Kind: captions
Language: en
We just had a socialist elected to the
be may mayor of the biggest financial
city in the world. Um what do you take
away from that? Do you think that that's
going to make New York City better? Is
this a good direction for um the
Democrat party or else? I feel like
everybody's overindexing on this
election a lot based on what they want
to see. The far-left people online are
saying that this is the proof of concept
that the whole Democratic party is going
to go to the socialist direction. I
think conservatives are saying this is
evidence of uh Islamic jihadists winning
elections or see that's the really
ridiculous other people saying like oh
the whole Democratic party is becoming
socialist but I mean it's New York City
it's a very blue place. Um he won his
primary when the primary was won
basically going to win. Um Cuomo
probably not the best person to try to
run against him for that. It's not his
time anymore. Um I think Montani ran a
good campaign and stuff is funny. If you
watch the videos, I almost feel like I'm
watching cutouts from like the Daily
Show from like the 2000s. He's a funny
dude. He's good on camera, which is one
of the most important things,
unfortunately, in today's media
environment. So, yeah, I think it'll
probably more or less be business as
usual in in New York City, for better or
for worse.
>> Do you think it'll be business as usual
because he'll be stymied and he won't be
able to get the policies through? Do you
think it'll be business as usual because
he calms down some of the more what I
would call socialist, like just
blatantly socialist rhetoric? What's
going to make it be business as usual?
>> Generally, the left doesn't overstep
their legal authority like I would say
MAGA or the right does. So, I think that
for a lot of stuff, it's just not going
to be possible. He's either not going to
have the funding or the legal authority
for it. Um, and then for other stuff, I
mean, I don't know, I welcome it. Um,
he's significantly to the left of me on
a lot of economic policy. So, if he
tries stuff and it fails, then I can
just point to that and go, look, like
these are bad ideas. We shouldn't do
them anymore. Uh, if he tries it and it
works, then I, you know, maybe I
reconsider. like, "Oh, maybe somehow
there's some kind of external force that
makes it so the city backing grocery
stores or the city um you know,
investing more in like rent control
property is actually a good thing." And
then I would change my views on it. So,
and
>> how are you approaching the issue? So,
um are you looking at this going, "Okay,
well, the economy is obviously broken.
We obviously need to do something
different. I have a rough idea of what
we should do, but hey, if he's got
ideas, let him go at it." or um are you
approaching this from a
building the economy sort of brick by
brick these things adhered to a set of
rules and I think that the way he's
positioning this it's more in line with
the way that economies work
>> I don't know if we've talked about this
personally or on camera before but have
we ever talked about the concept of like
red teaming
>> yes I don't know that we've talked about
it I'm intimately familiar
>> yeah I don't know if like real stuff can
happen without red teaming and I kind of
view politics uh very similarly
left
on their own.
And I would obviously say that the right
has completely abandoned all forms of
policy conversation for the past year.
So I don't think we're even remotely
able to approach solving any of the
economic issues that we have right now
in this country because there's no
serious way to have a conversation about
it. I don't consider like super big
price control policy to be a serious way
of dealing with stuff like housing or
cost of living, but there's like no
counterpart to that right now. So, yeah.
>> What do you mean there's no counterpart
to it?
>> As in I don't know what the there's not
a serious policy discussion about what
do we do about housing in the United
States. Nobody is we're not capable of
having that conversation right now
because it's a very difficult
conversation to have that's going to
require some pain in different areas
that people aren't willing to give on. I
guess
>> like for instance like when it comes to
housing people
the the thing that you keep hearing over
and over again is that housing is
unaffordable rents are too high. You you
hear that that's like the popular
talking point. The reality point is that
it's like 70% of Americans live in an
owned home.
>> So and these are your strongest voters
cuz people that have houses are probably
older. They're more committed to an
area. They're more likely to go out and
vote. If you want to bring down rents or
if you want to bring down the cost of
housing you are necessarily hurting the
people that already have homes. And
there I've never heard a single
politician confront that reality. So
there there's a delusional fantasy where
people pretend that they can protect
homeowners which are some of the most
like loyal like voting based people. But
you can also bring down rents and the
price and cost of housing for everybody
else which is not possible. And also
these the people that get hurt the most
by high cost of housing are people who
aren't even capable of voting because
technically the people that are hurt the
most are people who aren't even able to
move to an area because the cost of
housing is prohibitively high. So, it's
a really weird housing is a weird issue
that's hard to solve in a democratic
manner.
>> If I'm tracking what you're saying, the
reason that it's hard to solve in a
democratic manner is because the very
people that want the policies to be
strict, the nimism, not in my backyard,
those people are always going to try to
vote it down. They have the most
political power, they're older, they're
more entrenched, more connected, all of
that. They've got more money to back
elections. So all of that momentum
pushes them in the direction of not only
voting against reform policies, but they
have the power to like see it all the
way through the system.
>> Yeah. And it's in their interest to do
so. They should be voting that way.
Technically, they would you'd be making
a sacrifice to vote otherwise. Imagine
you buy a home and then the next week
they talk about building massive
highrises, you know, in your area. Well,
that's going to bring the cost of your
house down or it's not going to go up as
quickly. You don't want that. Like now
that you have a home, like you want to,
you know, how many people say the house
is the most important investment or the
largest investment of any American.
Well, I don't want you to build a whole
bunch of new properties that are going
to drive down rents and ultimately the
cost of real estate. So, you become
incentivized to vote against the greater
interest of the economy of the city or
whatever in favor of protecting your own
narrower interest of your particular
housing price.
>> It's interesting. You're very right
about that. And I think one of the
reasons that the capitalist system works
is is because we're saying humans are
selfish creatures. If you create a
structure in which they can just go be
selfish and we get to take advantage of
the outcomes of all that selfish
behavior. Look at Elon Musk, right?
Doing all this incredible stuff that's
moving us forward from a technological
standpoint. Um, also making him
fantastically wealthy, putting him in a
position where he can control like just
these armies of people building all this
incredible stuff. He can get his agenda
done. He can influence politics, all of
it. Okay, so cool. There's obviously
many people that are going to argue
about his level of influence and all
that, but the system allowed for
somebody like that to pursue their
selfish interests and it kicks off all
this technology along the way. The catch
becomes from where I'm sitting is that
when I look at the nimiism, there is a
point at which so many things have come
together where everybody is pushing for
only their sole interest that we begin
to bake into the structure of the
economic system itself, all these
deranging elements. And then it's like,
yeah, you can point at housing and you
can say, hey, well, it's really in your
best interest to do this. But once
everybody is acting like that at every
level and everybody is solidifying power
and voting for things that are good for
only them and then they don't realize
they're disenfranchising the young and
that there's a historical pattern that
says you do not want to disenfranchise
the young is they will completely flip
the tables over and they will come for
your head. Um that's where this starts
to get problematic. And so getting
people to understand that the economy is
broken in exactly uh the way that
someone like M Donnie is pointing out.
He's right like he's got his finger on
the right problem, but his solutions are
disastrous. And this is one where um
we'll differ in that you're very
sanguin. you see maybe a positive thing
coming out of this and I just look at
history and I'm like this loop has
played out so many times and it becomes
way dangerous long before anybody learns
their lesson because they're not looking
they don't have a metric that they could
say oh I'm just going to watch this
metric I'm going to try the policy I'm
going to watch this metric and we can
all agree that's a great metric right
yay and then when that metric doesn't go
up they just end up blaming something
else they don't go yeah okay this policy
really just doesn't work uh which is a
fascinating part of Um, I've heard you
lament recently about some of the, you
didn't say emotional difficulties. I'm
putting that phrase in your mouth, but
the emotional difficulties of being a
political streamer. I'm running into
those same things. Um, so for me, I'm
butdding up against something there
where I look at this, it feels very
dark. It feels very dangerous. It feels
like there's this thing happening, a
slide to the far left, that sets off all
these alarm bells in my head, and I
cannot figure out how to get people to
build a vision of the economy from the
standpoint of cause and effect. Uh, so
it's interesting to map out the way that
you're looking at it. This is a red team
moment. We need somebody to run the
experiment. Nobody's having serious
policy conversations. We're in gridlock.
People are sort of doing what they're
supposed to be doing, voting for their
own interests. And so now this is sort
of a natural beat in all of this where
somebody comes in to try a new policy
that hopefully will break up the um
distortions that have worked their way
into the system.
>> Sure. To be clear, I don't think this is
a red team moment. The thing the red
team I was hoping for was supposed to be
the Conservative party or at least more
conservative people and I feel like
they've completely abandoned the policy
discussion. So,
>> and they would red team socialism. What
would they red team? um or I wouldn't
say socialism but just more um
I guess like further left economic idea
stuff
>> you want them to cuz
>> like on a very broad on a very basic
broad sense the um the further left you
go the more price controlly people get
meaning setting artificial caps on
things like saying insulin shouldn't
cost this much it should be set at this
price or they'll set price um they'll
bring up a price floor like the minimum
wage should be this high and the further
away your price controls get from market
equilibrium, the further your market is
distorted and then other things start to
happen to compensate. So for instance,
if you bring down the price of insulin
too much, maybe companies don't produce
it anymore because it's no longer
financially worthwhile. Or if you bring
up the cost of minimum wage too much,
maybe companies start paying more and
more uh employees under the table
because it's no longer worth it to
employ them or they just shut down. And
then on the flip side, you have
generally this was this was the general
case, but again, this has not really
been the conservative party for the past
5 or 10 years, is usually they fight for
more like free market stuff. So they'll
say things like, well, the minimum wage
should be lower. Um, or you know, the
company should be able to act in in
whatever way they want. And obviously in
some ways that's not good. We have rare
diseases in the United States, so
there's not very much money that you are
incentivized to to to cure because why
would you? But when the government
offers incentives with the there's a
name for like this rare drug disease
program, but um that the government kind
of offers bounties for curing certain
diseases even though the financial
incentive wouldn't be there otherwise.
Like well that's a good thing and
conservatives would never push for stuff
like that. So yeah, you you have to have
like I think these two forces pushing
and pulling on each other and then it it
just forces you to be a little bit more
honest about what your particular
policies can do and then you settle
somewhere um not necessarily in the
middle but even if you settle more to
one side at least it's kept more honest
by your opposition.
>> You had to distill down what are the two
opposing forces? Are they politically
opposing forces or something else
>> between like the right and the left
today?
>> I Yeah, I can't tell if in that example
you're saying you need the right and the
left to be pushing on different parts of
how we, you know, move the levers of the
economy and they disagree and so they're
each pulling on different levers and
that just sort of on balance creates
something good. If that's what you're
saying or if that's what I'm saying.
Okay. So, uh, the way that I approach
this, I think the fundamental way that
people are looking at this stuff is so
broken and nobody in politics
understands, uh, the economy. Scott
Besson does for sure. That guy really
understands. Uh, but the vast majority
of people, the people he needs to
convince to be appointed, um, they don't
understand the economy. So you run into
a position where the if a politician's
job is to get elected and get reelected,
then they have no incentive to actually
learn how the economy works, they have
an incentive to learn how to make the
populace feel about something that
they're saying. This is why mom Donnie
is so impressive in that he really
understands the pain that people are
going through. He can put his finger
right on it and he can say a solution
that sounds awesome. But when you were
exp- it sounds awesome from an emotional
standpoint. It will make people feel
what they want to feel. Hope things are
going to get better, change, all that.
Even though it is uh literally he's
approaching people that are dying of
thirst and offering them salt water and
so it's just going to it's probably
worse than that. It's somebody lost in a
desert and he's offering them a chance
to lick the sun.
>> What are the worst so bad?
>> What are the huge like horrible worries
I guess you have economically for things
that he would present? It depends on if
you're talking about is he going to get
checked like when he tries to do these?
Probably. A lot of these things won't go
into fruition and so it'll be sort of
this long slow thing. But let's just
take the housing uh putting rent
freezes.
>> The reason that I'm so worried and find
myself wanting to push this into like
absolute hyperbole is because when you
play those out down the road, um what
ends up happening goes like this. the
first person gets in office and they
promise things that make people feel
emotionally good and you go in, you do
those things, you freeze rents,
whatever. And then because we've already
run this experiment in New York, uh we
know what's going to happen and that's
going to be if you tell somebody who
makes a product which is product or
service which is running that building,
uh you can only charge this amount of
rent. The problem is they have taxes,
they have upkeep, they have employees,
they have to pay all of that and it can
and will get to the point where for the
amount that you can you tell them they
can charge, they're not able to pay for
the building.
>> Yeah. So, just as a quick thing, like I
don't disagree with any of this. I think
rent control is a bad policy. Um, forget
New York. It's been analyzed basically
all over the world and it doesn't really
work. But we also do it everywhere.
>> So, I don't consider that like a massive
departure from what's going on. like
California, San Francisco, um I think
parts of LA, um have like a lot of rent
control and Canada has it like the whole
world, everybody does rent control. So
if he does more, I don't think it's
good, but I don't see that as being like
a catastrophic like a step in the
darkest direction in the same way that
all of Trump's
>> Let me make my best case. There are
three books that I highly encourage
people to read to understand just how
bad that can go. Um, I would give
different books if I were trying to get
people to be afraid of Trump and
authoritarianism because that also goes
completely pathological. You're it's
it's pathology on both sides. But, uh,
here's what I see with this and how
wrong it can go. read Gulog Archipelago,
Mao, the Unknown Story, and uh Red
Famine, and you very quickly realize
that there is a a thing uh a property of
the human experience that will trigger
every time you try to do this, which is
you're going to put these policies in
place, they are not going to work. And
because they don't work, people will
resist. And when people start resisting,
you have to say, "What am I going to do
when that person resists?" In a
democratic situation, you go and that
that you have to convince those people
whether you agree with them or not, they
can vote you out of office and
everything is fine. Um, but if enough
people vote for socialism and they want
socialism, then you start marching down
the path certainly of where Europe is
going, which we can talk about some of
the problems that are being born of
that. But right now, you will end up in
a situation where you either abandon
these as we did in New York. And then
cuz in New York in the 70s and 80s in
the Bronx, I think it was 20% of all
buildings that burned were arson. So
people could collect the insurance
payment because it was cheaper to just
burn the building and collect the
insurance than to try to get around all
the regulations. Okay. So we end up
backing out of that by reinstituting
capitalism, by reducing the regulatory
burden, letting the free market go back
and do its thing. But now here we are
looping around again. Now maybe America
has protections and we'll just always
loop. We're always going to be banded.
But the thing that worries me is that we
really will swing to the socialist side
and we will come to the point where we
realize
people are going to disagree and the
only way to get them to stop disagreeing
is to silence them through jail or
violence. Uh which obviously has played
out over and over and over around the
world. Even the UK right now is com just
become completely unhinged with locking
people up politically. So
>> how do you rate this as an issue? So,
like there's a world where I'm I can
hear what you're saying,
>> but I feel like we've already swung so
far on the right side with Trump who
controls a much more important office
and it is ubiquitously echoed and
resonant throughout the entire
right-wing federal party like through
the House, through Congress, everything
else and then our whole executive branch
that when I look at like a mayor in New
York City, I'm like this doesn't even
register basically.
>> So, you and I have a very different
frame of reference. So, my frame of
reference goes like this. The
Republicans are unhinged lunatics when
it comes to spending. Uh the second they
pass the big beautiful bill, I knew I
cannot trust them. They are not going to
do the right things to overcome the um
wealth inequality that will lead this
country into open revolution where
people are getting killed. Uh so, okay,
well, they're not my ally. Uh so then I
say, well, is there anybody better? And
the only people worse than the
Republicans are the Democrats. So that's
terrifying. So I have these people who
are bad and then these people who are
worse. And I mean we can go through the
mechanisms. I'm not sure if we need to,
but if we do, I sort of
>> I guess like the confusing is I hear
this a lot, but then I look at like so I
was promised communism or socialism
after 8 years of Obama and I never got
it. And then I was promised communism or
socialism after four years of Biden and
then I never got it. And then on the
other side, people warned of a whole
bunch of horrible stuff that Trump would
do and a lot of it or or more happened
in the first term and then come to the
second term, it is continuing to happen.
So I just don't understand the fear of
like rolling. So I think I think we
talked about this on maybe the first
episode we did like everything that
Trump has done is like very predictable.
Like I think that from the first term it
was obvious that he wanted he he's a
crazy spender. He spent a ton when he
came into office after Obama. He doesn't
care about balancing the budget. He did
his huge tax cuts in his first term.
he's permanent made them permanent in a
second term. Um he's not capable of
leading the there's a whole bunch of
reasons to expect what's happening now
because of what happened in the first
term. And then meanwhile on the other
side again I keep hearing like socialism
and communism are going to happen under
the Democrats. It's like 98% of all jobs
made in the past like 50 years have come
under Democrats. The last balanced
budget we had was under a Democrat.
Every time a Democrat comes into office,
it's on the back of like a Republican le
disaster. And it's like I don't
understand how we're voting in
Republicans to give them another chance
when and then they destroy everything
again like they've already done because
we're too afraid of electing Democrats
because we're worried about them doing a
thing that they haven't done and don't
really show any inclination of doing.
It's really hard for me to understand.
>> We might have uh different things that
we worry about. So I don't need them to
usher in socialism in name. uh what I
need them to do for them to be a not
only moral hazard but a literal physical
hazard for the United States is to
deficit spend. So I just rank order the
parties by how much they're going to
deficit spend.
>> In that case the the Democrats still
easily win.
>> The Republicans like No, no, no, no.
That the Republicans add more to the big
beautiful bill. If they were saying
government is shut down until we balance
the budget, I'd be on team Democrat. But
they're not. They're saying just add
these things back into the bill. That is
again, this is not a I'm going to bat
for Republicans. This is like the what
the Republicans are doing is completely
unacceptable and will drive us off a
cliff. And then the Democrats are like,
"But wait, let's go faster." That's the
part where I'm like,
>> "No, it was because the Republicans did
a whole bunch of like tax cuts, increase
for funding for ICE, and a whole bunch
of other stuff like this." And they cut
the B the way they balanced it was by
cutting.
>> They haven't balanced it
>> food. Well, the way that they make this
kind of work in the way that they didn't
um it really and it doesn't work, right?
>> Yeah. I was going to say we see this
very different. But the way that they've
balanced anything, when I say balanced,
the way that they brought back a little
bit of the budget is by cutting things
like SNAP and Medicaid.
>> Yeah. But I couldn't care about
bringing it back a little. Like this is
it's deeply problematic. The what the
Republicans are putting forward is
within 10 years you go off a cliff.
>> Sure.
>> So now I'm just saying you've got the
Democrats going, "No, no, no. We can do
it in eight." And so
>> but all the the big beautiful bill is a
Republican bill.
>> Yeah. What the So I think you
think I am either identifying as a
Republican or I'm going to back
>> No, I'm not thinking that. just you're
saying that the Democrats are worse
because they want to reinstate SNAP and
Medicaid for for to bring back the old
requirements, but it's like those were
things that Americans already had
expected and then the Republicans are
cutting them to give dumb tax cuts and
other like bad spending measures, but
you're saying since the Democrats want
to add these things back, they're worse.
But the Democrats would have never
passed a thing that looked like the big
beautiful bill. The bill that the
Democrats would have passed would have
been fiscally better than the big
beautiful bill. If if I'm hearing what
you're saying, uh, which is I think
>> if we had just elected the Democrats and
not the Republicans, then we would be in
a better fiscal place. We would be
closer to a balanced budget. Okay? Given
their movements now, I have no reason to
believe that that's true.
>> The easiest reason why I'm 100% correct
is because they wouldn't have solidified
the Trump tax cuts, which have been one
of the biggest things that have pushed
us more into debt is having these huge
tax cuts, reducing your income without
decreasing your spending.
>> Okay. My takeaway on that is when I look
at mom Donnie, that feels to me like
that's where the energy is in the party,
which is way farther left. It's way more
give thanks for free. It's way more tax
tax.
>> Wait, but why? He's just one mayor.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But if you think about So my
base assumption is that he's
representative of where the party is
going to go. If you believe he's just a
random guy,
>> but he's literally just the mayor of New
York City.
>> But look at how much energy he gets, how
many people in the party are talking
about him. Look at the coverage. the
coverage is big and there's people
online talking about it, but most he's
not that the reason why so people are
really critical of Hakeem Jeff and Chuck
Schumer for not endorsing him. The
reason why is because he's not actually
that popular at large with the
Democratic party. So,
>> listen, it's entirely possible that uh
the rumors aren't true and that part of
why Chuck Schumer is holding this up is
he's worried about getting primar.
>> Probably holding it up because he wants
snapping Medicaid back for Americans and
not just more deficit spending at
Republicans that refuse to do anything.
Well, the deficit spending, that's where
your argument weakens because they're
willing to increase the deficit. They
are saying, "I care more that people get
these things than I care about the
deficit." That one thing is where my
brain switches on either party. The
second a party says, "I'm willing to
deficit spend," what they're actually
saying is, "I'm willing to increase the
wealth inequality. I'm willing to make
the rich richer and the poor poor."
Deficit spending is that that is it
mechanistically.
>> Okay. Let let me try this. I'm curious
how you feel about this. Okay. You and I
are in LA. Yep.
>> Okay. And we have $1,000 and we want to
take a road trip to Vegas. Okay. And on
the road trip to Vegas, I want to be
able to buy my 12-pack of Red Bull.
Okay. This is my Red Bull. We're
guaranteed this. Let's say that at some
point you bring two more friends. Okay.
So, we're have $1,000 budget. We're
going to Vegas. I want my Red Bull. And
let's say that you're like, "Actually, I
want to take a road trip to Portland."
I'm like, "Port? That's going to cost
like $3,000." And you're like, "Yeah,
we're going to do the Portland thing."
And also you don't get any Red Bull. And
eventually I'm like, "Okay, hold on. You
got all your friends running against me.
All right, we can go to Portland if you
want, but I'm keeping my Red Bull."
Yeah.
>> In that situation where you've increased
the cost of trip from $1,000 to $3,000
and then you've cut my $20 Red Bull. For
me to say, "Well, I at least want my Red
Bull." For you to go, "Oh, so you want
to spend $3,000? $20. You're even
worse." Well, that's not true because I
wanted to go to Vegas the whole time. Y
>> for the Democrats would have never
solidified those tax cuts and which is
the big which even under Biden it was
the interest and the additional well the
lack of revenue collected that was even
pushing a lot of deficit spending under
Biden and and now to have those
solidified they would have never been
solidified under the Democrats the the
budget would have been closer to
balanced it was coming closer to being
balanced under Obama and Biden than it
was under Trump who was massively
deficit spending more than Biden or I'm
sorry more than Obama at the end of his
term even though Trump came in under a
good economy. I just don't understand
how we ever look at them and go they're
worse because they want to fight for
SNAP and Medicaid when it's the
Republican budget that was so much more
dumbly done. That's just crazy to me.
>> Okay, fair. But I I will fair in that
you're a smart person. You're looking at
it. You have a frame of reference. You
sound like you're missing a key point
from where I'm sitting.
>> Okay.
>> And that key point is I don't have to
look at hypotheticals. I I just need to
ask we're in the situation that we're in
and how are they behaving? So, your
example is great in terms of I totally
get the emotion of like, hold on a
second now. The one thing I said I
wanted, I'm not even going to get and
we're driving somewhere else. What what
is happening? And so, I am still going
to get my thing and I don't care if it
costs more money. And so what I'm saying
is even if I can't get you to agree that
I think that that analogy is kind to the
point of being nonsensical, but even if
I can't get you to agree to that, that's
the surface. What I'm what I am
literally kept awake by is the fact that
the entire nation is arguing up here
what my wife and I call never talk about
the tea. So the biggest argument I've
ever been in with my wife was over a cup
of tea. And after two hours of screaming
at each other, almost ruining an entire
vacation, I was like, there's no way I'm
this mad about a cup of tea. So, what am
I actually mad about? Then I got into
the like building blocks of what was
actually going on. We started talking
about that, which had everything to do
with insecurities, and all of a sudden,
we were able to resolve the issue. What
I'm saying is all the stuff that
manifests up here at like we've got to
give this to that person, and I want my
Red Bull is everybody needs to get on
board with. It is a um the government
has a moral obligation to balance the
budget. So I have all of these
base assumptions in my brain that run
that paint my worldview. One of them is
when you look back in history every time
minus Japan every time a country has
spent more than 18 months at over 130%
debt to GDP they've gone into open
violence. So, revolution, civil war, or
just default, which leaves people
starving in the streets. So, it's
happened every time except once. Again,
Japan being the only exception.
>> And we're at 122%. And growing rapidly.
We add a trillion dollars to the budget.
So, you can look at a spreadsheet and it
really is it's it's somewhere between 7
and 10 years from now, barring some
miracle, we cross that 130% mark. And
given that we are already at each
other's throats, like this all breaks.
So I'm just like any step in that
direction and I'm just like this is
crazy.
>> Sure, I can kind of understand what
you're saying. So in my analogy, right?
Well, it's $3,000 is a lot for that
trip, but like $20, that's even more
money.
>> By the way, I'm screaming at why the
what are we how are we already
doing a $3,000 trip?
>> Sure. I understand. I guess my question
then is do you acknowledge or would you
say then that had Kla been elected if
there was a Democrat Congress we would
have been closer to a balanced budget
than we got under the one big beautiful
bill.
>> It is uh a hypothetical rerun that I
have a natural inclination to say no
history disagrees all the history points
walk you through the beats because dude
honestly I'll I'll give a 30-se
secondond pitch about why I don't care
Republican or Democrat.
>> Okay. Uh
I really believe this country is going
to default on its debt and that will end
America for a 100red years in terms of
anything that people think of as America
being important on the world stage,
having a stable economy, being a place
where people are safe, that goes away
for a hundred years. It's just the
normal cycle of this stuff. Even China
had their hundred years of humiliation.
Look at what happened to Argentina. Same
thing. It took a hundred years. They're
still not back yet. Maybe they'll make
it, maybe they won't. But it's like when
when a country defaults, it is so
catastrophic. It doesn't sound scary,
but it's like terrifying because you
become uninvestable. And so now the part
of debt that's useful goes away and you
can't raise it. And so your country just
gets stuck and it that is a nightmare
scenario the likes of which I really
don't want to live through. Uh and then
if it's some lesser version of that,
there's still going to be some untold
number of people that get murdered in
the streets. It just plays out over and
over and over.
>> I I don't disagree with a single thing
you've said so far.
>> Perfect. So now it's like, okay, when I
look at if if everything driving my
thinking is economic, I'm going to look
at the candidate that seems to have a
better grasp of economics. Okay?
>> And I don't expect you and I to agree on
this, but Kla Harris completely ruled
herself out when she started saying
words like what M Donnie is saying. He's
more crystallized. he's farther down the
road, but she was talking about the same
thing, price controls and things like
that. And for me, when somebody says
that, it's just a disqualifying
statement. Now,
>> what do you think? Cuz Trump has said so
many more things and more.
>> We're never going to agree on that.
>> Well, no, but there are some things that
you would just be objectively, factually
incorrect on. So, for instance, if
you're worried about socialism, how do
you feel about the fact that Trump now
the United States is getting shares, the
United States government is getting
shares in like Intel or US Steon Steel?
Like that's like a social that's like an
AOC Bernie Sanders wet dream. Oh, the
government has like shares, voting
shares or whatever.
>> Capital letters moronic.
>> Yeah. But a Democrat would have never
done that. That so this came from Trump,
right? And then when we look at things
in terms of like catastrophic impact on
the economy, nothing that has said and
Democrats say a lot of dumb things is
the equivalent to the tariff regime that
we have right now that is continuing to
our currency devalued 10% over the past
year. Um our trade relation
>> the tariff thing is very complicated
because you're going to you have to
devalue the dollar. There is no way out
of this without devaluing the dollar.
You have to generate more tax revenue.
Tariffs are a tax.
>> He look Trump is bordering on
indefensible. So you even what you just
said doesn't make sense because if
you're trying to generate more tax with
a tariff,
>> why can't you just raise income taxes?
>> Wouldn't that be so much easier? And it
wouldn't hurt our trade relations with
the rest of the world or because this
because bumping up your income tax by a
few points in every bracket is going to
raise you hundreds and hundreds of
billions of dollars. It's the easiest
way to raise a ton of money. But the
import tax is damaging. It's destroying
our relationship with so many other
countries around the world and it's
hurting our domestic economy and it's
having disproportionate impacts on the
people that probably need the money the
most.
>> I think this is going to have to play
out before we know if it's helping us on
an international stage or hurting us. I
honestly don't know.
>> Okay, we've got zero deals in however
many days. We said we would have 90
deals in 90 days. We have none so far.
>> Well, that's not true. We do have deals.
>> We don't trade deals. Real trade deals.
No, we've got some truth.
>> Define real.
>> A trade deal would be like a marketwide
deal that dictates different terms
across the different sectors of your
economy. Like these are usually hundreds
of pages long that it's not like we'll
tariff you 10% and you tariff us 10%.
Because there's a lot of there's like
markets are sophisticated things
depending on how you run it. Like let's
say that like like oh I buy you know
milk from you and I also sell milk to
you. And you're like okay cool. Um, and
in our economy, we also have a thing
where if you produce milk, you pay 0%
taxes. Well, that's not like a tariff,
but that's a pretty advantage
that you guys have. That's not really
fair. These are the types of minutia
that you get into when it comes to
actually writing a real trade deal. It's
not just saying like, oh, blanket
tariffs. We'll get back to the show in a
moment, but first, let's talk about
getting the most out of your health
data. Your Apple Watch collects an
incredible amount of useful data, then
does absolutely nothing with it. Bevel
turns that data into intelligence. This
is what your Apple Watch should have
been doing from day one. Bevel
consolidates everything into one
platform. Sleep tracking, nutrition
logging, fitness monitoring, recovery
scores, habit tracking, stress levels,
all in one place instead of scattered
across five different apps. Bevel's AI
is proactive. It doesn't wait for you to
ask your questions. It analyzes your
metrics in real time and tells you what
you need to know. holds you accountable
to your goals. It remembers your
lifestyle and [music] tailor every
suggestion specifically to you. And your
data stays private, stored in your
device, not on servers. Over 1 million
people have downloaded Bevel and it has
[music] a 4.8 star rating. Head to
bevel.health/impact [music]
and use code impact to get your first
month free. And now let's get back to
the show. But are you saying that
leading into this that things were going
well? Yes, phenomenally.
>> Donald Trump is that up.
>> So, we've at least now identified the
base assumption that we do not share.
Okay.
>> So, I'm looking at the international
trade deals that we have and I'm like, I
cannot believe we have allowed this to
happen. We are now in Thusidity's trap.
We let China grow powerful because we
were idiots and this is a tale as old as
time. We could have could have and I'm
sure there was somebody that's been
screaming about it from day one
predicted that this is exactly what was
going to happen which we let happen.
Wait, what was the bad thing that was
going to happen?
>> That we have now completely gutted um
manufacturing out of America,
>> but the manufacturing is is the highest
point it's ever been. It was at Biden.
It was the highest point it's ever been.
We've we've exported a lot of low-level
manufacturing, but we don't have people
to manufacture everything. Like, China
is not trying to expand their low-level
manufacturing. China's trying to grow
into the manufacturing that we do.
>> Yeah. Let me give you an alternate
version of this is what I think actually
happened. China admits this is what
happened. The VCs are finally talking
about this is what happened. Uh, it's
the '8s and China is backwards. Um, Deng
Xiaoping comes into power, realizes Mao
was killing people on mass and is
basically like, "Thank God he's dead.
We're not going to repeat those
mistakes. We're actually going to let
people get rich, but we don't know how
to let people get rich." They ring ring
America, can you please teach us how to
be rich? We go over there. In fact, they
first it starts with a conversation, I
believe, with the Japanese. Japanese
give them indications about how they're
going to have to do this by
decentralizing banking. They contact
America. America goes over and basically
helps them get all of the uh capitalist
system up and running. How you need to
decentralize who gets loans. You need
thousands of banks, not a single bank.
Uh you need a VC environment. And so
literally, American VCs fly over there,
of course, selfishly thinking that
they're going to reap all these
benefits. They get all of these
companies to go over to begin teaching
them. Deng Xiaoing has an official
policy to b your time and never take the
lead. and he's like, "This is a part of
this long plan. We're eventually going
to take over, but first we've got to
like get all this information." And so
we realize, "Oh my god, we can get
everything cheap by sending our
manufacturing over there." But China's
playing a different game. And they're
like, "We're going to start with those
things, but we're going to get them to
send their best and their brightest.
Look at what they did with Tesla." And
they say, "Hey, uh, Elon, we're going to
let you build a Tesla factory over here.
Normally, we would force you to have 50
to 51% Chinese ownership. We're going to
let you keep the whole thing, but you're
going to teach our engineers. Tesla now
over whatever 10 years, 12 years that
they've been manufacturing in China is
now some tiny fraction of the EV market
when it used to be 100%. And they have
just learned everything they needed from
him and now have surpassed him, you
know, however much massively. And so
that's the game that they've been
running. And uh Tim Cook said, I don't
know, a couple months ago, he was like,
"I don't know what you guys think
manufacturing is in China, but these are
the best high-end manufacturers." If you
run the stats of America post World War
I, leading into World War II, we were
the dominant manufacturing power for an
industrial age economy. We have now, and
that's by the way why uh the probably
apocryphal quote that the Japanese
admiral said when he bombed Pearl
Harbor, I fear all we did was wake a
sleeping giant and filled him with a
terrible resolve. What he was referring
to is that America could just outproduce
everybody in terms of ships, tanks,
aircraft, everything. And so we just
turned all that machinery on to building
the war apparatus. Now flash forward,
we're headed into the same style
conflict with China, except China looks
like us in terms of all the meaningful
manufacturing like we did before World
War II. So now if we go into a head-on
collision with China, we will not be
able to come anywhere near their
production levels. So now it's like I
get it.
>> How would we ever expect a country of
330 million people to be able to
outproduce a country of what is China
1.7 billion? I don't know how many.
>> Of course. How? by keeping these things
yourself, making sure that you don't let
go of them, building the incentive
system to keep people focused on
manufacturing, high-end manufacturing
the same way that we're doing with AI
with massive investments.
>> But I'm saying, where are you going to
get, if you want us to continue the
high-end manufacturing we do now, what
are we taking from to start doing
low-end manufacturing again?
>> What do you mean from a budget
perspective?
>> No, from a human capital perspective,
our unemployment is like 4 and a half%.
Where are we getting all the people to
do the low-end manufacturing?
We have to move people from high
productivity jobs down to lower
productivity jobs. We're going to have
to give in some
>> reject that wholeheartedly. So right now
we have it's like 4% unemployment
technically 3.8 something like that. But
once you factor in all the people that
have just checked out of the job market
it's like 12%. So it's a massive number
that for some reason nobody talks about.
>> So the reason why people don't talk
about it is because we have there so
there's different ways to measure
unemployment. The most common way is
just called the unemployment number. It
doesn't include discouraged workers.
This is the U3 unemployment number.
You're talking about the U6. People like
to bring up the U6 when they say the U3
is fake. The reason why the U6
unemployment isn't the thing that
economists look at the most is because
there's a lot of reasons why people
might stop looking for work. They might
be in education. They might be totally
agree. But I would put forward the
biggest one right now, certainly the
most meaningful and important is that
there is a type of person for whom a
certain type of manufacturing job is the
jam and those have gone away. We've
shipped something like two million jobs
overseas in in that core type of
manufacturing job. And the stats anyway
show that that is the biggest reason
that your average worker has been unable
to up their wages. Um it hasn't been the
breaking of the unions. That's not
correlated in the private markets to
increase wages basically at all. And so
but if you have a bunch of jobs that
need a bunch of workers now all of a
sudden the workers have the power to
actually negotiate better salaries. Uh
now if we need to bring in labor like I
think the whole world the whole
developed world is about to be in a
really weird position where we just
don't have the birth rates and so we are
going to have to bring in immigrants to
fill these roles. So having a sensible
policy about how we fill in those gaps I
don't think would have been a problem at
all. I think we took a suicidal approach
to it, but there would have been a smart
approach to get people in. If there were
jobs that truly Americans, they had all
the manufacturing jobs they could eat,
then I think we'd be fine.
>> So then just as a so then your
assumptions are that one, if we were to
bring back a whole sector of
manufacturing, we wouldn't have to take
from anywhere because there's this
there's like a magical section of people
that would be able to work these jobs
that wouldn't
>> You say wouldn't have to take from
anyone. You mean people
>> as in you wouldn't have to move people
out of higher productivity jobs to lower
productivity jobs?
>> I think you're going to have to do high
to low. Certainly as the things change,
but you might have to as technology
advances, but you might have to import
people. I'm perfectly fine with that. So
numbers, so that's the first thing. And
the second thing is, so I'm just curious
how I don't know the population of
China. It's 1 something billion.
>> Call it 1.4.
>> Okay. How would you expect us to be able
to outmanufacture a country that's like
five times our population?
>> It comes down to where you're putting
your resources. So, China was way bigger
than us and we were still out producing
them because they didn't
>> have years of being supported by the
international banking community trying
to spin them up. They didn't have people
going over there and helping them
>> uh to do everything our way. We did not
see them as a competitor and so we
essentially traded cheap goods to build
our biggest competitor.
>> But eventually they're going to figure
it out, right? So
>> like how like how are you keep China
from like is the assumption that there's
a
>> number you can I think on a long enough
timeline you're going to find yourself
in that situation. I'm just saying don't
be in a situation where they are both
stronger than you
>> based on size and stronger than you
because you have outsourced your entire
way of life to make sure that those
prices come down. But then it feels to
me then like if we know that we can't
win on mass production like that that
our goal would be to produce to have
higher and higher productivity jobs.
American work is some of the most
productive in the world. Um where
economically productivity is measured
for how much a labor hour costs or in
one hour how much like stuff can you
produce basically right? So it feels
like the the goal then would be to move
to higher and higher productivity jobs.
So when we look at like what are the big
things that people talk about right now,
it's stuff like AI or stuff in computing
and these are the areas that America is
still the leader on.
>> Do you steer by efficiency? Like as you
try to map this stuff out in your head,
>> what do you mean efficiency?
>> Uh are you thinking along the lines of
it is an obvious north star to steer by
um whoever is better at this thing. So
Americans are better at getting um high
output per hour work. Therefore, we
should focus on that.
>> Oh, kind of. Well, the economic concept
you're talking about is called
comparative advantage, right? Yes. Um
the I'm just looking when I just I look
at productivity broadly because
productivity can tell you the amount
basically of like
>> But is that your north star just so we
don't talk past each other?
>> A bit a bit. Yeah. Because the more
product the more productive your labor
is, the more your workers are able to
produce for the world given the amount
of time.
>> I have a totally different northstar
which Yeah. What's that?
>> Explain. So my northstar is round it to
um national security and international
dominance.
>> Yeah. But national security is your most
productive stuff. Like what was one of
the big like one of the big reasons why
we won World War II was because we had
all of the best and brightest minds and
we were the first people in the entire
world to research the you know atomic
bombs for people that are fact. Sure.
But like I'm saying like we got
technologically there before anybody
else. Yes. That helped us with Japan
tremendously for sure. But the real
story of World War II is
>> uh we were able to manufacture like 2/3
of every bit of equipment that was being
sent over to Europe. So they were in our
debt massively. Uh we were able to
aggregate all of the gold and uh we were
able to build our own military up at
some ungodly level higher than everybody
else and we weren't getting bombed. So,
at the end of the war, now we're we have
the gold, uh we have the manufacturing
capabilities, we've got our GIS
returning home, uh getting educated, we
have a massive baby boom, right? So,
there's all these things that go into
that moment, but the the lynch pin, the
one thing if you were like, if you knock
that peg out, everything is different.
Is our ability to manufacture the thing
that mattered in that moment
>> because that was like the most
productive thing to work on at the time.
But I think as technology has moved
further and further into the future,
other things become necessarily
>> we might be able to agree on that. Like
if we end up saying the most productive
thing that we could be manufacturing
right now or everything that we need for
our modern way of life, technology and
war with China, then I would say yes.
>> Okay. I just I feel like those wars
aren't going to be won by who can make
the most ships. I feel like those wars
are going to be won by who figures out
like the best missile defense systems.
>> That's going to be part of it. But it uh
all of this stuff is cat-and- mouse
game. So, if what we find is, "Hey,
we're the software kings of the world.
We're better at AI, and so we assume
that this is going to be war played on
the AI battlefield. We're ready for it.
They can't with us."
>> Uh, well, then they go, "Oh, but they're
not ready for drones because we have the
entire drone supply chain, and so we're
just going to swarm them with drones."
And so, yeah, like they're going to
fight back with um AI, and that's going
to be devastating for us, but we're just
going to keep droning them.
>> Sure. But then what do you think is
easier to switch tactics for? for us to
start manufacturing rudimentary drones
or for them to start manufacturing
complex AI related stuff, software
related stuff.
>> Nobody's standing still. We're not
standing still on drones and they're not
standing still on AI. So,
>> sure, but everybody I'm just saying that
when you look at the world, everybody
wants to be like what the US is. Nobody
wants to be like what you're advocating
the US becomes.
>> Like the people that we exported our
supply chains to, they want to be more
like America. They're not think we
exported our supply chain to China and
China's no interest in being
>> absolutely what they're making huge
investments in green energy. They're
trying to make bigger investments into
their microprocessor technology.
>> Think of as America
>> the higher productivity more specialized
labor stock.
>> So when you say more like America, you
mean highly specialized
>> highly specialized labor producing like
end of like supply chain levels of
goods.
>> Okay, that makes sense in terms of just
being economically efficient. But I
don't see how that collides with the
argument in this moment. That doesn't in
any way, shape, or form alleviate the
need for America to protect itself, for
America to be economically strong, to
make sure that workers are able to
negotiate their pay better, to make sure
that we have uh jobs that fit a massive
bolus of a certain type of person that
we have that right now uh has just
checked out of the job market, right?
>> Yeah. I don't know if I would destroy my
country to try to bring back old jobs
because there's some sector of the
economy that
>> what's the part that would destroy it
>> is regressing in terms of the types of
goods that we manufacture as in saying
like I don't like the fact that we're
making the X87 well I should say the F35
plane because we should be making more
aluminum widgets so we need to take a
little bit away but in your mind you're
trying
>> Do you think I'm saying that?
>> I don't but one of the frustrating
things when it comes to economics is
people only ever talk about one side of
an equation. I can talk about this whole
thing top to bottom. You can go anywhere
where you think I'm weak and we can
talk.
>> But the problem is you've fictitiously
invented this huge working group of
people that can move into a job with no
other negative benefits. So what I'm
saying is that like for the
manufacturing stuff, you are going to
destroy higher productivity. You're
destroying advanced stages of your
manufacturing sector if you want to
bring back base manufacturing. That's an
inescapable truth reality.
>> Okay, so that is
perceived as false by me. So let's walk
through and see if it really is false.
>> So base assumption number one for me is
that there are very capable almost
exclusively men of prime working age
right now to the tune of like 8%
something like that. It's very close to
eight if not exactly eight that are
capable but have checked out of the
labor market.
>> Sure. That's our f that's probably maybe
our fundamental big disagreement. I
don't think that's necessarily the case.
>> Meaning that stat isn't real.
>> I don't think so. I haven't heard that
particular.
>> Okay, let's just so we don't bog down.
If it were true, uh, does that puzzle
piece click and now my entire argument
makes sense to you and at least has
internal logic though?
>> If it if it was true, then I think
looking for work for them might be good.
>> But then the second issue, that's even
assuming that was true, which I don't
think it is, but that's the second issue
that I have is on that road, whatever
manufacturing we were to bring back to
the United States would leave those
people still in the exact same spot.
>> That's very possible. So now the thing
that drives what manufacturing that I'm
trying to bring back and maybe it's just
aspirational to get these guys back into
jobs and maybe once we really look at
the kind of things that I'm saying we
need to bring back because I'm not
saying start making widgets uh maybe we
find h sorry man like between AI
robotics and just how high techch it is
just not going to be these guys and
they're still lol or so uh yeah very
possible so we'll set that aside they're
a big cloud of maybe
But the thing that's driving me saying
we need to get those we need to get jobs
for them back is that's how you get them
negotiating power again workers to have
negotiating power to drive their rates
up which for me is part of my northstar
it is an absolute must because you need
a thriving middle class and right now if
there's if you can send jobs wherever
you want or import people cheaply from
wherever you want uh workers will never
have the power that they need to be able
to negotiate higher salaries. So that's
just like to avoid having my head lpped
off as a rich person. I know I need to
do that. So that's that's like not even
just a moral good that has to happen.
Like if you don't do that, you have
destabilized capitalism to the point
where it will break. It's broken many
times in history for this exact reason.
So
>> I guess so like the sanity check that I
would have here is do you feel like this
is an area that we're at right now in
the United States where we've done a lot
of damage to our middle class or
something?
>> A thousand%. It's it's mathematically
showable.
>> Okay. So then my question is is what
other country's middle class do you
think is doing better than ours? China.
>> That I just completely and totally
fundamentally disagree with that.
>> You don't think China increasing their
wages went up 30x in the same period
that Americans stagnated from the 70s
until now. They've had a 30x increase in
worker salary. Ours have stagnated. My
son grew 100 times more than I did in
the past 10 years of his life because he
went from 4 to 14. then I probably
haven't grown at all since like China
China's people are approaching they
their wages have grown more but that's
to become getting more in line with the
United States
>> you think that does to the psychology of
a nation
>> do you think that it makes them sad that
they've grown that fast
>> no but they're playing catch-up to us
make them feel awesome right
>> yeah but they're still behind us to the
psychology of a nation that stays flat
for 40 years
>> I don't know if I would say we've stayed
flat
>> we have stayed flat it's just math
>> in what in what regard what salaries
versus cost of living has just it's
flatlined. In fact, cost of living
compared to what people are making are
is going up. So,
>> I think [sighs] that's there's a whole
separate conversation you could have on
that. Um,
>> why do you think people feel like they
can't make ends meet if everything is
great?
>> Well, I'm not a politician, so I would
say it's because the American consumer
is incredibly spoiled and has no idea
what the standards of living are across
the rest of the world and is constantly
lied to by their own politicians about
what other people are living like in the
rest of the world. The reality, the
number reality is the American consumer
is the strongest consumer on the planet.
And other people would kill to have the
horrendous standards of living. Our
homes are massively larger. We have the
latest and cutting edge technology when
it comes to healthcare. We invent like
all of the coolest stuff here. We're not
caught in these weird manufacturing
traps like Germany is. And our
immigrants, even our illegal immigrants,
are all at work. And in other countries,
they're having legal immigrants that
can't find work. Their unemployments are
higher. Their inflations are worse. Like
every part of their stuff is like not
running as well. Every other country on
the planet wants to be like the United
States of America and the US consumer.
The only reason we can even have these
trade deficits we have is because the
American consumer has so much power. And
there are arguments you can make around
like cost of living, everything else,
but it's it's depending on how you
factor it. It's a whole separate
conversation. But like for instance,
like you could say like, oh, like the
amount that you would spend on a console
today is flatlined. It's the same you
would spend on a console, you know, uh,
20 years ago. And that's true, but like
you could buy like a PS5 today and in
the past you could buy a PS1. So even if
like the technically the cost is the
same or is flatlined in terms of real
wages, you're getting a lot more for it.
Same arguments can be made about stuff
like healthare, right? Even if healthare
costs are like fairly high like a type 1
diabetic 100 years ago is dying in two
years whereas today you know it might be
expensive or even more expensive because
of the things they have to pay. So like
oh my god the cost has gone up but it's
also because well now they live like
normal lives almost. So it's hard to
measure that directly but the when I'm
doing like sanity checks on this I'm
just like looking at other countries.
You you mentioned China's growth. Part
of China's growth has been their
liberalization of their economy, foreign
direct investment. The only reason China
can even afford to grow is because we
have so much money here. We have so much
investment here. And we've grown also as
a result of our relationship with China.
And China's trying to race towards what
the United States is right now. And I
think it's an interesting as a sanity
check. Like why if China's racing
towards to get to where we are, why do
we want to go back to where they're
coming from?
>> We don't. And so I think the strategy
that Trump right now is running is a be
more China than China. I think that that
is uh suicidal. Okay. There were a lot
of things you laid out uh and I want to
see if we can start putting some of
these uh pieces together. So, uh, first
of all, you put out the idea that if
Americans knew how good they had it,
that they wouldn't be as, um, feeling
bad about where they are, um, as they
are
>> a little. And just in qualifying that,
we should always push for better stuff.
I think that's great. But there are some
Americans who think that like in Europe,
they have free healthcare and free
everything else and they pay no like
they think everything is so much better
and it's not really the case. you and I
agree aggressively and Lord knows I wish
that that felt like a winning battle,
but uh convincing Americans that they
really do have a good
>> I don't it just doesn't line up with
what I know about human psychology. So
the Ginny coefficient makes it very
clear the studies with monkeys make it
very clear if people look around and see
somebody else and they have a perception
that that person is being treated better
than they are, they are going to lose
their
>> Agreed. And right now
because of a very quantifiable economic
problem, we've put young people in a
position where they are buried under
student debt largely uh at a time where
the government pie is shrinking because
the interest payments are growing and
just gobbling everything up. It's more
than defense. It's the third largest
expense that we have in the government
and it's growing. Uh it will become the
second largest expense almost certainly
before the end of 2025. So this is
happening very fast. So your interest
payments will in the next couple of
months almost certainly pass Medicare or
Medicaid uh as the second highest
expense in the government. So it's like
that's creating this insane distortion
in terms of what they can afford and
what they can't afford because the way
that the government makes up for that
shortfall is with money printing. Money
printing is inflation. They're not
related. They are the same phenomena.
And so things are becoming more
expensive precisely because the
government is deficit spending. And so
as long as they deficit spend, they are
making things more expensive for people
by taxing everybody. But the only way to
hide from the taxation that is inflation
is to own assets. Okay. Well, great.
Anybody can own assets, right? The bad
news is only 10% of Americans own 93% of
the assets. And I'm going to guess that
follows another power distribution. And
of the 10%, I'm sure that 80% are 20% of
the people. And so you're going to have
some ridiculously small number that own
all of the assets in America
effectively. And then everybody else
just gets absolutely hosed by inflation.
And then they wonder, why can't I make
ends meet? Now, when we did this in the
70s, we at least had women that could go
into the workforce and start making
money and so houses uh household incomes
could rise back up and match it and
cool, we were fine for another couple of
decades. But we're now at the point
where there's just there's no that thing
left anymore. There's no other person to
put into the workforce. So I really
think despite that I agree with you very
wholeheartedly that people are in a
position where um they really do have a
good poor people in America have it way
better than people in other countries.
Uh however
it really is that things are getting
more expensive. They really can't afford
it. and the only asset they understand
intuitively is a house and houses are
just completely out of reach because of
inflation. And so now because of deficit
spending, they can't buy a house. They
can't get out from under their debt and
they can't afford things. And so I'm not
confused when they're like, "Hey, I
really want to be a socialist." And I'm
just saying the bad news is though that
will speed this problem up now.
>> Sure. So I I understand what you've
said. I feel like there's a couple
things that are difficult to to
understand though. one. So, like one
thing you said that deficit spending was
bad because it makes things cost more,
but then I feel like earlier you said
one of the big things is we have to
devalue the currency.
>> So, wouldn't printing more money and
devaluing the currency, wouldn't this
like play into the same thing? Would you
want that?
>> If I say you should never hit a woman
and then a woman rushes into the room
and is hitting your child with a
baseball bat beat the out of that
chick.
>> So, I'm just saying we're in a position
where things are so bad. There are four
levers that you have to pull. All of
them are bad, but you have to pull all
of them. You have to forgive some loans.
Okay. And that just means wiping out the
people.
>> So then the inflation stuff you think
isn't necessarily that big of a deal
right now because we need to devalue our
currency.
>> The inflation is horrible. And I'm going
to make it even worse. But the only way
to get out of this predicament is to use
deflationary and inflationary levers. We
have four of them. Two are deflationary,
two are inflationary. And we're going to
try to oh god get it just right and get
it to the point where the people that
we're stealing from by eliminating their
um because when one person owes debt
that's somebody else's liability uh
sorry somebody else's asset and so as
you wipe out one person's liability you
wipe out their asset and so they just
lost money that they work for and it's
just gone and you just all you have for
them is a sorry that's just where we're
at. So you're going to do some of that.
You try not to do so much that those
people openly revolt. uh you're going to
have to do some money printing because
you have to devalue the debt itself in
order to get out of this. Uh you're
going to have to tax the wealthy more.
There's just no way around that because
you got to generate some additional
funds somewhere and then you have to go
into austerity, but not so much that you
freeze up the economy. Ray Dalio details
exactly how to do it. It's called
beautiful deleveraging. No one's ever
going to do it,
>> but those are your levers.
>> Okay. So, I guess yeah, understanding
this and I we don't have to retreat too
much of this. I don't want to circle the
drain on this, but I just when I feel
like I look at all of Trump's major
economic policies, all of them just make
everything you said worse. That's what I
feel like. So, you talk about like genie
coefficient inequality. Like,
>> so out of this, your goal would be to
convince me we're in a tough spot, Tom,
but you're you're just better off with
the Democrats.
>> One trillion%. Got it. The reason being
that there are So, there are two huge
things that are easy money makers. And
really fast just so I can the reason
that you want to talk about that which I
find mildly interesting but not super
interesting
>> is because we live in a political world
we are going to have to elect somebody
and so let's just focus on who the
somebody is
>> a little bit. Yeah. But it's also
secondarily played into a thing where
like somebody is telling you you know I
really really love um I love sweet
foods. I love sweet foods. They're my
favorite. And I'm like oh yeah me too.
here's a candy bar and then they dump
like a bunch of salt in their mouth and
I'm like very confused. I'm like I feel
like something is not matching up. So
like I hear you give a lot of like
baseline stuff and I'm like that sounds
good. I think I agree with that. But
then the prescriptions are being like
wildly different in in terms of my mind.
Um so two easy ways to make money that
the Democrats were doing is one is
funding your IRS. You have to be able to
collect the tax revenue that's owed to
you. And the money we're saving here is
on the scale of hundreds of billions of
dollars for what the IRS itself has said
is out there for monies that they could
get. I think it's $600 billion is the
last number I saw. So that's the first
thing. Biden expanded was it 80,000
agents or something and then Trump has
now peeled that back. So that's one way
to do it. And then the second way is
income taxes are just such a nice and
easy way to collect money. Everybody has
a job generally. People have jobs. The
money is taken into your paycheck. It's
super easy to um to administer. It's
very easy to collect and it's very easy
to kind of like target different people
with different tax rates. tariffs are
like the messiest worst way to
absolutely over somebody who has to
buy certain goods that is more important
to them. Like for it's a consumption tax
basically, but it's a consumption tax
probably disproportionately hurting
poorer people. So when I look at Trump,
we're making some money now through
tariffs which I would argue are also
doing external damage. But forget but
forget it. Just looking at the consumer.
So tariffs are probably one of the worst
ways to tax the United States. And then
he expanded the tax cuts which is
severely decreasing our government
revenue. And then he peeled back all of
our IRS collection stuff because they
hate it. And then to satiate our debt
wos, we got Doge, which went from saving
two trillion to maybe 9 billion, if
that. And it's like everything I've seen
Trump do is horrible. Kla wouldn't have
solidified the tax cuts, which would
have helped a lot on the revenue side of
things. Um, they would have maintained
the hiring of the IRS agents, which so
we can enforce the taxes on the books,
which is good. And then we wouldn't be
doing the this weird tariff thing so we
could negotiate better trade deals if we
wanted to or we would at least continue
to have the poorest people be able to
afford the things that they want um
without disproportionately taxing them
to try to make up for some new thing
that they that shouldn't have continued
which was the Trump the tax cuts and
jobs act. Those are the big things that
I see and it just feels like all of them
play totally opposite directions from
the Democrats and the Republicans. Yeah.
>> Yeah. It's interesting preparing for
this episode and listening to
>> Yeah, we are. We're getting really into
this. Yeah.
>> No, no, but I mean I love this.
Hopefully the my audience at least uh
will enjoy this as well as we've really
become an economic focused group.
>> Um but there are base assumptions that
you and I don't share that make us um
look at the same thing and then walk
away with very different um conclusions.
>> And what is it of that what is the most
important base assumption you think
we're different on? Um, based on what I
know about you, I think the most
important thing is the threat level you
feel from Trump and your threat level
from Trump is I I don't know if I think
you would say that in at least in your
lifetime there has never been a
politician that was more dangerous than
Trump from a we actually break the
American system
>> and we go down a super dark
authoritarian path like in reality not
in haha meme land.
>> Yeah. Well, I would say we're already
down that path. We've taken several
steps down it already. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, that's where we disagree. I
don't share that assessment.
>> Um even though I'll look at all the same
things and I'm going to nod and be like,
"Yeah, that's terrible." In all the
places you would expect me to, but the
amplitude of him does not hit a
threshold for me where I feel like this
is a virus that's going to escape the
lab and this is just going to go ary.
Um, now trust me, it is entirely
possible that life teaches me that I am
wildly misreading the situation because
um I do think that he has authoritarian
tendencies. I do think if uh he saw a
way to run for another term, he would
run for another term. We we look at
these things and can I ask you on that
as like a thing? Um, this is maybe a
little unfair cuz I I'm sure you talked
to a lot of people. Maybe you don't have
all this in your head, but can you think
of if you were to think of our talk like
a year ago? We both made different
predictions about what we thought like
Trump would look like.
>> Do you think there was anything that I
was majorly off on? And then do you
think there was anything you were
majorly off on?
>> When I hear you describe what's
happening, it's not the world I
recognize.
>> So, it would be um, is he doing
authoritarian things? Yes. Did you call
that? Yes. Is the stuff that he's doing
freaking me out? No. So, National Guard
sending him into the States. It's weird.
He shouldn't do it if they don't want
him to unless something's really like
out of pocket.
>> That one to me feels like um
>> my wife, if she is about to come on her
period, she really does parse data
differently.
>> Uh stimulus differently. She responds to
stimulus differently. But I know I You
don't say it the first moment you notice
it. you like you really got to push in
deep before you're like, "Okay, hold on
a second. I think the stimulus no longer
or the response no longer matches the
stimulus." So, it's like you really got
to give it some room to breathe. So, I
personally don't mind what he's doing
because I don't like the like take the
um the space outside of the ice facility
to me like Law and Order like you got to
buckle down on that. You can't have
people throwing breaking
throwing rocks. That's just a hard pass
for me. Uh, so for him to go in and say,
"Hey, we're cleaning this up." When I
hear the numbers on real quick, so you
said clean this up. So here's something
I'd be curious about cuz you know a lot
of numbers in terms of um when 130%, you
know, debt to GDP ratio or 18 months is
unsustainable, whatever. I'm curious,
how many countries have survived after
the head executive has started to
weaponize the military against its own
citizenry? Curious what the standard
survival rate is on a country past that
point? Because what Trump is doing with
the National Guard is something that I I
don't know since the civil war. I'm
never I am not aware of any president
ever abusing the National Guard in that
way. They're not supposed to national
they're not supposed to deploy to a
state without the consent of the
governor and they're generally supposed
to do it in in like times of great
emergency with the governor requesting.
>> So it's interesting again you and I look
at the same thing and we see something
different. So I don't view what he's
doing as weaponizing the military
against his own citizenry. That that is
definitely not what I read. Okay. Well,
but so factually it just is. For if a
military person is turned for law
enforcement purposes, that's the
military against the citizen.
>> But if they're upholding the laws of
>> they're not supposed to uphold the laws.
That's not what the military is for. The
military is to fight foreign enemies.
Laws are upheld by you can say federal
law enforcement or state law
enforcement, local law enforcement, but
not the military.
>> Um, so looking into the specifics of
whether this is he's breaching the
constitution or not is a different
question. But I will say just like you
feel like h listen there's checks and
balances that are going to keep mom
Donnie even though he has the same
murderous ideology that has killed and
killed and killed there are things that
are going to stop him from being able to
kill and kill and kill. Um I don't think
Trump is going to use the military to
coup uh the cities or anything like
that. And if he does that would be a
huge alarm bell for me. even though he
did try to do a coup before and even
though he has said that he intends to
deploy the military against the wishes
of people and even though he is talking
about extra security measures around
polling stations that he say
>> the way that I see and I think you're
referencing January [clears throat] 6th
the way that I see January 6th is uh
something along the lines of um I'm not
going to coup the government unless
you're going to do it right one of those
where it's like he's not coming out and
saying it. I've seen what that really
looks like. Like if you look in history
at people who are actually like I'm here
to coup the government, it looks
dramatically different.
>> It looks about exactly the same. Hitler
looked exactly the same.
>> No way. For sure. Absolute madness. So
this uh Hitler was amassing like private
brown shirts, getting them to go and
physically beat people up. Not like
>> So the difference the biggest difference
between Hitler and Trump, this is very
unfortunate, is that Hitler had to be
more intelligent and more subversive
because Hitler didn't already have the
support of the entire population. So
where you reference brown shirts, Donald
Trump is just deploying ICE agents and
trying to fight with the Supreme Court
that he can uh racially profile people
or he is deploying the the National
Guard to places saying that he's solving
crime. Like anytime your head executive
of your country is saying we're using
the military for law enforcement, that's
such an insanely scary idea. And when
you're deploying when when Governor
Nuomo is speaking at some arena and for
no reason Trump is just deploying
federal agents all over this like this
is one of the reasons why the Bill of
Rights why the Constitution was created.
It's one of the reason why we had the
Articles of Confederation before our
constitutional convention is because
states said I'm not going to let a
federal government send your in
here and tell us how to do our stuff and
now conservatives and maybe the country
a lot of people in the country like oh
well you know if the military wants to
do law enforcement that should be a
deeply honoring thing. I I I just don't
see much of a a difference there in
terms of Trump sending his people like
he's tried to get more people to sign up
for ICE. He's increased the budget of it
like 10x. He's written executive orders
to like try to facilitate more law
enforcement joining uh you know his his
military. Um so you know like people
like the brown shirts eventually become
things like um the Gestapo or whatever,
right? Like the SS Trump is already in
government is already president has it.
So I just don't see a significant
difference there I guess. Um, so when I
look at that and with the so reading
mine comp, seeing what his plan was,
seeing how he enacted it, seeing how he
would walk into a room with his thugs
and be like, "Are you going to get on
board?" If they say no, he'd walk out
and his thugs would just shoot him. So
you may have a mental map that that's
the kind of person that Trump is. I do
not share that mental map at all. Uh,
and because I don't have that mental map
of Trump, I can't make the jump to like,
oh, this is the kind of thing. It's just
going to keep escalating and escalating
and escalating. Um,
>> so when Trump says things about like
deporting Mum Donnie,
>> yeah,
>> that doesn't sound like it's approaching
that cuz that's the ne that like that's
the one step off of like killing
somebody is I'm going to deport you. I'm
exiling you from my country because I
don't like you politically.
>> Destiny, I like you a lot, but you will
say the most unhinged and I'll just
be like, look, it's Destiny. You got to
contextualize it. He's got a whole thing
about you have to use this kind of
bombastic rhetoric to get people's
attention, but he's really a sensible
guy. And so I am always quick to be
like, I think I know who Destiny is as a
person. Like I'm gonna like give space
for that.
>> Okay.
>> Uh I feel the same way about Trump.
>> Do you think that I would speak the
exact same way if I was a president of
the United States?
>> There are ways that you talk to friends
that I'm sure you would never talk to an
employee. Like there are ways.
>> Here's how I've mapped you.
>> Okay.
>> You are extremely intelligent.
>> Sure. you have many gears and you will
use the gear that's effective.
>> If you saw that you needed to do one of
your patented um
>> I say unhinged in a fun playful way. If
you had to do one of your patented
Destiny, no longer Steven Bonell, like
Destiny unhinged rants because your base
needed to know you were there, the thing
that made them love you, that that
person's still in there, that you've not
become some cut politician, you would do
it. And I so I guess I understand you
saying that, but like there are things
that um like even in Mandani's
acceptance speech saying that like he's
going to be mayor for all of New York
and he's going to try to do whatever he
can to do right by all of you know New
Yorkers or whatever. I'll say things
like, "I think MAGA's lost their
mind. I think half this country is
insane." If I was an elected leader of
people, especially if half my
constituents were MAGA, I I wouldn't say
that, right? I think it's I think it's a
little bizarre to hold to look at my
speech patterns and then say, "Well, as
long as Trump is better than that, like
we occupy totally different lanes.
>> Trump is better than that."
>> Like like I say a lot of unhinged stuff,
but my role is entertainer, activist,
like political pundant at most. Like
that's the lane that I'm in. um if if I
was doing advocacy for a particular
cause, if I was an elected politician or
leader, like my tone would change
significantly to match the new role.
>> Sure, I get that. But if Trump doesn't
view the world that way and is therefore
violating the ethos that you have, this
is an idea that's helped me a lot. If
you look at the way somebody behaves and
go, "What would it mean if I did that?"
And then you're like, "Holy that
would be so crazy." You have to look at
them and go, "What does it mean when
they do that?" So I and this is where we
just read Trump differently and I know
I'm totally oh if he ends up being a
maniac then I was just wrong and I could
not read this guy and I made
>> I understand you say that but like my
like he has done all the things.
>> I think you're misreading it. I think
the view of amplitude that you have is
way off the mark. So him sending
in uh troops if he
>> that's not a big deal
>> to me not at all.
>> You think him playing games
>> he sent him to LA. What's different in
LA? Literally nothing. And nobody and no
other president has found the need to to
do this to function this way.
>> No, we're not. This is the first time
we've been in a populist moment in
modern history. So
>> and then the second thing is um or
another thing is what about playing
games with FEMA funds? Telling some
states that if you don't follow me
politically, I'm not going to make FEMA
funds about. He's saying he was going to
pull federal funding from
>> Trump will weaponize anything and
everything that he thinks he can get
away with.
>> Sure. But so that's the thing he'll do,
right?
>> Yeah.
>> But you just said weaponize anything and
everything he can get away with. So why
not deport mom Donnie if he could?
>> Yeah. I would I be surprised if he
actually deported Mom Donnie? Yes, I
would be.
>> Why?
>> But uh I think he
>> if I'm looking for leadership on this, I
would look at Rubio and the State
Department. I would look at the fact
that they abolished all of USAD without
any input from Congress. And I would
look at the fact that they are
selectively deporting visa holders based
on their position on Israel Palestine.
>> That seems to be a pretty that maps on
pretty cleanly.
>> So you look at that and feel like whoa,
we have we've gone full Gustapo.
>> Yeah. He's he's he's
taking the first amendment rights away
from visa holders for issues that he
thinks are politically expedient and
then deporting people as a result of
that. That's like way beyond any
American pale that I would I think that
like it's so far gone. That's crazy at
that point.
>> Look, if he's uh violating due process
in a way that I'm unaware of. Yeah. Bad.
>> Okay. Suing pollsters because he doesn't
like the polls that they do or suing the
media companies. The FCC pressure. This
is where we get into the dirty tricks.
First of all, Jimmy Kimmel went back. So
I don't think
>> it did come back after a huge public
outcry. There was pressure by the FCC to
to have him fired and then a threat to
pull licenses from all the underlying
companies if they didn't.
>> Right. But do you think that that's
unique to him? Do you think that
>> interesting that does not match the
reality that I live in?
>> There's no example you can give on the
Democrat side of anything remotely like
that.
>> So when you look at all of the um the
information on the Russia hoax to you,
not a hoax. Russia really was involved.
That was all above board. uh million% to
do. Okay. So then,
>> but I've read all the underlying
documents. I've read the Muller report.
I've read the like it's all not only is
it true, it's worse than most people.
>> So your map is um Democrats honorable
Republicans, Trump especially, unhinged
liars who will do whatever to amass more
power.
>> 100%. Yeah.
>> Not my read in the slightest.
>> Okay. So I'll just say that a year ago I
made a bunch of predictions. I feel like
Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. Uh, was Biden
cognitively capable of being president?
I
>> I think absolutely. I never saw any
evidence that he wasn't.
>> Uh, then we just again, we look at the
same thing and we see something
different. And that
>> if I were to point to an example, if I
were to ask you, did Biden need his
executive orders explained to him when
they were brought? You couldn't find a
single.
>> I have to imagine Biden wouldn't be able
to take his own medication without
somebody explaining it.
>> Sure, you can say that. But the
difference is is that Trump has already
lied about his medical history. Do you
acknowledge that that his doctors lied
as well?
>> I don't know, but would not be
surprised.
>> He has the chronic venous issue that
would not be.
>> Okay. So, he did he lied about his
medical history. Biden never lied about
his medical history that we can see.
>> Then he doesn't know it or something
that the man had
>> dementia. Whether it was Alzheimer's or
not, I don't know. But like
>> you can say that, but you have no
evidence for that.
>> Yes, I do. I'm I trust my eyes because
of the fact that inside of their own
government in administration they had a
group that referred to themselves as the
pilot bureau which as you well know is
the group in a communist country that
runs the country. So to me like and
again this is a what what are my
sensitivities versus what are yours. I
am totally freaked out by communism
socialism.
>> Okay, so let's get away from the random
reports of poly. What was the how did
that come out in a policy manner? What
was the what is our external evidence
like
>> this is my map of the situation that you
did not for some number of years or some
percentage of the time
>> that Biden was not actively the one
running the country
>> cuz I don't have any evidence of that.
Whereas today I can say so like for
instance so here's the thing we just saw
Trump admit that he had no idea I guess
that he pardoned the um the Binance guy
or whatever.
>> He didn't say he didn't know that he
pardoned him. He said he didn't know who
he was. So, who pardoned him?
>> Ah, this guy's telling me who I trust.
You should pardon this guy because this
is all This is Biden going
after these guys. Yeah, Biden going
after anybody in crypto. Cool. Like,
>> so what you've just described is a
there's somebody else running the
government besides Trump.
>> Look, even as a CEO, it's not that
you're not running the company. It's
that you trust certain people to have a
sense of like what's going on. They're
going to bring it to you, get you to
weigh in. But I'm saying if they're not
bringing it to him, if they're not
getting him to weigh in, that he's just
completely checked out because he can
hardly talk and hold a thought in his
head, that that's a very different thing
than you're running an entire country.
You've got all these international.
>> So who is telling Trump who to pardon?
>> I don't know who that person is.
>> That's supposed to be the the power
exclusively granted to the president.
>> So they bring it to him. They make the
argument. He says, "I'm here for it."
Whoever the person was that came to him.
>> Who is that?
>> But if it doesn't bother you don't even
know who that is.
>> It's a knowable name, right?
>> No, it's not. We don't care.
>> You're saying they're going to like keep
that under. saying that the weird stuff
that you're worried about under Biden
that we have no evidence of it ever
happening. We see it happening right now
on TV with Trump, but for some reason,
you're not perceiving that. Trump is
pardoning people and he doesn't know
anything about them and he can't answer
questions about them. There are
politicians being killed in this
country. It happened to the two
Minnesota lawmakers. He didn't know
anything about it sometimes, even though
he did 6 months earlier. He told Walls,
"I'm not calling that guy. He's a Yeah.
>> You you give such a pass to Biden in a
way that I cannot reconcile
>> cuz I'm trying to tell me what is the
evidence of Biden being scenile that
doesn't involve him being a shitty
debater?" put put the clips on there.
There are He literally can't speak at
times.
>> So besides him being a bad speaker.
>> No, no, no. It's not being a bad
speaker. It that is cognitive decline.
>> So you have no examples besides him
being if we were to compare weird
curious if we were to compare Biden's
state of the union to Trump's state of
the union. Which one do you think
sounded more coherent?
>> I mean with Trump for sure far and away.
>> Absolutely not. Totally disagree. Trump
not only like so for instance Biden was
able to deliver his state of the union
while I think Boowbert and Marjorie
Taylor Green were standing up and
screaming at him in Congress. He had a
comeback for him and he continued on.
When Trump had any uh people making
noise, Mike Johnson started saying he
was going to throw people out of
Congress because he couldn't deal with
it. Trump repeats the same five talking
points over and over again, right? Well,
the difference is like you can say well
just look and see and I can give you
example after example. How many illegal
immigrants came into this country? It
started at 10 million under Biden and
then it was 1520. The last I heard from
Trump it was 25 million came in. I don't
know what the actual number is. I see
that he's lied about his health. That
seems to be the case. He just got an MRI
recently. We don't know what it was for.
They're not releasing the evidence
there.
>> One one by one cuz wall of facts is a
very impressive technique that you use.
>> Uh but if you take them one by one,
should we have opened the border?
>> Should we have opened the border?
>> Yeah, just open borders, let people in.
>> No, but we never had open borders.
>> Really?
>> Correct.
>> So, should we have treated the borders
the way that we did? Like you just hung
up on the word open? Well, yeah, because
open implies some like
>> Did we do a good thing over Biden's term
in terms of it positively impacting
America?
>> Um, with the borders,
>> we could have had better border
enforcement. I think there were a lot of
other issues going on in the country at
the time.
>> Are you worried that I'm like going to
got you there? I'm trying to build a
mental model of what you believe
>> Well, well, the conversation is do we
think how do we think who is scenile
versus the other person?
>> Yeah, but remember, so you and I are
probably involved in a very different
conversation right now. So, um,
>> I'm just thinking in terms of sility, in
terms of mental faculty. If I'm looking
at mental faculty like one at a time
that Trump signs explained to him and
often times it looks like he doesn't
even know what he's like, "Oh, this
sounds like a good idea." And then he
says, "Okay, so on that uh what I see is
somebody who we've had all these policy
discussions. I know what they're going
to end up being. When you present them
to me, just remind me which one this
is."
>> And then yep, cool. Got it. This is not
somebody who's like, "I have no idea
what's going on and I'm befuddled." Like
that is now that may be your read, but
that definitely is not my read. Like
that seems so like blasze. Yeah, got it.
Like there's so many things, so many
moving parts. Um, so what are the moving
Okay, so then the second thing Trump
said he was going to Russia instead of
Alaska to go and talk to Putin.
>> What are the gaps for Biden here in
terms of mixing up even like the places
he's visiting?
Does that like if he said I'm going to
Aaraijan to meet with Putin that might
be a little bit weird but if you say the
country name of the person the number of
times I see people point out gaffs that
Trump made that I'm like god damn I
could see myself doing the same thing
and I'm not in cognitive decline. So um
that one like just doesn't feel like a
big gotcha like
>> tries to argue with Zalinsky what you
got invaded in 2015 instead of 2014. I
don't know why he tried to argue that
point.
>> Yeah, but now you're doing the thing my
wife does where you think you're average
and everybody else is dumb. like your
mind remembers facts in a way that the
average person just is never going to be
the average person. He's gonna be good
at different things. So he obviously
knows how to aggregate people around him
to get into power. He was uh I mean
should have been an invisible real
estate developer in New York that nobody
ever knows about but has been able to
make himself absolutely the most famous
person on planet earth. You can hate
that all you want but it is
>> I hate it. I acknowledge you won a
popular contest. I got that. Okay.
>> Cool. So unfortunately, as you said at
the beginning of the interview, that's
really what today is about. We live in
that age. This is
>> you could be scenile and be popular.
>> I think it is important for each of us
to understand that we look at the same
thing and we walk away with a different
read on it and then we can explain why
we think that. Like I have tremendous
fears of the the distortions that happen
on the the pathology that happens on the
left. I'm far more afraid of that. And
when I look at Trump, even though I am
afraid of the pathology on the right, I
don't see Trump as having enough of the
amplitude of those types of things,
having looked as closely as I've looked
at Hitler specifically. I just do not
see the amplitude. I get where people
see like there are similarities here,
but the amplitude is just so far off for
me. So then I'm like, ah, I don't really
have big concerns there. Now, I totally
get it. one, I know I could be wrong and
so I don't overrust myself and I'm not
screaming to the world, "Hey, hey, hey,
this guy's amazing. We got to keep him
in power." That is not my take. But that
like if anybody's just trying to
understand me, not necessarily convince
me, but understand me, it's like over
here on the left, I have because I've
spent so much time reading about how we
end up over here trying to do these
things out of what I will say is
resentment, not a desire to help the
poor, but resentment. I understand the
mechanisms of how the economy breaks
when you do those things. So, I'm
looking at it going, "This is never
going to work." Uh, and so even if we
all say, "Nah, we can ignore Tom when he
says something about Trump." But let's
listen over here. And maybe we say, "Oh,
we can Destiny when he sounds an alarm
on the right. You need to listen. He is
super attuned." He's got some blind
spots to people on the left just because
maybe he gets it more, whatever. Hey,
I'm fine with that. I'm not expecting
people to just listen and do
>> I understand where you're coming from. I
guess I'm just my thing is that I've
heard the war the claxon sounding about
socialism and communism for 30 years for
the Democrats and I've yet to ever see
like even a step early in that
direction.
>> Yeah, we've like so far in that I'm like
holy Like there's so much
>> this is really enlightening. So let me
tell you what that sounds like from my
perspective.
>> Okay. Um, I'm looking at it and I'm
like, over the last 40 years, we have
gone so far with left policies, lunatic
left policies, unfortunately, both from
the right and the left, but they both
been running big government, big
spending, deficits are fine.
>> Why are these left instead of these are
just fiscal things? It depends on where
you're spending it at whether it's left
or right.
>> I'm going with traditional definitions.
Tradition
>> even traditionally, so like Republicans
used to be way more hawkish, right? So
the public spending there is going to be
>> I would define small government by
Republican. Like Republicans want small
government. Small government to me means
that there are just fewer costs.
>> What about Iraq and Afghanistan?
>> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. The last
40 years, remember I'm not a Republican
Democrat. I'm saying when I look at
these two, they they have both become
completely irresponsible.
>> Sure.
>> I'm saying you say because you you gave
me a very specific thing that you're
saying and I'm trying to explain how it
sounds to me.
>> Okay. And what I'm saying is you say we
haven't moved any to the left and I'm
like what the is happening? In the
same way that when I go, "What do you
mean Trump's not this is not crazy like
taking the National Guard into LA? What
what's the problem, bro?" And you're
like, "Are you out of your
mind?" Like that seems so obvious to
you. You're like, "Can I even take this
person seriously if they don't see
this?" That's how I feel about people
who are not afraid of what's happening
on the left.
>> I wait. I understand. Wait, no. Wait,
there's a real thing. Okay, go ahead.
>> I'm not disagreeing with you that it's
bad. Mhm.
>> I just feel like we're having a weird
almost no true Scotsmanish fallacy where
we're saying that like here are bad
leftwing things and one is big
government spending and I'm saying big
government spending isn't always a
leftwing thing pursuing a lot of wars
you could argue is a right-wing thing
depending on what you're looking at but
the government can spend a lot of money
doesn't necessarily make it a leftwing
thing. If we're going to define it that
way then we've almost like through
definitions just won our arguments and
then both parties are basically leftwing
party or actually the Republicans would
be even more leftwing than the Democrat
cuz they spent more than the Democrats.
I have a belief, okay, if this ends up
being wrong, then cool. Uh, I have a
belief that the modern left, uh, no
matter what, they will keep funding
entitlements, making them bigger.
Because I believe that about the left,
then I'm just like, yeah, this is never
going to work. At least the right now
pays lip service to trying to grow their
way out of this. Now the good or bad
news is that is the only option. We have
we collectively left right everybody
center everybody has let this get to the
point where growth is the only option.
Nothing else is going to work.
>> Okay.
>> So now we've got one guy who's at least
paying lip service to it who's at least
trying some things. They're probably
crazy and they probably won't work but
he's at least trying. And so for me as
one guy, I'm just like I am far more
comfortable with that than I am with the
way that the left is approaching the
situation, which is we've got to take
care of everybody. We let the borders be
wide open. Um and
we want when a horrific bill is passed,
we're going to get our Red Bull no
matter what. And I'm just like, yo, like
I can't I can't do it.
>> Okay. And the horrific bill was a
Republican bill by a Republican Congress
and a Republican president. and
Republicans have been spending more than
Democrats and lead the the spending and
have worse economies and cause
contracting economies more than growing
economies. And the last budget surplus
we had was under a Democratic president.
I just all the facts just seem to lay
out like very clearly and cleanly that
>> the last time that the average person's
wages grew were under Trump. uh he's at
least trying to do something on the
world stage to get us back where we are
not literally just handing our future to
China um
>> by making enemies of every country on
the planet.
>> Yeah, dude. Look, again, I'm not going
to bat for Trump.
>> He's trying to make everybody like us,
but it's not. They'll hate us now. Oh
god.
>> When I run the experiment of what
there's a reason you're making sounds,
and the reason you're making sounds is
>> you're trying to convince me of a thing.
And so then I go, what thing is he
trying to convince me of? And I keep
coming back to that the next time that a
Republican and Democrat go headto-head,
I should be wise enough to vote for the
Democrat. And for me, what I'm saying is
that will come down entirely to the
person. So I have no problem voting for
a Democrat. Uh
my beef is that if I hear economically
just disqualifying words come out of
somebody's mouth, it it's going to be a
hard pass. And so we can all say it's a
trigger that he hasn't. I think it's
completely justified.
>> I actually 100% agree with you. But in
that case, Trump has said so many more
obviously disqualifying things than the
Democrats.
>> That's interesting. I totally disagree.
>> Like for instance, most Republicans
right now don't even acknowledge that a
tariff is an import tax. Trump still
won't acknowledge that. uh most as far
as I can tell the entire left tried to
shut down crypto
>> which is but suicide uh it did
>> it literally did not we had four years
of Biden it wasn't shut down
>> uh I got sued by the US government
because I was involved in crypto I'm
telling you right now they were trying
to chill that the out I've heard
you make the same pitch about yo when
you've got Elon Musk coming after you
like if it were anybody but me this is
the kind of thing that has a chilling
effect it's exactly what it does it's
like uh What? Like crypto is a
legitimate thing. In fact, it is the
only thing that's going to give people a
life raft out of the absolute horrific
mess that we are in from the dollar.
Like, you have to
>> Right now, the president of the United
States is running the largest crypto
scam in all of human history.
>> Horrific.
>> Okay. But if you're talking about where
where do you balance all this out? I've
got one person over here that's telling
me you you shouldn't even be able to do
this. Let's make sure that we're doing
CBDC's. And then you've got a guy over
here that is wild westing it,
making it like just the easiest thing in
the world to bribe him, which is god
awful. But at least he's trying to make
America the innovation home for crypto,
which when you know that growing is the
only way to get out of this. He somebody
has to lengthen the runway on US
treasuries. And the best idea that I've
seen, it may not be the best, but the
best idea I I've seen is to create a
onetoonebacked stable coin with uh
treasuries. And if you do that, you
create instantly an international market
for US treasuries. It will not stop the
problem, but it will buy us more time
for people to figure out what they're
going to do.
>> Isn't there already an international
market for US treasuries?
>> No, because people can't get uh right
now. Now, if you tried to get into
international treasuries, you already
have to be in a government where you
have access to that. So, that already
rules out God knows how private
investors bond.
>> Yeah, we're not worried about those.
We're talking about the average guy in
Kenya that has a cell phone and
that's it. He's got a governmental
currency that's terrible and so he can't
save money in that. He would be way
better off in US dollars. He would be
way better off buying US treasuries, but
he has no mechanism with which to do
that. He doesn't even have a bank
account. So so many people worldwide
would suddenly be able to get access
partly because it will allow people to
innovate and create things like stable
coins that they make available wherever
and as long as you have something that
can be audited and you have a 1:1 backed
with the stable coin you are still going
to get inflated. So people need to be
aware of that but the inflating USD is
far better than virtually any currency
on earth right now. So people all over
the world would be like, "Oh my god,
there's now all of a sudden there's
massive appetite for whatever appetite
there is for the digital currency. There
will suddenly be an appetite for the
treasury."
>> How do you buy when who's who's doing
the currency conversion? If you're
buying a stable coin, so like let's say
somebody in Kenya wants to buy a stable
coin in the United States. Is this being
held like on a US-owned treasury? the
mechanism by how that would work. It
would certainly be one would assume uh
the initial crop are going to be
American companies that are going to
they're doiciled here. They know all the
regulations. They build the stable coin.
It's all backed onetoone with
treasuries. And now they make it
available for whatever. They make it
available as a phone company. They make
it available as a farming consortium.
Whatever. I mean there will be untold
amounts of innovation once there's clear
regulation and people know what they can
do.
>> Okay. I don't know if that would work in
practice but okay. I
>> I obviously feel very strongly that that
will and that we have to have some ideas
around how do we move forward with
elongating the runway so that people can
migrate off of the dollar in an orderly
fashion. Okay? Because if that happened
fast, that would be that would make 2008
look like a trip to the bank. Like it
would be catast.
>> So the US government would just have no
more control over the currency then or
>> the US government if it defaults on its
loans will not be able to get loans.
>> The US government should never default
technically, right? Because they can
always produce more money.
>> You just hyperinflate your currency. So
at some point you go either we
hyperinflate and nothing matters or we
recognize we have to default. Both are
catastrophic. So, pick whichever one you
want.
>> Okay. I heard you say in a recent stream
that you're putting yourself in this
crazy position in terms of you've now
really become a target, but you're doing
it because you actually want to make
things better in America. So, what is
that vision of America that you have in
your head that would be better?
>> Civility has to come back on the right.
And they have no reason to bring it
back. and they've benefited too much
from being univil for so many decades.
And so there has to be a recognition
that you can't be civil with an univil
side because it's a it's it's like a
it's an evolutionary trap where they can
just indefinitely take advantage of you.
It's like uh the thing I've leaned in a
lot to is like the tit fortat strategies
or whatever that you know dictate how
two sides can treat each other.
>> Okay. So I've heard you talk about that
before. The tit fortat strategy though
they found that there was one strategy
that beat tit fortat.
>> It's called tit for tat with like 10%
forgiveness or something.
>> Yeah. We're at like 10,000% forgiveness
right now. [laughter]
>> So to you, it's just that's never going
to work.
>> It definitely doesn't work. And we've
seen the Republicans take advantage over
and over again of the environments we
live in. They're pushing the boundaries
on everything so much. Um I guess we
disagree on the magnitude of that, but I
mean I would factually just point to
things that the Trump administration is
doing that have never been done in all
of or at least on any recent US history.
And I would say that like they the
problem is that Republicans feel one I
only have to argue with people on the
left or center about this because on the
right the Republicans understand this
because they say the exact same things I
do when they're talking to the right or
independents and they know what I'm
saying is true and they give that advice
to their side. But then they come and
they hand ring on our side and for some
reason liberals um seem to agree with
their hand ringing. But basically if one
side is led to believe that there will
never be accountability for their
actions then they have no incentive not
to be acting in the most unaccountable
way possible. Um, and I think that
that's where the Republican party has
been at for majority of my lifetime.
>> And do you think that if you well, one,
how do you plan to make that
contribution? So, if you uh are going to
attempt to get the right to dial back
the rhetoric, what's the strategy?
reframing and just making people
understand the problem that's happening
I think is the first big thing because I
think the somehow the conservatives have
gotten a hold on like every part of the
media apparatus on the right-wing
channels they can just lie with absolute
impunity and with no shame and then on
the leftwing channels you're stuck
talking about the lies on the right wing
and you know that analogy I use is when
you're on defense you're never gaining
ground and most you defend your
territory and that's it and I think more
people need to be aware that the right
has managed to dictate the talking
points everywhere and it it's an
unwinable fight basically.
>> Why are they able to dictate the talking
points?
>> Because I think the left is concerned
with standards and governance and the
right is not. So they'll be an
impetulent uh child and they'll scream
and they'll kick and cry and they'll beg
the Democrats to come and save them like
they're doing now, begging them to turn
back on the government because for some
reason we've had two of the longest
shutdowns in US history under a
Republican president with a Republican
Congress. Or like when they lost their
majority speaker seat and they were
begging Pelosi, [snorts] can you guys
like vote for not McCarthy, but whatever
the next guy was, please, because we
lost our majority speaker seat somehow
for the first time in US history. They
just don't care about governing.
>> But
uh Okay, so you're just saying the drama
of acting like a petulant child just
controls the news cycle
>> basically. Yeah. So they can lie with
impunity about things. Everybody's stuck
trying to talk about it or defend it
then because they don't care about
governing. So, for instance, right now,
Mike Johnson is just totally happy
dismissing Congress, not bringing
anybody new in to avoid the Epstein file
should avoid governing. They don't care.
The government shutdowns, they don't
care. Trump's not talking about like
opening the government again. As long as
he feels like he can get away with it
politically, he's totally happy to keep
it going indefinitely. So, if they're
not concerned with governance, then
they're just going to kick up whatever
talking points they can. And then the
left, for whatever reason, feels like
they have to respond to those talking
points. And then they're stuck in this
weird trap of saying like, "We don't
want to give 1.5 trillion to illegal
immigrants for healthcare." Like, that's
not that's not even a real thing.
There's a thing they say. Um, but it's
because they're not held accountable on
any media platform. They can just lie
and then walk away and nobody really
says anything about it.
>> Okay. That seems to say more about the
public than it says about them or it
says more about algorithms. So, you've
obviously become very popular. Uh, you
don't let people get away with lies.
What So, from that perspective, why do
you think the contagion of your content
isn't larger? I'm not sure the right way
to ask that question, but if you're
already doing the thing, which is you
control the discourse, you talk about
what you want to talk about. Um, you're
obviously very good at it. You get
invited on the biggest shows, you get on
big stages. Um, what does it tell you
about the broad audience that that
doesn't, I guess, catch more fire?
>> Um, well, for the right, it's incredibly
unpopular. Once I became more aware of
these patterns, I didn't talk to any
more large right-wing figures because I
wasn't willing to play the same game
because they're not looking for actual
critical push back or challenges.
They're looking for more performative
stuff. Even Joe Rogan is too scared to
invite Gavin Newsome onto his show
despite the fact that he'll talk
California and um Gavin Newsome
constantly. He's too afraid to have the
conversation. Um when the right-wing
sees legitimate criticism or challenge,
they avoid it like the plague and then
their own fan bases I think are diluted
into thinking they are accepting
challengers. I think I have to ask a
followup question. I'm so sorry to
interrupt.
>> So, uh, you're saying that we the right
controls the talking points and that's
what makes the left sort of always just
playing defense.
>> Yeah.
>> Um, but why if the right is able to
control the narrative by being a
petulant child and we're just saying
basically drama gets clicks. Um,
are you saying that the left is up
against a fundamental part of just the
human experience? That the left and the
right both crave drama and so the left
and the right both watch right figures
throw tampons.
>> Well, the left is still trying to to
keep the country working is the issue.
And if the left
>> not the not the um the political
chattering class like they should still
be able to get cycles or are you saying
the only cycles that matter are the
government officials themselves?
>> Well, there's two separate things. So,
like when Biden came in, Biden tried to
govern the country. He said he was going
to be a president for both people. He
wasn't on Twitter all the time firing
off crazy things. He passed a historic
amount of joint legislation, some of
which Trump tried and failed to pass.
Like, Biden came in to govern the
country. And Trump came back to tell
lies and to make a mockery of
everything. And after we get through
whatever we get through here, whatever
this disaster is, we're going to have to
bring in Democrats again to govern the
country. If Democrats want to play the
same game Republicans are, they
basically would have to give up in
governing and say, "Okay, fine. I guess
we're just going to sink the ship with
with both of us now and we're not going
to keep us afloat anymore. So because
Democrats are trying to actually govern,
they're they're playing like a game
where they're trying to practice like
policy and play politics at the same
time. And MAGA has abandoned policy and
they're just playing politics and it's
kind of impossible to win that game.
>> So when you say policy, cuz I look at
what's going on with Trump and I see the
most active
president in terms of trying to shape
America that I've ever seen in my life.
But because he's doing it by fiat
>> by illegally. Yes.
>> That's where you're like, "This isn't
governance. This is some bullshit."
>> No, it's author authoritarianism or
dictatorship.
>> But you're saying like, so policy is
specifically you want to see them engage
with Congress,
>> like real lasting policy like Trump's
tariffs, the next president could just
get rid of them like that,
>> right?
>> And and I think the Supreme Court, I
think, is hearing arguments on it now. I
think the Republican Senate just voted
to resend them finally. like, okay,
maybe the president shouldn't be able to
unilaterally dictate economic policy.
>> He can veto it.
>> Yeah. I think that both sides have to
come back to wanting to govern the
country. It can't constantly be, I would
argue, Democrats picking up the pieces
from horrible Republican governance over
and over again. Um, the population needs
to be better convinced that Republicans
can't govern and they've refused to
govern. And we're in the middle of
another record-breaking shutdown right
now because of their refusal or
inability to govern. And like once the
Republican party has come back to being
willing to govern, then we can have
better conversations on policy and we
can go back to
>> Do you think in policy or do you think
in like the cultural battle of it all?
Like when you think about your
contribution, is your contribution
almost aimed at the audience and you're
like, listen, this is how we should be
thinking through this.
>> My contribution is aimed at the
audience. I'm not like a I'm not part of
a think tank. I can't like suggest
policy to congressman.
>> Very interesting. Understood. Okay. So,
do you think like would you
would you most like to reach the right
or do you think that um uh that they
pissed me off so much I'm never going to
be able to speak to them? I think that's
sort of a lost cause. So, it's like I've
got to speak to the left, tell them how
to metabolize.
>> So, in the past behavior, I think I have
a gift for being able to speak to both
sides. if I'm trying to do this very
effectively. And I did that for a while.
But I about a year ago, I guess I
identified or I felt like I identified
that the left just doesn't have very
many strong voices that are advocating
for itself.
>> And that especially now as I've seen the
second no kings protest come up, I think
there is a huge group of center left
people in the United States that just
feel unrepresented and unheard. And then
especially when I look at the success of
Gavin Newsome, just got Prop 50 passed.
Um, I'm like, okay, well, these are like
we need more strong, hey, this is a
center left person that's not just
trying endlessly to understand and be
compassionate to an unhinged right
that's taking us further and further off
a cliff. Like, there are things that we
should stand for on the left. There are
policies that we should fight for and we
can be proud and fight for those things
without having to constantly capitulate
or be, you know, understanding of people
that are in our mind trying to destroy
the country.
>> Now, those you're not, you don't have a
specific thing in your mind. It's just I
want to make sure that I
>> What do you mean by specifically in
mind?
>> Well, so I said, "What policies do you
want to see go forward?" You're like,
"Look, I'm not a think tank. I'm
speaking more to the audience, but if
there are policies that you feel like
you're fighting for."
>> Um, for policies, I mean, in general,
>> I mean, like I said, I don't even have
policy debate anymore, but for policies,
like basically a realistic assessment of
the world that leads to greater levels
of financial and economic integration
with the world. So, we should be the
heads of all these multilateral trade
agreements instead of retreating from
trade with other countries. Um, we need
to understand that there are incredibly
powerful incentives to have trade
deficits and we benefited from that for
a long time for reasons that people
don't seem to understand and because you
want to essentially create uh a market
for US dollars
>> kind of it keeps our interest low
basically on our debt and it allows us
to fund our debt without having
exorbitantly high interest rates because
a lot of people are holding USD and that
USD makes its way back to the United
States in the form of buying treasury
bonds. That's why despite everything
Trump tried to do with the tariffs and
everything else when the inversion
happened on the Treasury yield curve and
the yield started to go up, it was
because people were losing faith in the
US economy. It's good sometimes to have
a lot of USD out there in the world
because investing in US treasury is a
very good investment and it helps keep
our Yeah, it helps keep our interest
down.
>> Do you think globalism was a mistake or
is that something you want to see us get
back to a sensible version of?
>> No, I think it's crazy. I think there's
very hard to say globalism was a
mistake. Um, but I mean you can there
are always like ways that you can
augment your policy to make it better,
right? Like if I had a like a family
member that died from a car accident, I
don't think I would say, "Well, cars
were a mistake." I say, "Well, there's
things we can do better with cars." Um,
there's things we can do better with an
integrated world. So,
>> do you think that the world moves
through phases where there's a time
where globalism is going to work well
and then there's populist moments like I
would put forth, we're in a populist
moment right now and in a populist
moment, you're always going to be
protectionist. that there's my read is
that um humans move in cycles and we're
when you're in a populous cycle you're
always going to be protectionist like
the two will always go together or do
you see a way even in a moment like this
there's a way to break out of that and
it looks like
>> yeah and that the you have to be you
have to take on like leadership roles
there to break out of those moments like
to become scared and locked down and
protectionist in times of uncertainty I
think just furthers the um the cycle and
it further entrenches you into the cycle
and I I don't think it's usually
producing the best outcome. Like I think
America being a leader in the world in
in leading the way and trying to
accomplish certain things. Um whether
you know post91 or whatever it's like
leading with NATO but not taking over
all of Eastern Europe and everything
because Russia's gone or the Soviet
Union is gone. Um whether that means um
you know like making you know foreign
direct investment in China or other
countries that we might have
traditionally seen as not being in our
interest and then expanding our own
marks as a result of that. Like there
are ways to be leaders in these things.
I don't know historically, unless I'm
missing something, where the populist
movement was healthy for the state of
the country. I feel like generally these
lead to bad outcomes that populism
always seems like a thing that has a
phase and then once people realize like,
oh wait, I remember why this doesn't
work. Then you go back to the other
thing like actually working. That's I
feel like that plays out over and over
again. We're seeing it happen kind of in
Argentina now. For some reason, we're
doing massive currency swaps with them
because well, I know why. It's because
whatever said nice things about Trump.
Um, yeah, I would like to see that like
a bold a big bold America that's like
taking aggressive steps in the world to
cement its place in the world instead of
being like a very scared child, I guess.
>> Okay. So, as somebody who speaks to the
audience, what is it that they're
uh getting wrong that's led us into a
populist moment? How do you talk
somebody out of a populist moment?
>> Um, the most important thing that I
think a lot of people misunderstand
about the world, it's especially true of
economics, is people seem to think that
they're that everything is a zero- sum
game. So, if I go to if I work at
Walmart and I earn 50 bucks and then I
go to Walmart and I buy something for
$50, people think that like, oh, nothing
happened. Like, there's always the joke
of like, oh, an economist might say
there was $100 of uh GDP, but in
reality, nothing has really happened.
But that's not actually true. Like,
trade is generally speaking, as long as
it's voluntary. Trade is always mutually
beneficial. If I'm giving you $20 for
something and you're giving me something
else, what I'm telling you is that your
thing that you're giving me is worth
more than my $20. what you're telling me
is the $20 I'm getting you from you is
worth more to me than the thing right is
like time investment for money and
everything else right capital investment
all works this way you know um you know
you know personally uh so like getting
people to understand that that right now
the biggest issue with the right in MAGA
is that like like if we have a trade
deficit that means they're winning we're
losing or if immigrants are coming to
the country means they're coming here to
win and we're losing or if we have H-1B
workers because they're winning and
we're losing or if universities are
doing well then the middle class upper
class is winning the working class is
losing that idea that you have to
over everybody like the the crab, you
know, keeping people from climbing out,
uh, I just think is incredibly corrosive
to a positive environment where we can
all grow.
>> So, on immigration, which may be one of
the most, um, when people get into a
populist moment, they become very
protectionist around that. Uh, what do
you think about that? What's the right
way to handle it for specifically
America? I think that you should look
one is we need to come together and have
an honest conversation about what our
goals are with immigration which again
I'm saying because parts of the country
have ejected themselves from real talk.
We can't even have that conversation. Um
like do we want immigrants from
everywhere? Some people think we only
want high skill immigrants. All
immigrants are good. Lowkilled wages or
low skill labor is also like incredibly
important to keep the economy running in
different areas. Um, so do we want
>> really fast? Let me ask the obvious
question. Is an immigrant good if they
don't contribute positively to the
economy, but they do take public funds.
>> No, but that's almost impossible. Almost
every um almost every person will have a
will be a GDP a GDP benefit. They might
be a fiscal drain depending on so like
spend that money.
>> Yeah. Because it's always spent and
circulating through the economy, right?
But so it's up to us to big figure out
like well what is the um balance? How
much can we take on? how much can we uh
afford and then what are our goals,
right? And our goal should be to grow
the economy, to grow the country for
everybody, right? Yeah. And to adhere to
some like core principle set of American
values, whatever we define those as.
>> Okay, that was going to be my next
question. So, um does assimilation
matter? Do you think that's a part of
what's playing out right now?
>> Yeah, I think assimilation is really
important, but it's weird because people
talk about assimilation, but they
haven't identified what those core
American values are.
>> If somebody could give you a list, would
the list be enough or it's like, no, no,
no, listen. It's got to be something
like cuz like I have a list. So freedom,
uh I'll say liberty as a principle. Um
capitalism.
Um and the rounded to a growth mindset
that work hard, work your way up, get
better at something, contribute.
>> Individualistic in nature. Um
vaguely Christian uh ethics in the
background.
>> Sure.
And I by that I mean very specifically a
spark of the divine in the in the
individual that creates the right of
sovereignty.
>> Okay. Sure.
>> Now does that feel roughly American to
you?
>> Broadly speaking, yeah, I would say so.
Yeah. I think my the way I would
conceptualize it, I'm going to use
different words. It's probably the same
thing, but like in a very very basic
sense, the the liberal paradise is the
idea that all of us can come from
different ideologies and different moral
codes and different ways of life, but we
can come together and in some ways agree
on some shared um for some things we'll
say laws, right? Like even if I think
that uh adultery is wrong and you might
think adultery is okay, we both agree
that murder should be illegal, right? So
there's room for people to have
different beliefs and ideas. They might
go to their own churches, but there's
also room where we come together and we
say, but for all of us to function
together, we have to agree on some
things. And protecting people's ability
to basically pursue the be one of the
things I I wish I remember who
this quote was from. There's a guy who
said something along the lines of like
my favorite thing about the United
States of America is the USA allows you
to become the best version of yourself
more than any other country does. and
the idea of being able to go to the
United States and to pursue that as well
as you can while sustaining the overall
general health of the country like these
are very broad words and you can get
into the debate on what that looks like
exactly which is part of the country is
being able to debate what exactly that
looks like. I would say broadly speaking
that's like what the country should be
about. Yeah.
>> Okay. Um
how do you get people onto that? Like
when you're talking to the audience is
it going to be statbased? look at how
immigrants have worked or this is how we
should assimilate or how do you like
when I look out at the world and I see
the people that are having the biggest
impact on galvanizing people around
values I unfortunately see things like
Nick Fuentes who's very he speaks very
clearly um but I as a single person am
mortified
>> I mean it depends on who you're speaking
to and it depends on where you're
speaking like if I was invited to like
an economic forum to debate uh uh you
know an economist on the fiscal pros and
cons of immigration then we're going to
be having a numbers conversation about
what types of immigrants contribute more
to our budget I guess right um if I'm
talking to like a Nick Fuentes type
person then it's going to be a broader
concept on like what is the character of
our nation how have we gotten to where
we are today has immigration benefited
us or hurt us in what ways has it
benefited and hurt us and then going
forward how can we continue to
capitalize on assuming we agree that
America is a great nation how do we
continue to benefit from the ways that
we viewed immigrants in the past and
protect from maybe some of the negatives
that we've suffered as other people have
come here too.
>> Can I give you my darkest fear and then
I'll be very interested to see if your
natural response is be like, "Yeah, or
if you will be able to talk me off a
ledge."
>> Okay.
>> Uh it is my experience that all adults
can change and only 2% will. So every
time that I yell into the void, I am
trying to find that 2% that will
actually change. But for the most part,
all humans are automata. Uh but some get
a high role on changeability, others get
a very low role on changeability. I
think all kids are very changeable, but
adults not so much. Um and so it does
get a little disheartening sometimes to
think, wow, like I'm really only
speaking to 2% of people.
>> I think that my personal belief is your
major personality traits are pretty
locked in by the time you're like 15.
Um, I think it's very hard. It's almost
impossible to like fundamentally change
people. But I think that fundamentally
like we're like 99% the same. I think
the thing that happens is our intuitions
get hijacked and moved in different
directions because of politics or group
think or whatever else. And I think
those things can change. Um, meaning if
you can get the some sort of tipping
point to happen in that group, then most
people will just follow the group.
>> Yeah. Or if you can just get people to
realize a thing, then they'll be like,
"Oh, okay." They don't really have to
fundamentally change it. Just an outer
perimeter thing changes and then they're
like, "Okay, well, this still comports
with the thing that I feel is
important."
>> It's a very interesting insight and I
think that you're absolutely right that
once the herd moves, then the herd moves
and so it just becomes a question of how
do we move the herd?
>> Unfortunately, a lot of things um and I
hate this. You said I'm very smart. I
consider myself to be quite smart and
even I would say for myself I've just
had to learn a lot through experience
and I don't think there's a shortcut for
that ever. Um I think a really you can
go on almost anything racism or
whatever. Uh guns right for a lot of
very far leftaning people guns are scary
and they might think that they would
even take the principal position of like
guns are bad. I don't want anything to
do with them. Right? But it's probably
not their position. It's more the
concept of what they think guns are is
bad. And even though that seems similar,
there's a world where you take a leftist
friend like, "Okay, well, let's go
shoot. I go to the range, have some fun,
you can see the people there are chill,
we're chill, we have some fun shooting."
When you come away from that experience,
they haven't they they it feels like I
fundamentally changed from thinking guns
are bad to thinking that guns are good.
That's not really what's happened.
What's happened is your thought was
never guns are bad. It's guns are bad
because they're like murder scary
weapons that are uncontrollable to guns
are actually okay because they're not
murder scary weapons that are
uncontrollable, right? And then you can
make the same experiential argument I
think for a lot of different things.
>> Speaking of guns, uh you've become
arguably the most prominent voice on the
left, certainly the most um bombastic
that's going to get the biggest response
when you go now into public given what's
going on. Do you worry that you've
become a legitimate target?
>> I mean, a little bit. I think I still
have the young man's energy of thinking
he's invincible, I guess. So maybe if I
get shot at, maybe I'll dramatically
change that. But um I was going to avoid
going to events after the Charlie Kirk
thing, but then I think it was Eric
Trump and a couple congressmen and JD
Vance and Elon Musk started like
bullying me on Twitter and I was like,
"Well, no. Well, no. I'm not going
to leave now." Um because I feel like
I'm
>> You say bullying you.
>> Bullying me.
>> What is that? Bullying
>> like tagging the FBI, saying I need to
be demonetized or whatever. Yeah. So I
think um if I see that one of my big
things is you to some extent you have to
lead by example and I'm like in one of
the most privileged positions possible.
So like how can you ever tell people you
have to fight against the system and you
got to do this and that and then like
but also I'm too scared to go and speak
at public colleges now. I don't know. I
feel like like I feel like for me to
have any serious or real political
opinion I have to be willing to to do
that otherwise like what does it count
for? or if I'm not willing to step out
and do anything, then you know what? And
at the end of the day, right, whatever
risk exists for me, that risk might have
been made a hundred times worse after
Charlie Kirk, but it's still probably a
very, very small percentage, right?
>> Do you wear a vest or have security or
anything?
>> Um, there is a good amount of security.
I'm not going to tell you what I wear.
That's top secret. If I want people to
know the caliber, they need to penetrate
my
>> That's crazy.
>> That's wild to think. Yeah.
>> Actually, you know what? Yeah. If you
ever see a picture of me and I look fat,
it's just because I have my thick four
plates of ceram ceramic armor and kevlar
vest and that's the only reason.
Otherwise, I weigh 105 lbs.
>> 8% body fat.
>> Nice.
>> Yeah. You know.
>> Okay. I like it. Well done.
>> You said you're about to go on a new
diet and gym journey
>> so I can fight.
>> I like it. I'm very interested to see
how far that goes. Uh dude, every time
we get to spend time together, uh we
don't always agree, but I do find uh you
have a very sharp mind. You think
through these things in in a way that
gives me a fresh way to think about
this. If you were going to make one sort
of appeal to the audience, um you're
willing to put yourself out there,
you're willing to take risks to sort of
sway where the public has pointed to get
the herd to move. What would be the
final thing that you would leave them
with if they were just going to focus on
one thing?
>> I think this is more feminine than
masculine, but I learned this after my
30s. writing stuff down can actually be
really illuminating. I think especially
as men um maybe because women go through
like hormone cycles. I think as men I
don't think we're always aware of how
our emotional state impacts our like how
we're thinking like cognitively. It
doesn't feel like those two things are
so connected but they are. I think it's
good sometimes to sit down and write out
like in a general sense like where do
you think the world is going in 1 2 3
years right? So if you're on the right
um you might think okay I think that our
economy will be up a little bit. I think
that the fears about Donald Trump um
delaying the election or trying to take
over the polling booth, I think that's
dramatically over that won't happen.
Write these things down because it keeps
you honest with yourself. Um and the
same thing, you know, on the left, if
you think that um you know, I think that
Democrats are going to sweep the
midterms because our messaging has
gotten better, whatever else, you know,
like write things down because what it
does is in a year or two um when things
start to happen, we're very good at
lying to ourselves. And if you have it
written down, then you can start to see,
okay, am I actually making good
predictions? And the important thing is
that if you're making bad predictions,
that's great because then you can go
back and you can say, okay, well,
[snorts] retro perspectively from that
time, what could I have thought
differently like what am I missing? And
then like change your thought patterns
accordingly. There might be a thing that
you're constantly overindexing on or
constantly underexing on or something
that you're dismissing and then it's
good to adjust your thought pattern as
you go forward. Yeah. So writing stuff
down and making predictions and then
like really holding yourself to check
those every six to 12 months I think is
good. I think it's good for your
personal life too but
>> no agreed very much so. Where can people
follow you now?
>> Hopefully if uh my channel doesn't
continue to get attacked it's Destiny on
YouTube, Destiny on Kick and the Omni
Liberal on X. But don't go to that one
if you're sensitive because gets pretty
crazy over there.
>> It [laughter]
most certainly does. Awesome. Well guys,
if you haven't already, be sure to
subscribe and until next time, my
friends, be legendary. Take care. Peace.
If you like this conversation, check out
this episode to learn more. You've said
a quote though that I think is really
powerful, which is there's no historic
society that has looked like us that
didn't have a revolution. And I want to
get a sense of what is it that we look
like? The best example I've gotten
recently since we last spoke