to sound like a
propagandist for the Democratic party.
Now, if you're going to have a
propagandist, Mark is the guy to have.
And I was really watching what he was
saying because he's so good at
articulating a stance. Uh he is an
exceedingly bright business guy,
understands finance, all of that. But I
have to say, and I know what his take is
on why to him this is completely
congruent with where he is now, but it's
funny to me that Obama sounded like he
would support Doge when you play stuff
that he was saying when he was
president. Uh that he put Biden in
charge of what was effectively his
version of Doge. Uh you had um Clinton
and Gore both doing their version of
Doge. like you've got all these Cuban,
you've got all of these Democrats that
are very clear that they like the ideas
behind Doge, but they don't like Doge
itself. Now, to me, and I'll get to what
um Cuban's explanation is in a second,
but to me that they're just playing team
ball, plain and simple, they want their
team to win, and they're now going to
make it sound like this thing is a
terrible idea. um instead of saying,
"Hey, this is a phenomenal idea. We
absolutely have to do this. Here's the
way that we need to do it." Now, this is
where Cuban comes in and says, "Hey, I
still think this is a good idea. I think
that you do want to reduce um the size
of the government. you do want to um get
rid of wasteful spending, but the way
that Trump and Elon are doing it is so
fast it can't be metabolized by the
people, by the government, that you're
going to inevitably make a mess, cause
chaos. And so I want to reduce the level
of chaos. But the counterargument to
that and this I I believe in this far
more than I believe in Mark's um
reasoning is that the way that a
bureaucracy works they are going to slow
you down so fast that you have to move
very very quickly. This is momentum and
just like you can take um like a skim
board and you can go out and surf on the
water but as soon as you lose momentum
you sink. That's what I think this
moment is. Trump is betting that if he
can keep enough momentum going, he can
actually make the changes. But given
that he already tried to come in and
make a bunch of changes in his first
term, he saw, wow, you get bogged down
very, very fast in the quote unquote
swamp. And I think that's true. And I
think that I know Mark Cuban understands
business so well. He knows how hard it
can be to turn a large company, and the
government is like the ultimate large
company. Uh, so it feels like team ball
to me. like there's some amount of you
just have to do this hard and fast. All
right, let's uh hear it from his mouth.
I am all for cutting government costs
then and now. I'm even more for
efficiency. I would have a plan. Ready,
fire, aim is not a plan. Cutting
programs without knowing if they would
have saved taxpayers more than they cost
or save lives is a mistake. Terrorists
cutting programs, agencies, and
employment all at once without doing any
analysis of the impact on city, towns,
and states they impact is going to
backfire big time. Some cities have 9%
of more of their employment as federal
workers. Colleges losing millions in
funding. Government contractors and
grant recipients having to close their
businesses and lay off everyone repeated
in the city after city, town after town.
What do you think the economic impact on
their tax bases? What do you think
happens to home values? What services
will they have to end? What about the
local businesses? How many people lose
their jobs and homes because this was
all done all at once? Cut federal
government bloat in an organized fashion
and it's great. ready, fire, aim, and
the uncertainty it creates is a huge
mistake. Okay, we've had decades and
decades and decades to do it the right
way. Uh you had in fact the person who
did it the right way was Clinton and
Gore. They managed to get a surplus and
then we instantly turned that back into
a deficit and that was all precoid. Now
it's like the money supply has been
inflated so far
that the time to do this in an orderly
fashion has passed. We're we're way too
partisan. We are pulled way too far
apart from each other. I don't see how
this gets done now in like a slow and
methodical fashion. You would need
bipartisan support and you're just not
going to get that because people are
playing team ball. Um I agree with him
conceptually. I would love to go back to
a Clinton type moment in the country
where we could still come together, we
could get things done, we could reduce
costs, we could get a surplus
going. You're just not going to see
that. The the characters are too
divisive. Trump is too divisive for
sure. Biden was too divisive. So, yeah,
the Do I think Trump introduces too much
chaos? Yes. So, does it swing too far?
Yes.
Do I have a high level of confidence
that this is going to play out the way
that Trump wants it to? No. Do I think
that doing something radical at this
point is going to be the only way that
you break both paralysis by analysis,
which is part of what he's calling out.
Look at the Department of uh education.
All the increased spending in the world
did not solve the problem because you
have a foundational issue. Whatever
ideas are guiding them just are broken.
the ideas that have been guiding the
government around printing money and
that budgets don't matter and blah blah
blah that I mean we talked about it with
the Gary economics thing you are not
addressing the foundational problem this
is the first administration I see
attempting to address the foundational
problem so we'll see and I mean on that
if I were going to debate myself I would
say um I would come at me from the angle
of well all these tariffs are going to
raise prices I don't know that that's
actually true it's going to raise prices
on certain items that there's no
correlate here in America but at least
East you now it's a consumption tax if
they lower taxes obviously by putting
the tariffs they have to lower the taxes
if they make things more expensive and
don't lower taxes it's just a loss uh
and they will suffer at the polls as
they must but I think that there's at
least a shot when you hear Besson talk
when you hear Lutnik talk you can see
the pieces they're trying to put
together when you hear Trump talk it
just sounds like chaos uh but when you
hear his cabinet talk I'm like okay this
might actually work we'll see again um
this stuff is hard And the economy is
complex, so there are no guarantees
here, but at least they're trying. We'll
get right back to the show in a moment,
but first, let's talk about where your
money goes. Most people work hard,
deposit their paychecks, and somehow end
up wondering why there's nothing left at
the end of the month. Those random
Amazon purchases, food delivery habits,
and unused subscriptions are invisible
money leaks sabotaging your future.
That's where Monarch Money comes in.
It's not just another budgeting app.
It's a complete financial command center
that gives you total visibility across
all your accounts, investments, and
goals in one place. Over 1 million
households have already made the switch,
and the Wall Street Journal just named
it the best budgeting app of
2025. You can even share access with
your partner or financial advisor at no
extra cost. Take control of your
finances today. Use code theory at
monarchmoney.com to get 50% off your
first year. That's half off at
monarchmoney.com and use code theory.
And now let's get back to the show. In
AI news, Kyu Lee had an interesting take
about the He's been on the show by the
way. Yeah. About the AI race in both US
and China. the pre-training of a giant
model has consolidated and is
consolidating and it's become clear that
open source will be the winner. Um
there's still many that will not concede
right open AI anthropic who build their
businesses believing they can build a
better closed model than everyone else.
I think they got shocked when they saw a
model as good. If you think about
OpenAI's cost of $7 billion of operating
cost in 2024, Deepseek probably operated
with 2% the operating expense. So the
issue really isn't whose model is 1%
better. I think they're all very good.
But the issue is is OpenAI's model even
sustainable, right? I mean, you're
spending eight7 billion dollars a year
making a massive loss. And here you have
a competitor coming in with an
open-source model that's for free. And
that company also is infinitely us
infinitely uh lasting because this
founder has enough money to fund it at
the current level and has reduced the
cost of computing by a factor of 5 to
10. So with that kind of formidable
competitor, I think uh Sam Alman is
probably not sleeping well. I think he's
definitely right about that. So about
Sam Alman not sleeping well. Okay, let's
break the problem down into its
constituent parts. Here's the thing that
people have to understand about AI,
you've got training and you've got
inference. So training is I'm studying
for the test. Inference is I'm now
taking the test and how well do I score?
How well am I able to pull the
information out? Um inference is totally
meaningless if you don't have the
underlying models. And so we needed that
model phase to happen. And so whether
Sam Alman goes out of business or not,
we all benefit from the fact that uh
those what are called weights that those
weights now exist. But the reality is
that AI is not at all where it needs to
be for the kind of future that I want to
exist in. This post capitalist idea all
of that is only going to happen if the
models begin to understand physics. If
the models can't understand physics and
I know that intelligence has some upper
bound and they're just butdding up
against it. And so training is going to
remain like a big thing. the models are
like anybody that's interfaced with AI,
you'd be like, "Oh, if you're really
using it, you're gonna be like, "Oh my
god, this is amazing. This really
propelled me forward." But it propelled
me forward in the way that the internet
just made information so much more
accessible and certainly there will be
many many businesses that spin out um
using AI and it's it would even if the
progress stopped today, it would already
be transformational. But it's not going
to be like what people think of when
they think of AI in a future where uh we
have literal super intelligence. um
unless we can keep on with the training
model because the training again is
understanding the world and the models I
don't think understand the world well
enough for you to put an inference layer
on top of it and suddenly have the kinds
of breakthroughs into physics and things
like that but Kyu Lee has his finger on
a question which is do you get an like
can you train the model on harder and
harder things like that um in a
financially responsible way where you
have a self-sustaining economic engine
and that I don't know because as the
inference that's how you and I interact
with AI we just care about the inference
and so at that level if it's so good
that it blunts everybody's desire to
pour capital into more training models
then you may just stall out because you
can't make the economics make sense now
if that ends up happening then you would
need like a government space program or
an AI Manhattan program where the
government is footing the bill to say
Okay, look, we've got to train these
models better because we've hit some
sort of ceiling. So, that future feels
very uncertain to me. I don't know
what's going to happen, but I certainly
don't want for the future where the
inference models become good enough that
they gut the financial viability of
training the models because I think we
still have a long way to go with
training. This reminds me kind of the
cell phone race, the internet browser
race where the thing that first hit the
market was good for a little bit, then
something else overtook its spot. So, as
much as I love Anthropic, as much as I
know you love chat GPT, it's kind of
giving me Nokia vibes, Nokia Motorola
vibes, and then Apple. Yeah. Blackberry
is another. So, there there is going to
be this second wave of AI technologies
that I think is going to eat this first
wave. But I'm curious which companies
develop Moes and are able to sustain the
different waves that will eventually
come and which companies are like,
"Yeah, I mean, open source, I'm only
using this to make grocery list and do
my budget. I don't need a$8 billion a
year model. I'm good with the $500,000
model and you know we kind of get to
that point. So the great news is that
the Biden administration which was
trying to use a strangle hold technique
regulatory capture on AI uh is no longer
in power. And from a technology
innovation standpoint that is a very
very good thing and so now at least
we're going to find out will because his
initial pitch was the open source is
going to be way better than the closed
models. I don't think you can make a
universal statement like that. Just like
Apple exists in a world where PCs exist,
Apple exists in a world where Androids
exist. Uh there's always going to be
people that can do things in a closed
model way that other people are going to
look at and say, "Yo, that's way better,
way cooler. They're able to aggregate
capital, make this really cool thing,
and I want that really cool thing." But
thankfully for all of us that open
source exists so that you'll get just a
plethora of all these other small ideas.
Every little thing is going to come into
existence. So in aggregate, the little
things are probably always going to
trounce the closed models, but the
closed models, at least historically,
have been able to build just
unbelievable stuff because they are able
to create like their own ecosystem.
They're able to guarantee standards,
things like that that when you're doing
everything open source, you can't do.
But as somebody who's interfacing uh
with the toy that we're trying to build
that syncs up with the in-game
character, I need open source on that. I
need llama or something like that. So,
um I'm certainly glad as a builder that
open source exists, but it's not going
to be an either or. It's going to be a
both. The only thing that that battle
could really come down to is what we
were talking about earlier, which is the
inference may just rob the financial
viability from the training models. We
shall see. We shall see. In robotics
news, uh Tesla had their shareholder
meeting yesterday. I think this was
shareholders, was it? This was him
talking to his actual employees. The the
only company with all the ingredients
for making intelligent humanoid robots
at scale is
Tesla. This is a super big deal. Like my
my prediction is that on this front is
that Optimus will be the biggest product
of all time by far. Nothing will even be
close. It'll be I think it'll be 10
times bigger than the next biggest
product ever made. I don't think that
people really understand just how big
robotics and AI are going to be. The
fact that he is making the claim that
this is going to be the biggest product
ever. Not the biggest product at Tesla,
not the biggest product he's ever made,
the biggest product of all time. Uh he's
said in previous talks that he thinks
they'll be able to make a billion robots
a year. I don't know that he was saying
just Tesla, but that robots in general
will be made um at that kind of rate.
And at that rate, it doesn't take long
for there to be more robots in the world
than there are humans by a lot. And if
that ends up being true, and I don't see
why it wouldn't if you can get the cost
cheap
enough. Uh it is going to be a future
that is very different than the present.
I feel like it's only a matter of time
at this point because between this robot
releasing, we have a the Nvidia Disney
robot that they just kind of teased out
as well. It is for sure only a matter of
time. You got to pull that thing up.
That thing is absolutely incredible. Um,
I want one of these immediately. I
thought this was CGI. That looks fake.
This is a collaboration with Deep
Google's Deep Mind, Disney Research Lab,
and Nvidia. Man, this is definitely
going to be walking around like
Disneyland, Disney World. Like I
completely see that they're going to
have Star Wars optimized versions.
There's no way they don't sell these at
some point. Yeah.
And I want one immediately when this
thing um jumps up on stage with Jensen
Hang from Nvidia. Oh my god. Because I
honestly thought the first time I was
seeing that that it was CG uh until it
popped up on stage and started walking
around talking to him. Not talking, but
uh doing R2-D2 sounds. Are you ready?
Let's finish it up. We have another
announcement to You're good. You're
good. Just stand right here. Stand right
here. Stand right here. Now, I don't
know if that's being controlled off
camera by someone, which is entirely
possible, but if it's not and that's
just voice um compliant, that's crazy.
Yeah, this stuff I find incredibly
exciting. Okay, you ready to put on your
conspiracy theory yet? Let's do it. Put
it on. Oh, I know where we're headed
now. The conspiracy theorists were
right. The pyramids is not what they
that what they say they were. There was
uh Okay, I don't even know where to
start on this one. So, there was a scan
that did like almost like a sonar scan.
They did a thermal mapping of the
pyramids, ground penetrating scans.
Yeah. And they found an entire structure
underneath the pyramids. So much so that
it was spiral-shaped cylindrical
structures stretching over 600 m. That's
2,000 ft straight down beneath the Great
Pyramid. Jesus. On top of that, 2,000
feet. 2,000 feet. On top of that,
there's like five buildings on top of
it. Like there's something here. Yo, uh
I don't know if you heard about the
Awanaki tribe. That was another one.
This one, somebody claimed that this was
kind of like almost like earthquake uh
like pillars like so this is back it
like they told us. Wait, wait. I Are you
sure about the 2,000 ft thing? 2,000 ft
about stretching over 600 meters. About
2,000 ft. Whoa. 1.2 Two miles below the
pyramid's base. What on earth? An
enormous hidden construction deep
underground. It's so funny. I saw this
at the headline level. I did not dive
in. This is even crazier than I thought.
I cannot believe how big that is. So,
there's some people that think that the
aliens came down, taught the people how
to use the pyramids, and then they
disappeared, flew away, got killed,
died, whatever happened. There are some
people that think that we are the dumb
generation and that our ancestors were
way smarter than us. No, you'd see you'd
see way more advanced technology. Uh but
this is from just an ability to excavate
and drill down. That seems impossible. I
just asked chat GPT what do the haters
of this discovery say? And it says
recent claims of surface regarding the
discovery of extensive underground
structures beneath the pyramid of Giza
uh purportedly extending over 2,000 ft
below the surface. These assertions are
primarily based on a study by
researchers name. Uh you they utilize
synthetic aperture radar S tomography to
identify features such as multi-level
structures and vertical cylindrical
walls beneath the caffer pyramid.
However, these claims have been met with
skepticism from the scientific
community. Critics argue that the SR
techn S technology is not capable of
penetrating to the depths claimed as it
typically reaches only a few meters
below the surface. Additionally,
previous comprehensive studies employing
advanced techniques like muon tomography
and infrared scanning have not detected
any significant underground complexes
beneath the Giza pyramids. Furthermore,
Egypt's Ministry of Tourism and
Antiquities has emphasized that the
existence of void spaces within the
pyramids is not a new revelation and
that such features have been known to
Egyptologists for years. They caution
against premature conclusions without
thorough research. That I want this to
be true because if they have built
2,000 feet deep structures beneath the
pyramid, however many thousands of years
ago, that would be cool beyond belief.
But boy oh boy, it is hard to believe.
Chat is part of the conspiracy theory. I
thought chat would be on our side. See
AI turned on in full. No, they got to
AI. They got the AI. I I should read
foil community. We still we still out
here. All right. It's the aliens. Let me
read the prompt so that at least we have
full disclosure so you can do with this
what you will. My exact prompt was there
was a recent discovery beneath the
pyramid of Giza that supposedly goes
down 2,000 uh feet. That supposedly goes
down 2,000 feet. What do people who
don't believe it say? So I specifically
sought out disisconfirming evidence. So
if we had done a different search that
was like, you know, people that buy it,
what do they say? It' be very different.
But uh I mean, here it is. You guys look
on the screen. You can see for yourself.
They're showing all the drawings and
everything that uh they have
extrapolated from their uh S scans. So
do with that what you will. I am very
eager to see what comes of this. if it
just hits a kill switch where enough
people that know this stuff are like,
"Bro, come on." Like, "This is
ridiculous." Or if it just starts
gaining steam. But I mean, I hope other
people are thinking the same thing I'm
thinking. Drill. [ __ ] drill. Just go
in there. Just go find it. Yeah. Like,
pick a pick a spot big enough for a
camera and just You know how we all
raided Area 51. It's time to go raid the
pyramids. Bring a shovel. I think you
might need something a little more than
a shovel. But I, man, I really want to
know. I hope that they do like a nice
thin camera down there. Non-destructive,
but I very much want to see what's down
there. That's fascinating, man. That was
a very enjoyable conspiracy corner. All
right, everybody. There it is. Enjoy. If
you haven't already, be sure to
subscribe. And until next time, my
friends, be legendary. If you like this
conversation, check out this episode to
learn more. Trump dismantles the
Department of Education. Lutnik gives a
mostly true history of tariffs and
income tax that we're going to be
fact-checking. The world gets introduced
to mortgagebacked burritos. Village Road
Show files for bankruptcy as Legacy
Hollywood continues its death rows.
Pokemon.