Kind: captions
Language: en
The first 100 days of Trump 2 are in the
books. Russia offers their terms for
ending the war. Dalio says there's no
stopping the coming change in world
order. Now, China continues to insist
they can endure more economic pain than
us. Elon points out China already
exceeds us in purchasing power. Robots
upgrade humans. As AI performs surgery
on a Neurolink patient, we get the real
answer to 100 humans versus one gorilla.
And we have the 36 questions you need to
ask if you want to fall in love all in
one episode today. Drew, how are we ever
going to get through it all? 100 days,
man. Time flies when you're crashing the
economy. You know, just coming in spicy,
Drew. Okay. Well, I think we know uh how
you feel about what's going on. First
100 days with Trump. It's official. Now,
I I want to give him his flowers. You
know, it's not even a billing cycle yet.
It hasn't been a complete quarter. He
haven't even closed the books yet. So,
we still have a lot more Trump to go,
but how would you rate his first 100
days? Uh, I think that rating his first
100 days is the mistake that everybody
wants to make because it makes for good
headlines and good TV. Um, you had asked
me before we started rolling something
that I find more interesting, which is
how would you sum it up in a single
word? In a single word, I would say that
um, it is uh, erratic. So, you never
know what you're going to get. You could
be maybe a little bit more generous and
say it's unpredictable. Um I think it is
it is unclear how much of the erratic
behavior is art of the deal. How much is
just he's constitutionally erratic. How
much of it is he tries a thing and then
responds in real time. I I don't know.
And so the very reason that I don't want
to give him a score at this point is I
don't know how it's going to play out.
So it is entirely possible he has tanked
the economy.
not never going to recover, but that
we're going to really go through
something brutal. And as Ray Dalio is
pointing out that the he has already
done enough things to destabilize the
world order. He's done enough to point
at the problematic metrics. He's done
enough to signal to capital allocators
that things are going to be different.
Um that things are going to change. And
now the question becomes, are they going
to change for the better or are they
going to change for the worse? And what
I'm saying is a 100 days in, we do not
know the answer to that. And anybody
that says that they know the answer is
um I mean it's look, it's possible that
that's just how their mind works. And
they go to every minute I know the
answer. That's absurd to me. Anybody
that's doing that I think is is probably
unless you're just trying to be
entertained, that's not a good use of
your time. So the thing that I would
hope that people will use this show for
is very simply that you are trying to
build a functioning model of how the
world works that has high predictive
validity. And so that means I'm not
investing in being right. Um I am simply
trying to figure out when you do this in
this moment what response do you get?
And so Trump has effectively and I say
effectively because it may be for the
better. He has effectively destabilized
the world order. Now, is it destabilized
and it's just going to crumble? Or is it
destabilized and now we begin to put
pieces in their not rightful place but
in a place where America can thrive? So,
to get very concrete about that. Um,
focusing just on the tariffs is almost
certainly a mistake in that it will have
low predictive validity in terms of what
his administration is trying to do.
looking
at using that as a way to um get people
to renegotiate to put economic pain on
them so that they have to come to the
table to negotiate with you. And we'll
talk more about who can survive that
pain more
um but also as a way to open the the
conversation around non-trade barriers.
So there are a lot of claims that Trump
is making that I think have a lot of um
internal logic. So you can follow what
he believes.
I find Besson a lot easier, but you can
follow what the administration believes
even if they end up being wrong. But um
looking at the way that Besson is
talking about this is if we can
eliminate some of these non-trade
barriers by leveraging the tariffs to
get people to come to the negotiating
table to get people to um stop doing I
mean this is the no reason to say people
to get China to stop doing currency
manipulation which is something that
they are very credibly accused of um to
get China to no longer be treated by um
the World Bank as a developing nation
when that's padly absurd when um there's
a very credible argument to be made that
they have more purchasing power than the
US and so there there is
this old world order that has probably
become um less
useful and needs to be addressed. That's
all an echo of what happened at the end
of World War II. So yes, at the end of
World War II, it was a system that we
very much wanted to put in position, but
now it's a system that the Trump
administration would argue has its
utility has ended and it's now holding
back America. It's holding our wages
down. um it's flooding the market with
cheap goods and making it impossible for
us to um do our own manufacturing here
domestically which I've talked endlessly
about why pro why that is so problematic
in a moment where you are uh racing
towards a head-on collision with China.
So if they end up being right about all
those variables, destabilizing the world
order had to happen. It's just a
question of um is it being handled as
deafly as it could be? And I would say
the answer there is empirically it's
not. But then no one is ever going to do
it perfectly. So again, I don't want to
give him a rating because I don't know
how it's going to play out. I want to
open my mind to the reality that he
could have already created so much
devastation that this was just a
catastrophic error. Um or nope, this is
that formless period where people end up
buying high and selling low because they
simply cannot track the cause and effect
well enough to realize that they should
hold and wait till they get to the other
side. So, I'm treating the Trump
presidency the way that I treat my
investments, which as long as the thesis
is sound, I'm going to hold tight. uh if
the thesis breaks, then you have to back
out. And I don't have enough information
yet to feel like my thesis is
ill-placed. I still think the US is
long-term the best place to invest. I
think that short-term US debt is still a
good place to be. I'm paranoid about
long-term US debt and want to avoid. I
think China being an authoritarian
country uh rules it out as a place for
me uh to invest heavily. Other capital
allocators seem to feel the same.
There's been a pretty large exodus for
quite some time now out of China. I
don't expect that to reverse. Um, at the
same time, I think alienating our allies
is a dumb move and we should be trying
to draw people more closely to us. But
anyway, when I I look at this and I say
we we absolutely could not keep doing
what we were doing. You cannot allow
China to control your manufacturing. You
do not want to be competing on a global
stage with somebody that manipulates
their currency. Um, so for all of those
reasons, despite the fact that I can
hear in Radalio's words a warning, um,
because this can be done well or it can
be done poorly, that you you absolutely
had to do something. So, the status quo
is the one thing that I will just
completely remove off the table of
options. So, we'll see. Um, we've got,
call it another 18ish months before
Trump will lose the ability
to get his agenda across the finish
line. So, I think we're a long That's
assuming he loses the midterm. If he
loses the midterms, it's game over for
his um ideas that even if they were
going to work over a six-year period, it
doesn't matter. in our political system,
we do not have the um ability to think
as long term as someone like China who
does not have to worry about elections.
So, he very much has to worry about
elections. So, he's on a very tight time
crunch. I'll clock whether this worked
somewhere around there. Two years in,
we're still struggling. Even if he gets
reelected, I'll start to be like, it's a
long time to hold your breath. Yeah. So
you're saying that the midterms is
probably a better gauge to really gauge
the progress of the presidency versus
the 100 days. It guarantees a gauge for
what does the American people think. And
two years seems like a very reasonable
time to expect policies to either bear
fruit or not. If it's something that's
four years out, this is like in
business. I'm always telling people
you've got to find early signs that give
you enough information that you can make
a decision. You can't wait four years.
Yeah. To be like, well, maybe this
works. like you've got to have early
signs. Like I even think that there are
signs that we'll have before the
two-year mark that will be um very
informative. Uh so where are um where
are the deals with other countries? Are
we getting more isolated or is China
getting more isolated from um a trading
standpoint? Um what are the prices on
essential goods? because some prices are
for sure going to go up if you're um
tariffing things extremely from China
given how much we get from them. But are
we able to use a scalpel to keep the
essentials um flat or down? Um all of
those would be great indicators as to
whether or not this is working. Well,
you brought up Ray Dalio's article
jumping into that. He wrote an article
titled on X, it's too late, the changes
are coming. And it's a pretty long
article. I recommend everybody um read
it. But some key points I wanted to
highlight here is that he talked about
whatever happens with tariffs, these
problems won't go away. And they
radically reduced interdependency with
the US is a reality that has to be
planned for. Yeah. So let me say that in
simpler terms. America and China are
decoupling. Period. And there's no
stopping that. No matter what Trump does
with tariffs, America and China are
decoupling. And that's going to mean
what it means. And it's very difficult
to know all the second and third order
consequences already, but they're
coming. Period. End of story. And so
that is um there's more detail for us to
go through here, but that's the
punchline. The change is happening.
There's no unwinding it. Yeah. He
summarized it at the bottom with four
points that I want to cover for this. He
says, "Number one, we are on the brink
of the monetary order, the domestic,
political, and the international world
order breaking down due to unsustainable
bad fundamentals that can be easily seen
and measured." Yeah. So, debt, you have
a debt problem. This is really what he
means. Um, so you have a debt problem.
You cannot continue to do this. You
can't be in a cold war with people that
control your manufacturing. M um it just
it it leads to
catastrophe and Rey is looking at the
historical comps and he's saying we know
how this plays out and uh that's the one
thing you can't leave on the table.
There is no sticking with the status
quo. The progression of events leading
to these increasing disorders is similar
to those that have progressed many times
throughout history. So this one looks
like a contemporary version of the old
story of how monetary, domestic,
political, and social and international
geopolitical orders change. Yeah. So
debt escalates. Uh people print money,
the rich get richer, the poor get
poorer, you enter into a populist
moment, you elect a strong man. Uh and
strong men often do very dumb things, uh
very aggressive things if you're not
very careful. And given that um you need
to be aware of how this tends to play
out. And so this is why I talk so
endlessly about Thusidity's trap is just
the likelihood that you are not able to
accept that China has passed us. And by
the way, I don't think we should accept
it. I think just as the world has been
made better by China striving to be
great, the world would be better if
America can strive to be great. and I
hope they do. It's just a question of
when you're in second place, do you lash
out and start shooting at each other?
Um, America, when you've got the wealth
divide and you've got the inability to
see eye to eye on a path forward, uh, do
you hate each other so much that you
start shooting at each other? Because if
you can use that friction as dynamic
tension to make better policies, you end
up in a good place. If that friction
becomes warfare, you end up in a
horrible place. And so what Ray Dalio is
warning is that um the odds are
something like 65% I that's directly
correct even if it's not literally
correct. Uh 65 to 70% of the time you
end up in hot conflict. It's either a
revolution uh or a war with another
nation um or a more traditional civil
war. But it's always bloodshed 65 to 70%
of the time.
uh the other 30 to 35% of the time you
find a way to unwind it without
bloodshed, but it's less likely. Yeah.
There is a growing risk that the United
States imposing these challenges to deal
with will increasingly be bypassed by a
world of countries that will adapt to
these separations from the United States
and create new synapses that grow around
it. Yeah. So basically, new allies are
going to form. So um who's going to ally
themselves with China? who's going to
ally themselves with the US. Like,
shockingly, we have a horrible relation
right now with Canada. Yeah. And some
people might argue that, but one way to
read the tea leaves, and this feels like
it has a high degree of predictive
validity, is to look at uh what just
happened in their election that it broke
uh very liberal again when it looked
like Pierre Polyv was going to win. Um,
not only did Pierre Pol lose, uh, he
lost his seat. So, he's not even in
government anymore. So, he's been he's
had his seat, I think, since 2004.
So, it's like, yo, he's been in
government for a long time. And many
people say that the reason that that
happened was Canada was like, "Anybody
that sounds like Trump, is conservative
like Trump, not here for it, no way.
Hard pass." Uh and so that shows I think
it they won like a 54% majority I think.
Uh and Trudeau when he was in power his
um team his party there we go uh didn't
even have a majority. So there's been a
pretty big swing because you've got
Trump out there going back to my
description of this as being erratic.
You've got Trump calling them the 51st
state, which is just, if you know
anything about human psychology, you
know that, dude, that is going to be so
divisive. And for every bit of good that
Trump has gotten from being divisive, I
think he gets at least that much in
terms of creating problems. But this is
a populist moment. Yeah. And to our
point, in the past, Carney has been
positive about China policies and things
like that. So, we could be losing the
ally, right? Like exactly like does
Canada actually break towards China?
Like that would be um that would be a
very negative sign in my opinion. And
number four on this list, if these
circumstances are managed in the best
ways, the outcomes will be much better
than if they are managed in the worst
ways.
Yeah, it's one of those it's so obvious
that it seems almost silly to say it,
but it is the most important thing to
understand
that part of the reason that I now talk
about this stuff on my channel is
because the way that you navigate these
things matters and that they will have
huge consequences oftentimes for
generations to come. And
so he's trying to get everybody to focus
on the reality that okay, don't um march
forward blindly. Make sure that you have
a sense of cause and effect that is
historically um astute. It's never going
to be a one for one, but you want to
look backwards and go, um, this aligns
with what I see looking backwards or
here's what's different that makes me
believe that it's going to play out
differently. But you certainly don't
want to be blind to it. Yeah. And you
want to be marching by a very
falsifiable sequence of cause and effect
so that if you expect one thing to
happen and something else happens, then
you know, uhoh, my mental model is
flawed in some way. Now, I don't think
that Trump is at all constitutionally
capable of going my fundamental thinking
is flawed, but he does respond to um
directional movement that does not suit
his political aims. So, it's a very nice
way of saying, uh, oh, I [ __ ] up the,
uh, stock market more than I thought,
and so I'm going to back off on the
tariffs. So, at least in that way, he
isn't like, "No, no, no. I'm going to
ram this through no matter what." Like,
he is somebody that clearly is dancing
on the precipice, but when a foot slips
and gravel falls off the edge, he does
pull back a little bit. Um, that's not
me championing the way that he goes
about things, but that is me trying to
map the way um, he actually behaves.
Yeah. And I just want to put a stamp on
there with this last statement from Ray.
The United States role as the world's
biggest consumer of manufactured goods
and greatest producer of debt assets to
finance its overconumption is
unsustainable. So assuming that one can
sell and lend to the US and get paid
back with hard i.e not devalued dollars
on their US debt holdings is naive
thinking. So other plans have to be
made. Yeah. So let me say that one in
simple terms. the US is going to print
money and because of that long-term US
debt, no bueno. Yeah. And if that's
true, um, then people have to start
thinking about where is the best place
to put your long-term capital. Now, it's
going to be very interesting to see uh
exactly how that plays out on the world
stage because just like when um I fret
about losing dollar dominance, people
will say, "Okay, but where are you going
to go? You going to go to the yuan? Like
they manipulate their currency. They're
known for it. So, what are you talking
about? You going to go to the yen?
They've been stagnant forever. You going
to go to uh Europe? Like they've got a
host of their own problems. uh do you
buy that the BRICS nations are going to
build a um currency that's backed by
gold? Like where where are you actually
going? So you can have the emotional
outburst as I have done many times uh
that hey these are bad moves. This is
not what we want to be doing. Um but the
reality is that where else are you going
to go? What Rey is saying is over time
people will find answers to that. And so
you're now in a position where you can't
just default go, "Oh, people are going
to go to America." And so this is this
is an opportunity for bricks. This is an
opportunity for China. Somebody
somewhere at some time, the US or
otherwise, is going to start signaling
we're going to be the place that you can
go, that you can count on. We're stable.
Uh and so we'll see, man. I don't know
if Trump is constitutionally capable of
that. Um, so he has to do something. But
if he's able to pull this off, will he
then go into hard stabilization mode? If
he does, then it could be everybody
coming back to the US. if it if this
ends up being him spending call it 18
months just chaos havoc to um move the
Overton window to destabilize the way
that things work now change the IMF and
World Bank approach to China and other
countries lower the non-trade non-tariff
trade barriers all all the things that
we've been talking about do all that and
then okay guys we have a new world order
it's Not perfect, but now we need to
focus on stability. Now we need to
really talk about long-term capital
investment here in the US. Getting the
tax breaks down. This is something
Besson said that I thought was really
smart. He said, "Long-term, I don't
think the conversation is going to be
about tariffs. It's about tariffs now
because that's the negotiating tactic.
But long term, this is about regulation
and tax incentives to be here in
America. And if we're able to realize
those for corporations, corporations are
going to come here. If it's easier and
cheaper to do business in the US and you
can trust the regulatory stability, he's
like, people will come. And if we're not
able to do that, then this part
obviously you didn't say, but if they're
not able to do that, then people won't.
And so I think that is very smart. And
again going back to why I don't want to
call a winner at 100 days is you're at a
position now where um you're acting as
if the temporary emotional swings of
people will cement and they won't. And
so if people make a lot of money by
investing in China, they'll invest in
China. If people make a lot of money by
investing in the US, they'll invest in
the US. And so understanding just how
mercenary people are, just how selfish
everybody is, will have a lot higher
predictive validity than, well, Trump
did a thing and I'm mad and so now I'm
going elsewhere. It's real and you have
to factor that. But the long-term play
when you start talking about years is
going to be about where is it easiest to
get my business moving. Um, and where am
I most confident that I'll be able to
make money and not lose a bunch of
capital inefficiency to a government
taxing me to death.
Period. We'll keep monitoring it. Uh,
100 days in the books. We'll see what
happens. Indeed. We'll get back to the
show in a moment, but first, let's talk
about something a lot of people struggle
with, but don't talk about nearly
enough. Hair loss. If you're dealing
with thinning hair, there is finally a
solution that works without drugs or
surgery. It's called the I Restore
Elite. And while I haven't tried it yet,
I am telling you, I am going to put this
thing to the test. This thing is packed
with sciencebacked technology, 300
lasers, 200 LEDs, and a triple
wavelength system designed to wake up
dormant follicles and regrow hair. In a
4mon double blind study, nearly every
participant saw real hair growth. The
tech is legit and I restore backs it
with a 12month money back guarantee. So,
if it doesn't work for you, you get your
money back. As simple as that. A
restocking fee applies, so heads up. But
give yourself the gift of hair
confidence this spring for a limited
time only. Our listeners are getting a
huge discount on the I restore Elite
when you use code impact at i
restore.com. That's
irrestore.com code impact. And now let's
get back to the show. One of his
promises was that he'll end the Russian
Ukraine war. Russia has come out and
officially declared their conditions
that are necessary to end the war. Um
it's very Russia and it's very one-sided
from my uh viewpoint, but we'll go by
them one by one. Um these are the six
thing that they laid out to say that
this will make ends to the war
completely. The first one is a
demilitarization and denazification of
Ukraine. Number one is a showstopper. I
cannot fathom a universe in which
Ukraine would ever agree to that because
um you just broke into my house. Mhm.
Uh, you stole a bunch of my [ __ ] killed
a couple of my family members, and now
you're telling me that for you to leave
my house, I have to remove all the locks
from my doors. It's so sus. Yeah. So,
that one just seems
like that's not real. Like, I I'll Hey,
I've been wrong before, but I will be
utterly shocked if Ukraine doesn't just
go this is ridiculous. Yeah. And then uh
number two, Ukraine must not join NATO.
That one seems reasonable to me. I don't
that's been on the table. Yeah. Yeah.
Um, number three, this is a big one. The
international recognition of the annex
states. These are the regions in Ukraine
that was occupied from Russia going back
to 2014. Uh, we won't try to pronounce
all the names, but basically there's
regions that they've annexed. Uh, they
want it to be recognized. Uh, and this
one goes against the constitution of
Ukraine. So, they would have to have a
constitutional amendment to agree to
this one. But this one seems to me the
hardest pill to swallow, but that will
probably have to be swallowed either now
or at some future date. Um, but if World
War I is any indication of what happens
when you get into trench warfare is they
just gridlock and you lose a lot of
people, you don't go very far. Yeah. And
so given that that's it seems to be
where we're at with this conflict, it
will just become who has an appetite to
lose more soldiers
and Russia that is not the country you
want to play that game with. They've
just proven historically we're willing
to die for the homeland. Yeah. in far
greater numbers and they have so many
more people than Ukraine has that if
Ukraine can't get Europe or somebody
else to put boots on the ground, I don't
see how they win a war of attrition.
Yeah. Number four, lifting of sanctions
against Russia and the return of frozen
assets. Seems easy enough. Yeah, I know
this was in a big one that kind of
spooked the international community when
the US kind of froze the assets once
Russia Yeah, that was probably never the
super smart thing to do. Like if you're
not going to um put sanctions and
secondary sanctions on their uh
oil, you're just going to show people
that you're willing to weaponize the
dollar. Yeah. And and the payment
systems. And that's you don't want
people doing that like, oh, huh, they'll
do that. I guess I don't want to I don't
want to go against them. You get people
to get in line for a while, but that
starts making things like bricks look
far more attractive. Now, anybody that
trusts Russia, China, and Iran, yo, but
nonetheless. Yeah. But going back to our
first point, if the dollar is showing
weakness and then now this is just
another reason to say maybe there might
be another country that I could store
this for and it'll be okay. Yeah. Number
five, the rejection by Russia of the US
proposal to transfer control over the Z
nuclear power plant to Washington and
Ukraine. So there's a power plant within
one of those annex territories that
Russia wants to have control over as
opposed to the US uh controlling it. US
and Ukraine jointly controlling it.
Yeah, this feels again doable. Uh if I'm
Zalinski or I'm the Ukrainian people,
I'm saying to myself far easier to spin
up another nuclear plant. Not that
that's easy or cheap, but I would much
rather be in that position than trying
to replace another 100,000 of my
citizens. Like the the level of
devastation that that causes a a
population is hard to quantify. I would
much rather give up a nuclear facility
uh than however many people it would
cost me to keep fighting this war. Copy.
And then number six, cancellation of
language laws in Ukraine, especially
those that restrict the use of the
Russian language, culture, and church. I
get that that one will be troublesome,
but I cannot imagine that that's going
to be the hang-up. The only two that
strike me as like these are really going
to be hard are one and three. So, uh,
demilitar demilitarizing Ukraine just
seems absurd on its face. uh and
international recognition that parts of
what were formerly the Ukraine now are
part of Russia. Those are, I think,
going to be your two sticking points.
Now, the whole denoxification thing, I
don't know what to do with that. That
one also feels a little bit fake to me.
It's like, uh, whatever hate they have
in their heart, you're not going to be
able to legislate out of them. So,
they're going to keep doing that. Uh,
and then if there are Nazis in Ukraine
in any sufficient manner, like what's
the metric by which you're going to say
they've denazified? Because that gives
them that gives Russia the ability to
say, "Well, you demilitarize, but you
didn't denify. We're coming in." H that
one just again seems absurd on its face.
And that they list it first, I assume
means that's like the line in the sand
that they're drawing. So I don't know
how seriously to even take this. I'm
glad that they're at least putting
things forward. There's now things to
argue about. There's a place from which
to begin the negotiations. Um but this
doesn't feel super serious to me. Yeah,
that was my next question is do you
think Russia and Putin actually want to
end the war based off of this list?
Probably not.
No, man. We'll monitor it closely. It's
It's sad though. I was hoping that we
would wind this down. So once I actually
heard about it, I was like, "Oh, nice.
Let's look at the list." And then I seen
these things, I was like, "Yeah, they're
not really We're going to be here for a
while." Yeah, man. Look, wars
traditionally end because people are so
tired of the death and destruction that
somebody's just willing to give up. And
clearly neither side is there yet. Yeah.
And so now it's a question of
will the Ukrainian people have the money
and the bodies Yeah. to keep fighting.
And if the US pulls out then I mean
Europe I think is prepared to step up. I
just don't know if they'll be able to do
it without the US or if they'll be ready
because they just did that investment
about their defense initiatives a couple
months ago. It takes a little while to
scale that. So yeah. All right. Well,
speaking of appetite for a war, China is
saying that they're going to be able to
hold out on this trade war more than us.
The MFA China spokesperson Twitter has
been relentless about that. He's like,
"Yeah, we're we're ready for any war."
But uh CNBC news report said that China
might be feeling it a little bit more
than they don't want to let us believe.
Meanwhile, China's economy is showing
some signs of damage from the trade war
with the United States. New export
orders in April fell to their lowest
level since 2022. That was when CO was
ravaging the country. Overall,
manufacturing activity in China was the
weakest in more than a year. President
Trump has hit Chinese imports with
tariffs of 145% accusing Beijing of
treating the US unfairly. Our next guest
has some additional new data on China.
Joining us right now is China Beigebook
COO Shazad Kazzy. Shazad, let's talk
about these numbers, what you're seeing,
because you guys are are really doing
this on a momentby-moment basis. We're
looking at the month of April, and April
started off pretty strong. It's not what
you saw at the end of the month. No, not
at all. Um, as a matter of fact, you
know, the weakness that you're picking
up in manufacturing that we're that
we're picking up that started in March.
That's where the initial pull forward
and the, you know, the the inventory
ramp up stuffed uh helping helping the
manufacturing exports and you see a
slowdown in output, you see a slow down
in export orders and then the weakness
builds into April where if you look at
direct orders from the US, they are in
uh, you know, they're contracting and
they're incredibly weak. Uh so
manufacturing has a lot of pain that's
beginning uh become that's becoming
obvious. It it was interesting though
that manufacturing had a lot of weakness
in China. Some of the other areas looked
a little stronger. Yeah. So the rest of
the economy is actually holding up for
now which is quite predictable. Uh but
that cannot last the longer the trade
war uh goes on. How much of their
economy is manufacturing? Because in our
economy we're more of a services
economy. For them that's a big big
component of what what their economy is.
they have become incredibly dependent on
the manufacturing sector. As a matter of
fact, more so I would say in the
aftermath of COVID because domestic
consumption has been incredibly weak,
choppy at best. You've got a massive
property crisis that they're still
digging themselves out of which has left
manufacturing as the core driver of
economic growth and the postcoid
recovery. So when we hear kind of the
conventional wisdom is that China has a
much higher pain tolerance uh tolerance
for pain than we have in the United
States. What what does that mean to you?
What kind of tolerance do they have for
something that hits such a key important
part of their economy? Well, you know,
what they've done is begun quietly
helping the export sector already. So,
if you look at uh uh borrowing for
example in our numbers, it has exploded
for the manufacturing sector. They're
stepping up additionally on the fiscal
side uh through more activity. So, they
are trying to stimulate uh uh the
economy provided some stability. They
could do this. They haven't done big
stimulus in several years, which means
that they could keep ramping this up
slowly. Uh, but the fact being what that
they're just going to prop this up, but
they're not going to have anywhere to
sell their goods. That's exactly right.
They could well, they could prop this up
and then I think what they're really
going to rely on is trans shipment. So,
I don't buy this whole thing that
Chinese manufacturing is going to, you
know, completely collapse because what
they're going to do is just rely
excessively on rerouting their goods to
the US through these third countries. So
this is where this gets interesting
because China
has the one they don't have to stand for
election. So they can literally do
whatever they want including I mean in
the case of Mau just starving people to
death and sorry tough break. Uh they can
print money like crazy. Uh they have
shown that they don't mind keeping the
yuan weak. So, and I think that it is
fair to say that they have a lot more um
they have printed a lot less than we
have recently. And so, they probably
have more quote unquote dry powder to
keep printing for a while. So, you put
all of those together and yes, they may
hurt more than us, but will they be
forced to blink? That becomes the big
question. And will the Trump
administration be wise enough to say,
"Look, China just does things
differently?" And I can't ask them to um
publicly blink and be the first ones to
come to us that we're going to have to
back channel to them and find a way for
them to be able to put on the front page
of their newspaper, America is dumb and
they bowed to us and see we won and get
what we want. And so this is where
America has to be very cleareyed about
what we want to not be beholdened to um
what I call an invisible goal where you
say you want a better uh trade
relationship with China. You say you
want to control your own manufacturing.
You say you want them to stop
manipulating their currency. You say you
want them to stop dumping cheap goods on
you. But what you really want is for
them to be like America's number one. Uh
that would be an invisible goal. And if
Trump is acting in accordance with I
need Xi to acknowledge that I'm the
bigger dog here, then this really could
spiral into just madness where it's like
everybody gets punished for these two
guys that have these gigantic egos and
neither of them is willing to back down.
Neither of them is willing to say, "I
actually want this thing over here and I
don't care what you print in your papers
about me. I want this thing." And so if
Trump, which boy oh boy, I don't know
that he's capable, but if Trump can be
like, all I care about is the six months
leading up to the midterms, I want to be
able to point to uh this many dollars
spent in manufacturing, showing endless
facilities already being built, which by
the way, they already Nvidia literally,
I think today or yesterday, like started
building their factory in Arizona, like
actually spending money because my thing
was are they just going to try to drag
Trump on? and they really seem to
actually be spending money. So, showing
that prices are coming down um in in key
areas. They won't come down everywhere,
but prices on the essentials coming
down. Uh so, gas price, energy costs in
general coming down, groceries coming
down, um jobs being created, like if
he's able to show that story and from a
supply chain perspective, we're in a
much better situation. and be able to
point to China used to control 95% of
the refinement of rare earth minerals.
Uh now not only do we have direct deals
with these other countries to get the
minerals, but we've already spun up.
We're doing 12% of our own um refinement
now and we expect by the end of 2026 for
that to be 32% whatever. If he's able to
paint that kind of picture, it's like oh
damn, like this is actually working. If
you've got trade deals with some of our
main partners and they decided we're
backing America, we're with America all
the way. Like if you get Europe on
board, you get Japan on board, you get
South Korea on board, it starts to feel
like, okay, we're actually isolating
China. Okay, cool. But
it could very easily be that this is
just ego v ego. And China literally,
because they don't have to face
elections, can just be like, keep going,
keep literally, we don't care. We're
going to print money, print money, print
money. Uh, and we, this is where we now
start leaning on the red light
capitalism part of this. And we, uh,
show what the advantages are to being
authoritarian. Yeah. We'll get back to
the show in a moment, but first, let's
talk about something that stops most
people from starting an online business.
Overwhelm. When you're staring at a
blank screen wondering how you'll create
product descriptions, set up payment
systems, and figure out shipping, that's
when most people give up. But with
Shopify's AI tools, you don't have to
figure it all out on your own.
Entrepreneurs with zero technical skills
can launch successful stores because
Shopify handles the hard parts. Their AI
assistant, Shopify Magic, writes
compelling product descriptions from
just a few keywords. It creates
personalized FAQs for your customers and
even helps craft email campaigns that
actually convert. From firsttime sellers
to household names like Mattel and Gym
Shark, they give you everything you need
to succeed with award-winning support
every step of the way. Turn your big
business idea into with Shopify on your
side. Sign up for a $1 per month trial
period at
shopify.com/impact all lowercase. Go to
shopify.com/impact now to grow your
business no matter what stage you're in.
Now, let's get back to the show. and
Elon tweeted a stat that might surprise
a couple people about the actual size of
China. So to your point of them
wrestling over who's number one and
number two. Um what is the size of the
Chinese economy in purchasing power
parody in 2025 based on purchasing power
parody PPP? China's GDP is estimated at
approximately 35.29 trillion surpassing
the United States GDP of 28.78 trillion.
Europe's GDP the European member 27
states is estimated at 21.99 trillion in
PPP terms. Thus, China's economy is
about 1.23 times larger than the US and
1.6 times larger than the EU's economy.
That's massive. Yeah. So, this is what
Mogad dot was trying to tell us in the
episode that we did with him and he was
like, Tom, look, you have such a US-
ccentric view. Um, your government spins
and positions and tries to make things
sound great from your perspective, but
the reality is the rest of the world
knows that China's bigger than you guys.
Um, so I don't know, man. it. I know
that I'm being spun at all times. Uh,
and this wouldn't surprise me. Now, PPP,
the whole idea there is that uh, they
may not make as much money per capita.
So, the average per person um, GDP may
be lower than the US, but if everything
in their country is so much cheaper that
they can buy the equivalent of more
stuff, um, that's how you get these
numbers. And so life for them regardless
of what the relative
um metric is like yeah maybe you guys
technically make more money per person.
Um but the things the lifestyle that we
get as a result of that is better here.
So that is very much something to keep
in mind as we figure out who really can
tolerate more pain. Yeah. In sticking
with Elon Musk in AI and future tech
news, he tweeted that robots will
surpass good human surgeons within 5
years and the best human surgeons within
five years. In a few years and the best
human surgeons within five years and
this is in reference to uh Neurolink
using a robot to do a brain computer
electrode insertion um after retweeting
Mario Nall who says that robots are now
performing surgery. Um we've seen a
couple of these in China. There was that
one doctor that did a 5G kind of a video
chat. I'm calling it video chat but like
a remote surgery. He was in a different
province where they were actually doing
it. This robotic testing and surgeries
has been increasing in recent months. Um
it seems like the future is already here
and Neurolink confirmed has actually
just had one done. Bro, this is
thrilling but
is absolute insanity. like when you are
talking about
uh things like the CEO of Perplexity
said that um not perplexity um anthropic
said that by the end of this year that
something like 90 plus% of all code will
be generated by uh AI.
Mark Zuckerberg just came out and said
within 18 months basically all code will
be generated at meta by AI. Uh you've
now got Elon saying good surgeons
uh are done in call it three years and
great surgeons are done in five years.
The this isn't like 30 years 50 years
where it's like ah people are just
making this stuff up. This is like
near-term enough. Now us Elon is wrong
about his dates basically all the time.
So let's double it. Uh six years good
ones surpassed and 10 years the great
ones. This is still not a long time. If
you've got a 5-year-old, he's not even
going to be out of high school. Yeah. By
the time this happens, let me say that
again. If you've got a
5-year-old doubling what he's saying,
your kid's not even going to be out of
high school. If he's right, your kid's
not even going to be in middle school.
So, it's like, yo, this is uh and I went
the other way. If I'm starting my med
school journey, you know, the four
years, four years, four years residency,
like I'll be halfway through my
residency when I'm like, hold on, wait,
I'm replaced now. Like, this is crazy.
But keep in mind, you'll be able to do
extraordinary things. You'll be able to
custom make proteins. So, uh you've got
AlphaFold that can figure out, oh, this
is what the DNA sequence would need to
be in order to generate this uh protein
shape when it's um folded in in the the
final form. And being able to do stuff
like that, dude. Okay. So, we've already
unlocked that. So, that means like how
long does it take people to run the
experiments to test the stuff? Three to
five years. I mean, you're going to be
getting some insanely novel treatments
within 5 years. Absolutely
brainmeltingly freakish in 10. Uh, yeah.
I mean, this is it is entirely possible.
This is definitely sci-fi writer talk,
but I am not the first to say the
following statement that if you can
survive the next 10 years that they
science will be able to
add 12 months of life for every 12
months you live which means your life
will be extended indefinitely. It's what
they call longevity escape velocity. So
that effectively barring traumatic
injury you can live forever in 10 years.
I mean, even if that's 20, that's crazy.
That's nuts. So, anyway, fingers crossed
that we don't annihilate each other
before then because unfortunately that's
all too real with I mean, Jesus, we
haven't even talked about India and
Pakistan now are ratcheting up against
each other and you could have some sort
of skirmish break out there. Hopefully,
very contained. Uh,
India's coming in hot with their
language and there is standing animosity
between India and Pakistan. And by the
way, they're both nuclear, so yeah, they
get they get bad really quick. Um, we
have to get into this debate that broke
the internet over this past weekend. I
feel like it's still been going on. Um,
this is so fascinating. 100 men versus
one gorilla. Um, I've heard I've seen
tweets that were like, "This is how you
can tell the uberous of toxic
masculinity that men think they could be
a gorilla." And then I had other people
that are like, "I just need uh Eric
said, "I just need 10 heavyweight uh UFC
fighters and I can take down that
gorilla. I don't even need 100 people.
So the range the range is large. What
say you about the debate of 100 men
versus one girl? Uh to me it is
self-evident that if you choose wisely
with your men that they are going to win
by a lot.
Uh I always say look back in history to
find the answer to this stuff. If you
look back in history you see there isn't
a single animal that we haven't been
able to um subdue. I don't know the
right word to hold dominion over. Like
if you've seen the people that swim a
great white sharks and stuff, no cage.
They just understand their behavior well
enough that they know like how to move
and what to do. Uh now I wouldn't want
to have to try to outswim a shark, but
if you're saying that um I'm on dry land
with a gorilla and I have a hundred
people that of like So we're looking at
a simulation right now. I'll presume
that you'll put this on screen for
people. Th this is the world's dumbest
simulation because all of the people are
acting like literal NPCs. They are
throwing punches nowhere near the
gorilla. They're attacking one at a
time. They're not talking to each other.
Like the gorilla is clearly being
controlled by the programmer here
because the gorilla will create space,
come back and the humans are all acting
like idiots just like rushing and
rushing and rushing in. But like even
ants can take down things that are far
bigger than they are. They just swarm
you. And so look, one person is uh easy
for a gorilla to dispatch. Three people
is probably easy. Five people is
probably easy. You start getting into 20
30 and it's like, okay guys, listen,
this is what we're going to do. Yeah. I
mean, here are ants taking down a snake
that is effectively infinitely larger.
But now in fairness, that's thousands of
ants. Yeah. But uh also the size
differential is thousands of times.
Yeah. So um it will go something like
this. Uh if I were one of the hundred.
All right guys, listen. The only way
this works is if we um essentially
segment the animal. So we need to remove
its balance and we need to remove its
vision. And if you can hit it in the
throat. If it's as uh weak as a human's
throat, then that's probably a good
place. And you just do that, dude. like,
all right, um, he's going to attack with
his arms, so I need as many people as
humanly possible to grab his legs at the
same time, and then a bunch of us are
going to attack the eyes as fast as we
can. We're going to be poking out eyes.
If he throws one of us off, literally
while he's throwing, like, let's say
it's me, while he's throwing me or
ripping my arms off or whatever, you've
got to use that moment to get to his
eyes. And so now it's like every time he
goes to defend against one, it's another
gouge of the eyes. Defend against one,
another gouge of the eye. I can't
believe how seriously I'm taking this,
but this is like, dude, this is how
humans get to the top of the
evolutionary ladder is we're able to
cooperate flexibly in large groups. It
is absurd to me that this argument got
as far as it got. It's like the human
mind, the human mind, okay, it isn't
because we had uh the sharpest claws or
the most robust fangs. It was because we
could think and plan and cooperate. And
so, uh, when I see things like that, um,
that simulation, it's like all the
things that make a human the ad the
adversary, the most dangerous game, as
the story, uh, calls it, is because of
our minds, not because of our ability to
throw a punch. I'm with you. We'll take
down that gorilla. Yeah. 100 people,
easy. No problem. No problem. All right.
And falling in love is supposed to take
time. But in 1997, psychologist Arthur
Aon made it happen in 45 minutes by
asking only 36 questions. The experiment
worked so well, it ended in marriage.
Here's how he did it. This is a 36
question uh set of questions where each
set gets progressively more intimate,
I'll call it, and then at the end you
stare into each other's eyes for four
minutes. If you follow these recipes,
apparently it like equates to love. I I
think it's important to say it a little
bit different. It's it will allow you to
tell whether this person is a potential
match or not. I don't think it is such
that oh, if you ask these 36 questions
and then stare into somebody's eyes, you
will fall in love. This is just a way to
figure out is this person compatible
with you or not. And what it may get at
I don't know how many people ended up um
getting married after this, but what it
may show is that there's there are far
more people that are compatible with you
than you think and you're missing those
opportunities because you just don't
know how to peel back that onion. Well,
and so people get the ick or whatever
modern term we want to use and they peel
off even though if they had run through
this because one of the rules was you
you cannot skip a question and you must
ask them in order. And so you literally
go from one to 36 asking each of these
questions. As you said, they get
progressively more intimate. And they're
really designed to map um values and to
take you to a vulnerable place so that
the person is really figuring out who
you are. What I like about this and the
reason that I think that this is popping
off now is because we're in a world with
dating apps that are the exact opposite.
People are very easy to reduce to
statistics. They're very easy to reduce
to things that you can fit inside of a
database and then people rule out based
on the database. Whereas the questions
force you to one be in proximity with
the person. So you're picking up on
micro expressions, pherommones, vibes,
like whatever all of that is. Uh and
you're starting sort of light but
interesting and then you're being
drugged into deeper and deeper waters of
shared vulnerability. And there's
something about that act that I think
gives people the opportunity to bond if
there's something there because you
really like yo like I'm really getting
to know this person and I feel some kind
of way and oh man to hear that story
like one of the questions is um if you
knew you were about to die and you were
completely isolated so there was no way
to communicate with anybody else what is
one thing you didn't tell somebody you
wish you had and why didn't you tell
them and so when you get into that
territory of where it's like you know my
I actually know exactly this because
when my dad passed away, I had never
said like XYZ thing and I so regret. So
things or it could be something it's
like whoa, I've never thought about that
before. And then the person goes
somewhere like really um revealing about
who they are and maybe it surprises them
as much as it surprises the other
person. And so now there's like this the
36 questions themselves become a shared
experience. Yeah. Um which I think about
a lot because Lisa and I we still do
this but admittedly not as much as we
used to just because we've asked each
other. so many questions. But every time
we'd go on vacation, I would come up
with like a list of a hundred questions.
And over the vacation, we were just
going to go through and answer all of
the different questions. And any one
night, you probably only get through
five or six questions because it like
sparks all these other questions. Um,
but it really is awesome like
discovering a person, being surprised by
somebody that you know so well and being
like, whoa, I wouldn't have guessed that
that's what you would say. And there is
something about exploring personalities
that's as thrilling as just exploring
space.
Nice. Uh I like the questions. Um I
think that it's less about to your
point, it's less about these questions
equal love and it kind of shows the
vulnerabilities and the true makeup of
the person under it. Because as you're
going through these questions like one
of them is like what will you constitute
a perfect day for you? If somebody says
I'm going to be staring in the mirror
all day doing my makeup, you're like oh
okay you're you know what I mean? Like
yeah, your answer kind of tells you what
the actual person like thinks and feels.
But um it's nice to just actually have
the conversation versus to your point,
just think of the height, date, weight,
uh bank account, like the superficial
things that we kind of gravitate to when
we're dating nowadays. So what I think
is the unsung hero of this as well is
the fact that at the end you're supposed
to stare into each other's eyes without
looking away for four minutes. You
mentioned it up top. That's crazy. Um,
but that is so Lisa and I did this
exercise one time. I forget who
recommended it to me. It was a guest on
the show and they like promised me that
you will do this. And so I promised on
camera. I thought, "Okay, I've promised.
I really need to do this." Uh, and we
sat cross-legged, knee to knee, and
didn't look away from each other for
five minutes. And it is shockingly
intimate. And this is somebody that I've
slept with God knows how many times.
and staring in each other's eyes in some
ways is more intimate than sex. Like
it's really a trip. And the idea that
the eyes are the windows to the soul, I
don't know why that's true. But when you
hold somebody's
gaze for an uncomfortably long time, you
feel some kind of way. Like it's really
interesting. And so I do wonder how much
of it is that the progressive level of
intimacy and self-discovery as well as
discovery of others followed by gazing
in their eyes that you're just like
maybe there really is something here.
Yeah. I don't know man. It's uh the
human mind is fascinating and I hope
people can get beyond just dating apps
because it it isn't working as well as
people would like it to. Yeah. Uh all
right, that's all I got. All right,
everybody. If you're not already joining
us for the lives, make sure you do. They
are Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday at
6:00 a.m. And here are some highlights
from today's live. They said, "What
would need to be true for the US and
China to work together for human
flourishing? What would have to be true
for left and right to quit racing
towards civil war?
Um, we'd need neural link upgrades or a
lot I I mean this I'm obviously being
tongue-in-cheek but uh drugs or neural
link upgrades are about your only option
because the architecture of the human
mind is such that it will just play out
like that. I remember the Rick and Morty
episode where he was beefing with the
president and he was like, I could solve
the Middle Eastern conflicts in two
days. And he flew them to like a foreign
planet, had both got both of them high
and they brokered a deal and he brought
him back to the president like boom. So
that was just funny. Distressingly
accurate. Uh so okay, what would Let me
give you a more grounded answer. The
economy would have to be moving in the
right direction. when the economy is
moving in the right direction and people
believe that a year from now they're
going to be making more money than they
are today and they believe that their
kids' lives will be better than theirs.
Uh people are in a good mood and um
everything is working wonderfully. And
so this is why they say it's the economy
stupid. You've got to find a way to get
the economy moving on the right track.
If you cannot solve that problem then
you're going to continue to have this
kind of divide. Jenny coefficient
explains so much. I don't think it was
you, Drew, but somebody the other day
was telling me that they saw a um
somebody who was begging. Whether
they're homeless or not, I don't know,
but they were begging for money and they
had an iPhone. They said, "Imagine
living in a world where even homeless
people have iPhones." That's the level
of wealth that we have. But it doesn't
matter. What matters
is the difference between the people
that you see every day and you. And if
the people that you're around every day
have a lot more money than you, there is
an algorithm that will trigger in the
human mind and people will go
nuts. So only the differential matters.
And right now the differential is crazy.
And so you've got to address the
differential. The last 30 years have
been marked by exchanging what worked
for what sounds good. Capitalism sounds
[ __ ] terrible, but it works. And so
you've got to let people be selfish.
Why? Because you can trust them to be
selfish. And ironically, it ends up
working because when consumers are
selfish, they end up saying, "You're not
adding enough value to me. I'm going to
go to the other person that's going to
add more value." And I quite literally
don't give a [ __ ] if you go out of
business. That's a you problem. That's
not a me problem. So you make my [ __ ]
You make it the way I want it, for the
price I want it, or you [ __ ] right off.
And so now everybody goes, "Ooh, I want
to beat Tesla." this Elon Musk guy
sucks. So, I'm going to make a thing
that's better than his thing and I'm
going to siphon people off. And that is
why you live in the modern world that
you live in. Now, if you stack a
gazillion little things like uh trying
to cap housing prices, like
overregulating the building of houses to
keep everybody safe, all of a sudden you
realize you're the problem. And you
could be driving the cost of these
assets down or allowing the free market
to make them accessible to the average
person. So what you want people doing
rather than thinking about
redistribution is saying, "How the [ __ ]
do I get people on the intuitive asset
ladder?" And the answer is you do things
like stop capping prices, stop making it
impossible to build a [ __ ] house. But
Drew, that means that you've got to let
some builders build a shystery building
and then somebody moves into it and they
lose their whole [ __ ] net worth. And
by the way, their house collapses, kills
them, uh, burns down around them. They
all die in [ __ ] fiery death, Drew.
And why do you have to let that happen?
Because otherwise, you try to make
everything in this world safe and you
overregulate the [ __ ] out of it. And
again, I understand the emotional
impulse. And I am not uh a libertarian.
I feel weird saying that. I'm not
somebody who doesn't think that
government can't be helpful. I'm just
saying you cannot inherently trust the
government. You have to be like, "God
damn it, do as little as possible. You
don't want to uh overly involve yourself
and you have to let a certain with kids
have to let them encounter difficulty,
Drew. have to, you know, this as a
parent. And so I'm just saying the
government has to let their people go
through some stuff and come up with
solutions so that people go, I don't
trust that [ __ ] builder because he
was the guy that built the thing that
[ __ ] fell down and so [ __ ] him. And
he gets a terrible reputation. The bar.
We're at the bar. You've had a few
drinks. I'm tipsy. The lights are
low. She seems like your type. Oh man,
she's beautiful.
And then we turn the lights up, your
buzz is starting to fade, and now it's
like, "Oh god, this is not what I
thought I'd been talking to all night."
Uh, that is what's happening right now.
The lights have come on because of the
these aren't the first shots in the
trade war, but we've now reached the
point where the lights are turned all
the way up. If you guys aren't already,
make sure you subscribe. And until next
time, my friends, be legendary. Take
care. peace. If you like this
conversation, check out this episode to
learn more. China makes it clear they're
not currently negotiating with the US on
tariffs and fentinel is the US's problem
alone. Besson breaks down the US's
master plan for rebalancing world trade.
Trump drops Trump 2028 merch and I hate
it. India.