Kind: captions
Language: en
China makes it clear they're not
currently negotiating with the US on
tariffs and fentanil is the US's problem
alone. Besset breaks down the US's
master plan for rebalancing world trade.
Trump drops Trump 2028 merch. I hate it.
India threatens to go 9/11 on the
Pakistani terrorists. UK is running
tests on dimming the sun. Justice
Jackson shows her hand on not wanting
parents to opt out their kids out of
questionable books. Drew, cold wars are
the best wars. Let the games begin, man,
because we are certainly in one. We And
China's like clapping back. That is my
new favorite Twitter account. Um MFA
China. They're like, "Yeah, no. We're
not negotiating. Trump didn't call me. I
don't know what he's talking about. The
US needs to stop creating confusion."
Without using the word liar, they were
like,
"This man is not telling you the truth."
Now, what's really going on? I have no
idea. Uh I am being spun at all times. I
am well aware of that. both sides are
going to say what they want you to hear.
So, I don't know. It's very possible
he's literally not been able to get in
contact with Xi at all. It's entirely
possible he and Xi are actually talking,
but you're going to see a PR battle
going back and forth between the US and
China. Everybody trying to control the
narrative, everybody trying to position
like, hey, we're the ones that have it.
It's interesting that Bessant is now um
moving his rhetoric on to actually
mapping out what they're trying to do,
talking openly about China as they
address the um IMF and the World Bank.
So, the inter international monetary
fund uh and the World Bank in terms of
hey, these are the things that we need
to see happen, which to me could be uh
yet another counter punch. So, we do the
tariffs, they tariff us back. Uh we're
like, okay, maybe we're not going to get
the movement here that Trump wanted.
they move on to something else. And so
everybody's got a plan until they get
punched in the face. Um all the sort of
bullying rhetoric from either side, man.
You you cannot expect the other team to
roll over. Neither the US nor China are
just going to be like, "Yeah, cool. I'm
going to adopt your worldview." So I
have a feeling that this is going to
drag on for a long time. And Trump is in
a race to the midterms, man. And with
every day that passes, if they don't
have some real wins they can put on the
board, it's it's going to be tough. Like
if he loses at the midterms, it's game
over. That's where I'm like, he's not
going to be able to pull this off at
that point if he loses a house. Uh cuz
already like he's being stymied by just
public opinion and the um judiciary
branch. They're constantly blocking him.
So, I'm sure people will take exception
to my read that um they're losing the
will of the public, but that early
energy where it just felt like these
guys had the mandate, they could do
whatever. If anybody feels like they
still have that, they are living in a
different universe than I. I'm not
saying he's not going to be able to pull
this off, but if I'm a betting man, I
think the odds are against him at this
point. So, um we'll see what happens.
Now, because I'm an American, I want to
see us win. And so, this is the guy that
I have. And so I'm going to constantly
be trying to explain what he might be
doing um in the fingers crossed hope
that that we're able to get this across
the finish line. But um I think that we
have I think that the positioning that
the Trump administration has want us to
have over like I've got a great
relationship with Xi. This is all going
to be great. No worries. We're going to
have a deal. It's going to be easy. Um
this this is probably protracted. Yeah.
Like as in definitely not weeks,
probably not even months. You're
probably north of a year before you get
something really settled. Wow. Would be
my instinct given how aggressive both
postures are. All right. Now, let's go
to the China MFA spokesperson's actual
Twitter account so we can read it from
the dragon's mouth. I was going to say
the horse's mouth. Look at that. The
dragon. Let's go. China and the US are
not having any consultation or
negotiation on tariffs. The US should
stop creating confusion. And then they
also
tweeted that fentanyl is the US problem,
not China's. The US and the US alone has
the responsibility to solve it. Despite
the goodwill China has shown, the US
slap tariffs on Chinese imports and
blames it on fentanyl. This is bullying
through and through and highly damaging
to dialogue and cooperation on counter
narcotics. The US should know that
vilifying others will not hide its
failed responsibility. to punish those
who try to help will not solve any
problem and intimidation or threats are
certainly not the right way to engage
with China. Okay, so I'll admit that I
felt some kind of way reading this tweet
and as I pride myself on not steering my
life by emotion, I know that this kind
of escalatory rhetoric is going to
further push people into their camps
here in the US. There are going to be
plenty of people that read that and go,
"Yeah, the US is acting like a bunch of
bullies and we've got to stop
immediately." and they're going to hate
everything about the US's policy. Uh,
and then other people are going to say
like, yo, if China thinks that they can
slap us around, like they've got another
thing coming. Uh, so this is going to
get weird before it gets better. And I I
have now taken up a daily routine of
reminding myself um, China is full of a
lot of amazing people that just want to
love their kids and they want to do
rad while they may be our rival, they
don't need to be our adversary. I don't
want to live in a polyiana world. Um I
certainly understand the idea of great
power politics and neither of us are
going to accept accept second place but
one of us is going to end up in second
place. Uh so this is a this is a careful
battle and I find that the more that
they escalate the more I find myself
wanting to deescalate even though I
consider this to be a very big problem.
Uh when talking to Mike
Baker, former CIA analyst, uh yesterday,
I was like, "Yeah, I consider China uh
to be our second biggest problem uh only
to debt." And this is something that we
have to take very seriously, but we also
have to understand that if we allow
ourselves to get goated into being more
and more aggressive, then the other side
will get more and more aggressive and
we'll end up in a dust spiral. Uh and
that would very much be the antithesis
of where I want to see this end. Yeah. A
year is a crazy like announcement
though. Like I if it takes that long,
Trump has to be done because the tariffs
I feel like he hung his head on this. He
got a lot of early wins with the border
crossings. He got a lot of early wins
with crypto and then it was like, "Okay,
now I'm going to take on this tariff
thing." And China's not backing down.
Apparently, we met with 90 countries. We
haven't seen a signed contract yet. So,
it sounds like it maybe he did just bark
up a tree that was bigger than he
thought. Maybe he just I don't know yet.
So, this is where people think that I'm
defending Trump. I'm not. I highly
advise everybody in the world to try to
understand what is happening. Uh versus
first trying to decide who's right. So,
I'm trying to map out what exactly is
happening. It's entirely possible that
Trump is just an agent of chaos. Uh he
can't help himself that constitutionally
that's just what he does. It's also
possible, as I've outlined several
times, that he believes that chaos is a
part of how you get people off of a
stubborn spot. And so as I see Bessant
moving now to talking specifically about
the IMF and the um World Bank and
saying, "Hey, this is ridiculous that
China is being treated as if they're a
developing nation." When in fact they're
he refers to them as the second biggest
uh I think he just said country. But if
you take it economically because you
could be the first biggest country just
by population and be developing. So I'll
assume he means economically. Uh so I
assume he means behind us and not India
on a population level. Exactly. So when
you look at it through that lens, it's
like yeah, it's pretty ridiculous that
they're one, there are credible people
that will tell you that they're the
largest economy. Uh and but even if they
are the second largest economy, the fact
that the IMF and World Bank are still
treating them like they're a developing
nation that need um special treatment,
that is pretty crazy. Uh so whether this
was always part of the plan and we were
just sewing chaos in the beginning and
we're now moving on um to the second
part of the plan which is we begin to
offer structure or this was just no no
he's unhinged and he creates chaos and
then he makes something of it or maybe
he just creates chaos and uh Bessant and
let Nicknit come in behind him and put
structure. It it almost doesn't matter
to me at this point. The question
becomes are we going to be able to take
advantage of this moment? And I was very
impressed with the speech that Besson
gave um at the it was like IM conference
or something. I have to look at it in a
second. I if whatever um and at that
conference and we're going to go through
this and we'll stop occasionally to talk
about what the different things mean. Um
but he's really trying to focus people
on this is exactly what we're trying to
achieve. This is what we're doing. This
is what success looks like. These are
the the specific things that have to
change. At one point it felt like he
wasn't going to mention China by name
and then he obviously thought better of
it and just started naming them which I
thought was smart because you I we've
got to say what we're really trying to
do here. You can't give me a president
that is um a WWE fighter um and then not
have somebody behind him that's like
okay now we're going to talk about what
this really means where the rubber meets
the road. Yeah. Uh I'm not a big fan I'm
not a fan on the international stage the
way that Trump talks. I do find him
entertaining. I'd be a liar if I said
that I didn't.
Um it's nice to have a politician that
really just says uh what they're
thinking. I won't even say that they
only say the truth because that almost
certainly is isn't true. Um but he
really does say what he's thinking. And
so he reveals so much of himself which I
find very refreshing. But on the
international stage, he sounds like a
lunatic. Uh and you don't have to look
farther than what's happening to the um
Dow Jones with all the big swings that
we're seeing in the S&P uh to know that
he's creating a tremendous amount of
uncertainty. But every time I listen to
Bessant, every time I listen to Lutnik,
these are people that have a string of
logic that I can follow. In the final
months of World War II, Western leaders
convened the greatest economic minds of
their generation. their task to build a
new financial system. At a quiet resort
high up in the mountains of New
Hampshire, they laid the foundation for
PAX Americana. The architects of Breton
Woods recognized that a global economy
required global coordination. To
encourage that coordination, they
created the IMF and the World Bank.
These twin institutions were born after
a period of intense geopolitical and
economic volatility. The purpose the IMF
and the World Bank was to better align
national interest with international
order thereby bringing stability to an
unstable world. Okay. So I don't think a
lot of people realize that we are living
in a world order that was uh the result
of a conference that World War II
happens, everybody's exhausted,
everybody's in debt to the US. Um so
many people have died. I it is the debt
jubilee that Ray Dalio talks about so
eloquently. So you have that moment. Uh
Britain loses its empire. They realize
we're so in debt to the US at this
point. We have basically no leverage.
But you have this collision of uh
Britain and this is this is going to be
from memory a highle uh retelling of it.
So if I get any of the details wrong
trust me the gist is there. Uh but you
basically have a collision of economic
world views uh where how are we going to
move forward with this and what we end
up with is
the US saying we are going to be the
world's reserve currency. We are the
biggest player here. uh we've still got
the manufacturing base. We're in the
strongest economic position and so the
worldview that we want, Pax Americana as
he called it, um is going to be what
happens and that's exactly what happens.
And we brought a guy on uh to talk about
the details of this a while ago, Graham
Moore. Graham Moore, thank you. Uh wrote
a whole fictionalized retelling of this
story. Absolutely fascinating. Anybody
that's interested should read it. Uh and
it tells the behind-the-scenes
maneuvering of these economists as they
collide. Mhm. Long and the short of it
is we end up with a world where America
basically agrees to be the world's
policeman. America agrees uh to help
rebuild all these countries to loan a
bunch of money to make sure that
everybody can get back on their feet to
make sure that there's like you said
stability of currencies uh that we have
a way to manage if there's a country
that's having a crisis that there's a
way to manage it. um to uh for the World
Bank to pull people out of poverty um
and use lending practices to try to help
raise everybody up. And it's worked
extraordinarily well and a lot of the
when we talk about um capitalism has
pulled more people out of poverty than
any other thing. What we're talking
about is this uh the Pax Americana world
with the IMF, the World Bank, and
lending money to people that meet
certain requirements and it helps them
all rise.
He's going to get into more details
about it, but it's to understand that
you are in a
constructed world rather than, oh, this
is just randomly how it all sorted out
is the very important thing to
understand because the very thing I
don't need you to believe that Trump
understands all of this, though he
probably understands more than he's
getting credit for because he hired
these guys. Uh but certainly Bessant
understands it and he understands that
uh for reasons we'll talk about as he
goes through this. But uh for very
specific reasons, we have to now come up
with a new world order. And if we're
going to leverage the tools that already
exist, there are very specific things we
have to do. My goal this morning is to
outline a blueprint to restore
equilibrium to the global financial
system and the institutions designed to
uphold it. I have spent the bulk of my
career from the outside looking in on
financial policy circles. Now I am on
the inside looking out. The IMF and
World Bank have enduring value. But
Mission Creep has knocked these
institutions off course. We must enact
key reforms to ensure the Bretonwoods
institutions are serving their
stakeholders, not the other way around.
uh the idea of we need to rebalance
things. So um that that's very plainly a
conversation about America and Russia
the most. There are other things with
Europe whatever but the the big
collision there is between the US and
China. At first he's koi and then he um
does call it right out. Uh and then the
other thing is this idea of mission
creep and what he's talking about with
mission creep. does end up stating it,
but this is the thing that for me felt a
little bit uh late was the idea of like
DI policies um climate change. Climate
change, thank you. Things like that
where it's like that's not what this was
meant to be in the beginning. And so
let's renarrow the focus back to
economics. How do we get energy
stability? Um how do we make sure that
the countries actually need the money
get the money? Uh and then how do we
make sure that we're not putting China
in a privileged position? I wish to be
clear. America first does not mean
America alone. To the contrary, it is a
call for deeper collaboration and mutual
respect among trade partners. Far from
stepping back, America First seeks to
expand US leadership in international
institutions like the IMF and the World
Bank by embracing a stronger leadership
role. America First seeks to restore
fairness to the international economic
system. That admittedly feels like a
word game. That feels like, oh Jesus,
Trump has given me this thing that I
have to work with. I can't contradict
that. That's what he's saying because
that is the world's worst marketing on
an international stage. Like it's not
like in Breton Woods, I don't think they
actually use the term like we're
building Pax Americana. I think people
would have said if we do that we end up
in PAX Americana. He'd be like no no no
like it's not going to be like that. So
I do feel like he's a bit lumbered with
that. So if anybody feels like oh god
this this feels awkward. Like why are we
trying to do this jiu-jitsu with America
first? That actually means all of us
first. No, that's what I You mean
specifically America first? Like that's
Well, it really will work out that
America is trying to put itself in pole
position. There's no doubt about that.
Now, we're sort of in the waning days of
being able to make that claim. China is
very specifically saying, uh, no hard
pass. You've already lost that. That
doesn't make any sense. That world
existed for a while. That period is
over. And they have a very credible case
to make along those lines. given how
many allies they built, given how much
they're um doing from a manufacturing
standpoint, given how big their economy
is. So, we're we are either already past
the point where we have the cards to
play. And that's why I'm saying this may
take longer than we expect. We'll see.
Um or we're in the waning days and you
better play that ace while you still
have it. So, um, but
that idea of America first is god awful
when you're trying to build
international cooperation. So, we still
have the most voting power in the IMF.
We do and we contribute the most money
and all of that, but we only have like
16.8% or something like that. Still big
dog in one way. So, yes. Uh, but when
you make up less than 20%, you're going
to have a hard time like getting your
way without building coalitions. So, you
got to build coalitions. Yeah. The
status quo of large and persistent
imbalances is not sustainable. It is not
sustainable for the United States and
ultimately it is not sustainable for
other economies. Now I know
sustainability is a popular term around
here but I'm not talking about climate
change or carbon footprints. I'm talking
about economic and financial stability.
the kind of si sustainability that
raises standards of living and keeps
markets afloat. International financial
institutions must be singularly focused
on upholding this kind of sustainability
if they are to succeed in their
missions. In response to President
Trump's tariff announcements, more than
100 C countries have approached us
wanting to help rebalance global trade.
They've got to start delivering on
those, man. Yeah. First it was like 50,
then it was 75. Now it's 100. But where
are the deals? Where's the signed
paperwork? Where's the Look, maybe it's
unreasonable for it to be this soon. But
I think this is part of why Trump has
had to back off some of his messaging
because it's like, bro, we're not going
to get these deals done as fast as we
thought we were. And so you've been
promising people like, oh, we're gonna
get it done like ASAP Rocky. And now
it's like, uh, that's not happening. So
you need to chill. You can either close
these deals fast and be like crazy with
your language or rein your language in
and give us time to do this. But you
can't like both expect me to do a
six-month process uh and deal with the
manic language. China in
particularly in particular is in need of
a rebalancing.
Recent data shows the Chinese economy
tilting even further away from
consumption toward
manufacturing. China's economic system
with growth driven by manufacturing
exports will continue to create even
more serious imbalances with its trading
partners if the status quo is allowed to
continue. China's current economic model
is built on exporting its way out of its
economic troubles. It's so interesting
to me the more I look at the way that
the global economy works um that you get
it it's a spectrum for sure but you get
economies that are like we're big and
strong because we buy a lot of stuff and
then you have to ask the question well
how are you able to buy a lot of stuff
you build the middle class up you get
wages up like there's a whole host of
things that you do within your own
country including how you deal with
capital controls who you loan money to
blah blah blah uh you do all of those
things and then people are able to buy
and then other countries like China who
are like we make a bunch of stuff and
but that's not great for all the people
inside their country now because they've
moved so many people out of like I have
nothing to eat and I am quite literally
watching my family starve to death to we
now make you know $12,000 a year that's
a huge move huge move but people in
America would be mortified if they were
making $12,000 a year so that is where
this gets interesting is understanding
how these games are played and when you
are the we make a bunch of [ __ ] Uh,
first of all, you're getting strong from
a manufacturing standpoint, which is
always good from a we can choke you out
if this ever if we go from rivals to
adversaries. If this becomes
militaristic, just like the US was able
to be so influential in World War II
because we just shifted all of our
physical manufacturing over to building
war stuff. And China
has I I believe that China because of
their hundred-year plan, this was not an
accident that they were like, "Cool,
guess what? what we need to get good at.
We need to get good at physical
manufacturing. And so when I first
started learning about this, I was like,
this is really weird that the US wants
them. Like, what do you mean? Why are
you mad that they're making stuff
cheaply? Like, you should want to be
doing it in your own country. Like, I
get that, but how can you look at them
and be like, you can't do that. Yeah, of
course I can. The reason is that they're
artificially driving the um value of the
yuan down so that the exports are cheap.
So they do currency manipulation. They
artificially hold their people's wages
down. So here in the US, like beating
the drum, got to raise wages, all that,
like trying to more more more. And not
that that doesn't get fought, but like
compared to what's going on in China,
we're way farther along that road. But
that means you're not going to be able
to make goods as cheaply. So basically
what he's saying is stop manipulating
your currency. Stop holding wages
artificially low. And that is the thing
that's allowed you to become this
manufacturing powerhouse. And it's not
quoteunquote fair. It's not balanced.
Yeah. We need to talk about your online
security. Your password, the one you use
for your banking, your email, and your
social media might be up for sale on the
dark web right now for less than a buck.
Cyber security is a huge concern for me,
especially as a game developer. I'm all
too aware of how many points of
vulnerability we have. And here is why.
One breach is all it takes for hackers
to access everything you own. That's why
I'm excited to partner with RoboForm
password manager. RoboForm creates and
manages strong, unique passwords for
every site you use. One click and you're
securely logged in. No memorizing, no
compromises. Consider RoboForm your
complete digital security system. It
autofills forms, securely shares access,
and monitors your accounts for weak and
breached passwords. The next cyber
attack is coming. Protect yourself.
Click the link in the show notes and get
60% off your first year with RoboForm.
Stop making it easy for hackers. Get
RoboForm now. Now, let's get back to the
show. The IMF's mission is to promote
international monetary cooperation,
facilitate the balanced growth of
international trade, encourage economic
growth, and discourage harmful policies
like competitive exchange rate
depreciation. These are crucially
important functions to support the US
and global economies. Instead, the IMF
has suffered from mission creep. The IMF
was once unwavering in its mission of
promoting global monetary cooperation
and financial stability. Now it devoted
disproportionate time and resources to
work on climate change, gender and
social issues. These issues are not the
IMF's mission and the IMF's focus in
these areas is crowding out its work on
critical macroeconomic issues. The IMF
must be a brutal trutht teller and not
just to some members.
Today IMF the IMF has been whistling
past the graveyard. Its 2024 external
sector report was entitled imbalances
receding. This polyianish outlook is
symptomatic of an institution more
dedicated to preserving the status quo
than answering the hard questions. Here
in the United States, we know we need to
get our fiscal house in order. The last
administration ran up the largest
peacetime deficit in our nation's
history. The current administration is
committed to fixing this. We are open to
critique, but we will not abide the IMF
failing to critique the countries that
most need it, principally surplus
countries. In line with its core
mandate, the IMF needs to call out
countries like China that have pursued
globally distortive policies and opaque
currency practices for many decades. I
also expect the IMF to call out
unsustainable lending practices by
certain creditor countries. The IMF
should push more
proactively official bilateral lenders
to come to the table early to work with
borrower countries to minimize periods
of debt distress. The IMF must refocus
its lending on addressing balance of
payment problems and its lending should
be temporary. When done responsibly, IMF
lending is at the very core of its
contribution to the global economy.
KPIs, man. Like, you've got to have KPIs
and be like, either we're the things
that we're doing are moving people
towards that or they're not. the people
that are coming and asking for us to
lend the money. Either they're doing
things with the money that make sense or
they're not. And uh a failure to hold
people accountable to the actual stated
results that you're trying to get are
how you find yourself in this situation.
So um yeah, I am needless to say very
excited to hear these kind of words
being said. The bank can use its
resources more efficiently now by
focusing on increasing energy access.
Business leaders the world over identify
unreliable power supply as one of the
primary impediments to investment. The
World Bank and African Development
Bank's joint mission 300 initiative to
expand energy access to 300 million more
people in Africa is a welcome effort.
But the World Bank must respond to
count's energy priorities and needs and
focus on dependable technologies that
can sustain economic growth rather than
seek to meet distortionary climate
finance targets. We applaud the recent
announcement that the World Bank will
seek to remove prohibitions on support
for nuclear energy which could
revolutionize energy supply for many
emerging markets. We encourage the bank
to go further in giving countries access
to all technologies that can provide
affordable base load generation. The
World Bank must be techneutral and
prioritize affordability in energy
investment. In most cases, this means
investing in gas and other fossil
fuelbased energy production. In other
cases, this may mean investing in
renewable energy coupled with systems to
help manage the intermittency of wind
and solar. The history of humanity
teaches a simple lesson. Energy
abundance sparks economic
abundance. That's why the bank should
encourage an all of the- above approach
to energy development. Energy abundance
equals financial abundance. Man, I I
can't stress that enough. The fact that
we got in some weird twist about uh
nuclear is deeply troubling. I get why
people look out at the world and they're
like, uh, I don't want to see uh gray
skies. I don't want my kids or myself
breathing tainted air. Like I get it
clouds, but uh from the perspective of
nuclear
uh you want to see innovation, you want
to see them made safer, but the reality
is the amount of energy, clean energy
that they can output is crazy.
And if energy is so tied to prosperity
of the country, you've got to give
people the ability to generate that kind
of energy output. Uh and if you don't,
by the way, they're just going to be
doing a bunch more coal, uh gas, like
all the things that are creating the
gray skies and the hard to breathe air.
So, um yeah, I'm very excited. I hope
that this obviously takes root. We're
the US is not able to force through
these agendas.
on their team, but you've already
announced that
increasing energy access, the World Bank
can use its resources more effectively
by starting to apply its graduation
policy. This would allow the bank to
focus on lending to poorer, less
creditworthy countries. This is where
World Bank support makes the biggest
difference for poverty and growth.
Instead, the World Bank continues to
lend every year to countries that have
met the criteria to graduate from World
Bank borrowing. There is no
justification for this continued
lending. No one who financed or supplied
the Russian war machine will be eligible
for funds earmarked for Ukraine's
reconstruction.
No one. To conclude, I invite our allies
to work with us as we rebalance the
international financial system, refocus
the IMF and World Bank on their founding
charters. America first means we are
doubling down on our engagement with the
international economic system, including
at the IMF and the World Bank. a more
sustainable economic system will be one
that better serves the interests of the
United States and all the other
participants in the system. I thought
that was great great talk, great vision.
Um, love what they have in mind. Yeah.
When he says China needs to like
graduate up, what do you just get away
from manufacturing and Well, when he
said that specifically, he was talking
about being eligible for certain lending
from um uh I think from the World Bank.
So yeah, basically countries go through
a period where they're a developing
nation. The whole goal is that you're
lending the money that they otherwise
wouldn't be able to get that they can
then drive into, especially energy,
which is he was saying like intermittent
energy is one of the reasons other
countries won't come in and invest.
Other wealthy people won't come in and
invest. So if you're trying to seek
getting the dollars that you need to
build the infrastructure or build the um
technology, all the things you'd want to
have in your country, then you've got to
have a reliable energy source. So
anyway, they do things like that to help
countries move through that phase into
being a um developed nation. And the
problem is right now China is still
being treated as if they're in the
developing nation status or and I don't
know if that's the exact name, but
they're basically uh still claiming to
be in uh the status that they're clearly
not in anymore. Especially not if you uh
look at what China's been able to do
from an infrastructure city standpoint.
I mean, clearly these guys are a
full-blown developed nation. They're a
big boy economy. They're they're not at
the kids table. Yeah.
Uh when I heard this, my immediate like
reaction was like, who are we to dictate
international terms? Like who are we to
get on the stage? And then I realized I
did some homework on Gemini. And this
was established in the US in Bretonwood.
So we did create that first uh that
first world order. So now that we are
renegotiating it, it does make sense
that best in America is leading the
charge. But the economies have changed,
the perception has changed, culture has
changed. Do you still think we are the
drivers and we have that good north
star? Do you think that other countries
will get on board? Cuz I think at the
end of World War II, it's easy to get
everybody to sit down and excuse me,
negotiate where there's a conflict on
every other continent. It seems like
they have other things that are a bit
more important than serving the needs of
America in this moment. I mean, there's
no doubt that the US and China are
pulling harder against each other than
they would have historically. Uh, but
the reality is that your voting is
proportional to the amount that you
contribute. And so, currently, we still
contribute more than anybody else. Uh,
and if people want to knock us down a
peg, then they're going to have to pay
for the privilege. So, uh, we still have
to get people on board. Like I said,
we're less than 20%. So it's not like we
can just go in and say well because we
say it is going to be but by ourselves
we are the largest quote unquote
shareholder. So we have the from an
individual voice perspective we have the
loudest voice but if everybody bands
together and says nope we don't want to
do it your way then it won't happen
because we're not able to outvote them.
The only thing I mean this would be
truly the nuclear option would be for us
to say then we're ejecting out of the
IMF or ejecting out of the World Bank.
And if we did that then um I don't know
that it would dissolve but it would be
dramatically impaired. Um the United
States has a 16.5% voting share. China
is 6.1 to 6.5. I mean Japan is 6.1 to
6.5. China is 6.0 to 6.4. Um we have
France. We have Germany and some of the
other players in there as well. Africa
the entire continent is 6.5%. So it
basically skews by how much you
contribute and what you were there. So
US, China and Japan being the top three
seems like the power players of the
global economy. So the people who need
to establish this are at the table. So
we'll see. Yeah. Depending on how you
group Europe, Europe as a block is very
powerful. Individual countries less so,
but as a block they're massive. Yeah.
And and this through the IMF lens at
least each country is its own block.
Yeah. But if Europe is operating in a
coordinated fashion, this is how you end
up having to really get people on board.
Uh you've got to have allies because um
yeah, uh first of all, people don't want
to piss off China because they control
so much of the manufacturing. Uh second,
with the size of the other economies,
it's it's a dance. We don't want to make
everybody mad. We're obviously the most
willing to piss people off, both because
of our strength and because of Trump's
personality.
Um, but this is a game of alliances.
Yeah. Um, well, we know Mother's Day is
coming up. So, if you have any Oh, God.
I know where you're going. If you need
any ideas, the Trump store has a
fantastic new collection they just
dropped. And it's the Trump 2028 hat.
But wait, everybody, constitutionally,
this shouldn't even be a thing. Um, I
said it at the top of the show, man.
Trump had an early win with immigration.
He had an early win with Bitcoin, and
then he turns around and feeds the
trolls. Um, I think this does nothing
but hurt his image and just propagates
the Nazi fascism dictatorship rhetoric.
Um, the people that hate him already
hate him. The people that love him love
this and people like me that are on the
fence are going to break one way or the
other. I hate it. Uh, I mean, I get the
troll of it all, but it's like for the
reasons that you mentioned, I don't want
to see him leaning into any of that
stuff. And I think he's I think if
people offered him a third term, he
would take it. Absolutely. And that is
the part that I don't like. Absolutely.
Wouldn't pass go, wouldn't collect $200,
nothing. Yes. Sign me up right here. Um,
so yeah, I do worry that he's using all
of this as a way to normalize it. Yeah.
And then he's just going to be like,
well, they're under this act. If we pass
that, then I can either suspend uh the
election or whatever. And it's like, oh
god, I hate everything about that. He
used a special act to start the tariff
war by saying it's a crisis through
fentanyl trafficking. He used a special
act to enforce the immigration so that
way he was able to deport those uh
illegals in um Venezuela and El Salvador
very fast. So I don't know if there's an
act that can make us suspend an election
or some of course well the bad news is I
think that I I would have to look at it
but certainly in a lot of countries when
you're at war you don't have to. Uh, so
the last thing I want is to incentivize
him to go to a war. Now, he's been very
verbal about being anti-war, but given
everything that's going on with I think
Iran is probably a way more
um like current thing that could pop
off, they don't scare me nearly as much
as China. But in terms of actual kinetic
war, um Rubio was saying that Trump
doesn't want to go to war. He's not
somebody who campaigned on war, but he
reserves the right to use military
force. They are not getting a nuclear
weapon. So,
uh, that that's one of those where Lord
knows I don't want to see that play out.
I I love peace. I love that we act like
we're in peace time. America been
bombing people since like 1975. So,
we've bombed the we bombed the Houthies
a couple weeks ago. So, by no means
we're not in the war, but there are
weapons flying. There are amunitions
being expounded. They are stare nakedly
at that truth. That is for sure. Uh but
policing things is far less scary than
another Iraq, another Afghanistan,
another Vietnam for that matter. Like
that, that's when it gets really gnarly
really fast. And then if we collided
with China, I don't know if um would
they be able to get drone carriers close
enough that they could launch drone
warfare on our own soil? I don't know. I
I just don't know the technology. But I
in my sort of mental nightmares uh about
that
escalating, it's it's that it's not um
nukes or anything like that. I think
we're still not there. I think that that
would be so unwise. I think our I think
the drone thing Andrew released their
microwave technology. Drones is less of
a threat now. Um we'll see. So some will
get through of course, but instead of a
swarm of a million, it might be a swarm
of a thousand, which still can do
damage. I'm not still terrifying. Um but
yeah, yeah, cyber attack is definitely
the first that's the first thing. Well,
the first thing is economic. You're
already there. And then they're going to
weaponize Tik Tok and then Dan Fair.
They're going to activate the China that
they've already done. That they have
already
done already did the economics. Yep. The
the the lab leak has been confirmed.
There's no way they did that on purpose.
The cover up. Yes.
They got hit. They got hit just as hard
as anybody else. So, uh I don't buy that
they did it on purpose, but um I do buy
that they did the cover up and they
don't want to talk about it. And I am
surprised that even we're like, "Let's
just roll on."
Um that that was sloppy. And by the way,
we have to stare uh nakedly at what was
our role in that? Were we funding it?
Yeah. Um that's where you got to know.
Now, I'm not like a my my default
impulse isn't lock them up. Like I'm not
a go get Fouchy guy. I'm like, we need
to understand if we've been doing dumb
things as a country so that we can stop
doing dumb things because if we're
funding gain of uh gain of function
research still, we should stop. So,
we'll see. It's kind of like when they
clone that sheep in the 90s and then we
never talked about cloning. Yeah. Then
we never talked about cloning ever
again. Like they America was just like,
"Yeah, we found we figured it out. We're
done now." Oh, come on now. But I wonder
if that's the same technology that
allows people now to use skin cells to
create uh sperm and egg. I say all that
to say we don't go backwards in
technology. Once the cat's out the bag,
it's only going to go forward. So gain a
function. They got the COVID strand. I'm
sure there's a CO 67 that they're
working on right now. Yeah. And probably
not the one you have to worry about.
It's going to be something else. Some
other biological weapon. Crazy. Well,
India is I don't want to call this act
of war because you know they did have a
terrorism attack. So this is a response
but their um Prime Minister Modi had
some strong words for the attackers um
that attack 20 they were responsible for
26 deaths last week. They're claiming it
was a Pakistani attack. Pakistan has
refuted the attack said they had nothing
to do with it. It happened by a resort
near Kashmir which is an Indian
controlled territory. Um it killed at
least 26 and there are a bunch more in
critical um critical condition. Yes.
So this is the PM mod's words um to his
uh populace.
Friends,
today from the soil of
Bihar, I say to the whole
world, India will,
identify,
track and
punish every
terrorist and their backard.
We will pursue
them to the ends of the to the ends of
the earth. Yeah. Um and almost on queue
on Friday, Indian officials say that
troops exchanged fire with Pakistani
soldiers um today today early this
morning. So um I'm hoping this doesn't
go full kinetic but India is clearly on
the hunt and Pakistan its nearest
neighbor is trying to protect themselves
but it seems like they might have some
responsibility. This is still a
developing story. I don't have all the
information but I hope this is not
another conflict because we already got
something in the Middle East. We already
got something in Ukraine and Russia. I
don't think we want anything in India
Pakistan either. Yeah. I mean given the
scale of this uh I would not expect it
to spiral too far out of control. Um, if
this were closer to something on the
scale of October 7th, then this could
really escalate fast. Um, but yeah, I I
mean, look, what a deep and devastating
tragedy. Um, and I certainly get the
energy coming off of him. It really does
remind me of 911. This was how we were
talking after that attack. But this
isn't on that scale. Um, so my hope is
that, you know, these are words to make
the country feel good and that they
really are going to be aggressive trying
to track them down. Uh, but that in no
way, shape, or form are they going to
are we going to see that kind of
escalation? That would be bad. Copy. Uh,
yeah, we'll still uh we'll monitor the
situation closely and see what else
comes out of it. Um, all right. I got a
speedrun of some stuff that this is
crazy. Um, the UK is currently running
tests to dim the sunlight. Um, we're
still getting breaking news. They have
to officially vote for it to make it
official. Um, but some reports are
saying that they're going to inject um,
aerosol gases. Some reports are saying
that it's going to be a method used to
brightening the clouds to reflect sun.
The whole point of this is to uh, reduce
global warming. Um, I want to just hope
put that to the side for a second. I
read fre uh freconomics years ago and
they talked about uh Bill Gates run like
um what's not uh startup uh when it's uh
the people all in the same incubator um
a Bill Gates incubator that solved
climate change and this was like 2007 or
something and they were like oh we could
just put up 17 balloons across 16
different hemispheres and we'll be good.
I know hemisphere isn't 16 but like um
over like North America over South
America but they'll need to be like one
over Iraq, three over China, one over
Russia. So just politically, geo, like
there's too many geopolitics. Nobody's
gonna allow us to release a mysterious
gas balloon in their atmosphere. So
that's why they kind of hit like a wall
of like truly reducing global warming.
Um, but to me, for UK specifically to go
as far as like block the sun or dim the
sun, um, that seems a little crazy to
me, dystopian. Like I get science, but
I'm like, where's the Yeah, I don't know
enough about the science to know if we
should be worried about this. But this
is something that you want to be very
skeptical of in terms of there are going
to be second and third order
consequences if we release this into the
air. How does it dissolve? Uh where does
it go? What else is it going to affect?
Does it end up in the soil? Does it end
up in the water? Like there are going to
be a lot of things you're going to want
to make sure that you think through and
make sure that you have a sense of like
how is this going to play? But we
already do seed clouds and things like
that. So we're already running some
pretty big geological experiments. So,
uh, one, are those working? Are they
creating problems? What are the knock-on
effects? Uh, but yeah, I mean, to be
honest, I look at global warming and I
say that the way out of this is
innovation. The way out of this is not
um asking people to do less with their
life, to have less energy, all that.
That doesn't make sense. You want to
find ways to innovate. So without
knowing the specifics of this, I'll say
directionally yes, innovation is the
right answer, but I would very much want
to know that there's global cooperation
and this isn't one country going rogue.
Yeah, exactly. Um, all right. Round
robin for some judges. So there's been
Trump has been running against activist
judges his entire uh campaign so far. So
on the first uh lens, uh Supreme Court
uh Katanji Brown Jackson um released a
statement. I'm struggling to see how it
burdens a parent's religious exercise.
If the school teaches something that the
parent disagrees with, you have a
choice. You don't have to send your kid
to that school. You can put them in
another situation. That was on the
ruling of whether LGBTQ uh friendly
curriculums are allowed to be taught in
schools cuz they the parents claimed
that it was stepping on their relig
religious freedoms. I don't even
understand this argument. This sounds
crazy to me. Now, you know my stance on
the Supreme Court. Whenever I have an
intuition that goes against this, I'm
like, "This is why we have a Supreme
Court. It's their job to know
constitutional law a lot better than
me." Uh, and so whatever they end up
voting, I'll roll with. But, uh, this
strikes me as absurd. All as far as I
understand, all parents are saying is I
would like to use the religious
exemption
uh that if there is curriculum being
presented that I don't want my kid to
hear that they can opt out. So, let's
make it about something that I'm into.
Let's say it's evolution. Should parents
be able to opt their kids out of
learning about evolution? Yes. Like,
what the [ __ ] I don't the mentality
that the state owns your child is like
such a hot button issue for me which is
weird because I don't have kids but like
I my problem with authority all of that
kicks in like that's crazy to me. So I
uh I think we should be striving to
offer the best education on planet
earth. But if a parent says um I think
that that's bad education. That's not
how I want my child educated. They
should be able to go all the way to
pulling their child completely out of
education doing homeschool. But if they
don't want to go that far and they just
want to say, "I don't want my kid in
that class while you're talking about
that." Fine. Literally, whatever. I
don't want them to hear about calculus.
Calculus is the devil's math. Great. I'm
sad because I think you're wrong and I
think that your kid will be
disadvantaged. But your job as a parent
is to say, "These are the values that I
want my kids raised with, and if you're
violating one of those values, that's
what the First Amendment is for. I'm
going to pull them." Yes. Yes. Like on
what grounds where it it Drew, it always
comes back to the thing that I hate,
which is I know better. I know better,
Drew. Uh your kid isn't going to offer
it. To her point, it's if you don't like
it, go to a different school. But damn,
that's that's a way bigger thing, man.
And first of all, what if all the
schools offer it? What if now it's like,
well, but you can build your own school,
which you can. They're not wrong about
that, and you should have the right to
do it if that's how you want to respond.
But something is like if they were
saying you can't teach this in school
then I'd be like [ __ ] you. But if
they're saying you can't let your child
opt out of it. I'm like what? Like of of
course your child should be able to opt
out of it. Even if it's something that I
think this is empirical truth. Yeah.
Like uh this is evolution. You're going
to want to learn this is calculus. But
if your if your family for whatever
reason has a value against it, let them
opt out. Landon McAffrey, an Obama
appointed judge, just blocked the Trump
administration from cutting funding to
schools that promote DEI. She's a uh
circuit judge on the other side. Another
circuit judge in Milwaukee was just
arrested by the FBI for allegedly
helping undocumented immigrants evade
arrest. Now, we just talked about it
from the Supreme Court. If it's an
interpretation of the Constitution, I'm
with it. I'm here. These judges have
then blocked the Trump administration
from doing something that they put on
the table. Is this a different lens or
is it still the judiciary branch has
this power? Let them This is going to
have to be adjudicated because right now
we're in a war of EO versus judiciary
and I just need an answer. So I have an
intuition which is that um EOS have been
used for a long time and so there's got
to already be precedent on this. So
unless uh Trump is going way beyond that
precedent feels like they should be
leaving this alone. If they want to
march something up to the Supreme Court
then they should. uh and then the
Supreme Court can put their ruling. But
being in a position where every time the
president because let's make it about a
president that I don't like their
policies. Every time that it's a
president trying to do something through
uh the already established mechanism of
executive orders and they get stopped
every two seconds. It's like guys can
let's just make a ruling on executive
orders. When can they be used? When
can't they be used? Now you have one
policy and it is what it is. And then we
don't say do we like the pol do do we
like the thing that the president is
writing the EO about or not. We stop
asking that and we just say is this how
EEOs work? If how EEOs work great, no
problem. This guy was elected and and we
can do it. Uh but right now this does
feel like this is breaking along. I
don't like what he's doing. Not he
doesn't have the right to do it.
Exactly. And so I just want a ruling on
do presidents, the ones I like and the
ones I don't like. Do they have the
authority to use executive orders to
push things through? And that is the
only level at which this conversation
should be happening. Um and so I want a
once and for all decision that then
Trump either knows I can or can't use
EOS and then period and when the next
president comes in that they're held
accountable to the same ruling. That's
that's all I'm looking for. Yeah. And
that's the interesting thing about it is
that he passed 80 EOS in his first not
even 100 days yet. And I would probably
say like 65 of them are just passed and
good and they're not as scrutinized as
ones that trigger DEI, trigger
immigration, trigger uh federal cuts to
schools, things like that. Um, so to
your point, it's interesting that
they're picking and choosing which ones
are unconstitutional, which ones are
just like, "Yeah, that's fine. You can
do you can do a Bitcoin sovereign fund.
Nobody cares." Or, "Yeah, you can do
this thing, but wait, wait, wait, wait.
No, you can't cut funding for this over
here." And it they are making that
choice. Correct. Um Okay, that's all I
got. All right, everybody. If you're not
already joining us for the lives, you're
going to want to Tuesday, Thursday,
Friday at 6 a.m. And here is some
highlights from today's live. Let's say
that the Republicans stay in power for
another 8 years after Trump. So, you
have a 12-year run and they go in and
appoint just a ton of uh federal judges
all over the place. And now the
Democrats take power again. And the
Democrats are like, "God, we got to use
executive orders to unwind some of
this." And then you've got federal
judges everywhere that are like, "Nope,
we're not doing that." And all those
things you want to do, hard pass, can't
do it. I think they would be just as
pissed. So anyway, we need the clarity
from the people that are meant to
interpret the Constitution, the Supreme
Court, as to whether executive orders
are even a thing that we should be
pursuing. And if they are, we need very
clear uh guidance on what can and can't
be blocked. Now, recently on the
immigration case, uh the Supreme Court
very clearly said, "Hey, you the court
owe the executive branch difference, but
they didn't go into detail about what
difference they owe them other than to
say foreign policy." So we at least know
in foreign policy there is a very
substantive amount of difference that
the Supreme Court believes that the
lower courts owe uh to the executive
branch. So yeah anyway that you get into
these fights specifically so that you
can remap the territory and say exactly
uh constitutional not constitutional.
Yes. Um, yeah. I don't have a I feel
like that's literally that was the point
of the entire constitution cuz if it's
just one man can do whatever he wants
for 3 four years to me that yields
a most likely negative outcome and
brings us back to king rule. It brings
us back to the early 1800s. Um whereas
in this system at least there's a back
and forth. If he did something that I I
don't want to say he's universally
accepted cuz he shouldn't have to make
sure the judges like it. He should be
able to do it as long as it's
constitutional. Um but I mean if judges
want to do think he's crossing a line,
they do have that right to say, "Hey, I
think you're going a little bit too
far." What I'm saying is where is that
line? Yeah. Because um yeah, it comes
down to me what we just need to look
this up. We need to do research. I need
to do research. offline. We can do a
little bit, but yeah, I mean, by all
means, pull it up and see what we can
see, but at a glance, you're probably
not going to get the nitty-gritty, but I
want to know what what does the
Constitution have to say about executive
orders? When do they expected to be
used? How much authority do they have?
Uh how does the judiciary like get in
the mix of all this?
Um that will be very interesting to do a
deep dive
on. The US Constitution doesn't
explicitly mention executive orders, but
it grants the president broad powers
within the executive branch, which are
often uh exercised through them.
Specifically, article 2, section one,
which vests the executive power in the
president, and section three, which
requires the president to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed. Yeah, I
I'd have to do a lot more digging on
that to see Supreme Court rulings, um
how they've mapped that out. if it's not
specifically called out that that means
that it's an interpretation of something
else when they talk about executive
power. Yeah. Speaking of interpretation,
I think that's where limitations comes
in. Executive orders cannot override
constitutional rights, federal laws, or
fundamental rights. And I think that's
the god, that's all so open to
interpretation. Exactly. That's the
wiggle room that some This is exactly
why you need very clear Supreme Court
rulings. I have a bad feeling uh that
I'm going to be reading a lot of uh
rulings and all of that stuff to try to
map this out. Um so for now, all I can
give you is uh intuitional. You want the
tension between the two, but you don't
want to put the president in a position
where they can't do anything. The whole
point the
[Music]
um you as the public want to actually be
doing something that isn't just
ceremonial when you elect a president.
And we are a federal system, meaning
that the states are subsumed under
federal law. They can give you
additional rights, but they can't take
federal rights away. Uh, and this has,
at least in my read of this, this has to
do with the tyranny of the minority, the
tyranny of the majority, that you're
trying to make sure that people, even if
in my state, like I hate the way that
they act, but at the federal level at
least I can vote for somebody that's
going to take me to the place that I
want to go to. uh and if you put an
executive in that doesn't have any
authority and remember this was the
hotly contested thing uh when they were
deciding to ratify the constitution was
they didn't want a king but they also
didn't want an inert executive who is
merely ceremonial
uh and so we this was again Alexander
Hamilton was really worried that we
would have uh an executive that didn't
have any ability to get anything done
and so he really pushed for that and
that got ratify
Uh, that's the other thing. I've got to
read the Federalist Papers. Must, must,
must.
Um, super chat. Let's go. Super chat
from super chat. Mr. G I as neurological
experience person. Read Adam's book.
Reframe your brain and have him on,
please. Worth the research and
conversation. The quotes. He's racist is
crap. I'm a black guy who uses his info
as much as I use yours. Wait, who are we
talking about? Who's Adam? Oh. Oh, Scott
Adams. Scott Adams. Scott Adams wrote a
book called Reframe Your Brain.
Wow. H All right. I'll have to check him
out. Yep. Yep. But didn't he say some
crazy [ __ ] Drew? I don't know who Scott
Adams is. I'm sorry, guys. Really? The
Dilbert guy? Oh, he's a Dilbert guy.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But like he said some
things,
chat, I'll need somebody to tell me
exactly what he said. But here here is a
uh idea that rattles around in the back
of my mind. It was something like oh god
I don't want to misquote him. Drew chat
chat chat I beg you. This is just the
thing that's rattling around in the back
of my head. I don't know that this is
true. What he said? I've never Oh, can
you? In a video on YouTube, Scott Adams,
who is white, said black Americans,
black Americans were part of a hate
group and that white people should get
the hell away from them. Wow.
And then the thing rattling around in
the back of my head, so I I'm sure
there's context,
but that doesn't seem great. Um, well,
Mr. G just spoke for all black people,
so I feel like he ipso factoed it
already, and that was me being
sarcastic. I was going to say, Drew,
here's Okay, so I've got a Mr. G said in
the in the chat, he's he's rebuttal. He
said he got taken out of context. Again,
I'm black and you have to have context.
You keep saying you're black. The more
you say you're black, the less I'm
believing you're black. Uh, sorry. And
it's not like a Joe Biden, you're not
black if you don't vote for me thing.
It's a you have a cartoon like profile
pick. This like Twitter got exposed over
the pandemic. I don't know if you saw
this part of Twitter because there was a
lot of people that had black profile
pics, but they were white people. Oh,
they were like cosplaying as different
things in all in all segments of
Twitter. And I'm sure there's like Yeah,
there's somebody cosplaying as an Asian
person and all type. Okay, but wait,
wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Am I
racist if I buy a black skin in
Fortnite?
Take I'm going home, everybody. I'm
sorry. All right, we're cutting the
stream short. Yeah, let's let's wrap it
up. We are going to answer that
question. Where we at? Where we at? Am I
racist if I not only buy but play as a
black character in Fortnite? Answers,
please.
What are we talking about? What What are
we talking about? I need answers. These
[ __ ] won't give answers. Race
is a construct. Race isn't real. Race is
made up. So, I'm not a racist if I play
as a black character. The term racist is
made up. So, why do we have beef if
somebody is a white person and they have
a black avatar on Twitter? Who has Wait,
but I don't think it's that. I think
it's that they were culturally and
pretending to be the exact race and also
saying things that are not. Look at Look
at Unice. So, you're saying You say just
I was on Twitter. I saw it. So you're
saying you're emotionally intelligent.
Look at you over there. Hold on. If it's
a construct, why do we care?
That race is a construct. Yes. Cultures
are not. So that's like if I was to have
a profile pick of a dude in a cowboy hat
and I had a Theo Vaughn accent and I was
like, "Hey man, me and my truck and we
going to do and I want to live in the
trailer and I love country music." And
that's not who I am. I'm making fun of
that group of people. That's not. So you
think they were making fun of them how
they were using there's this thing like
people think Ebonics is just like broken
English but it's like a language just
like PWA is broke like in Jamaica's
broken like so there's a way to use
certain like Ebonics and culturally
nuanced words and sentences. The way
they were constructing their tweets they
were cosplaying. They were it it was the
digital equivalent of blackface like
right? No, in the sense that I'm going
to say inflammatory things. I am going
to argue points to against black people
in certain spaces. I'm using this as a
cover so that way I can infiltrate those
spaces and then say disparagingly
things. So, it's not that somebody just
wants to be a black person and they made
a Twitter and they just reply to stuff.
They are those account too. Adam22 got a
whole podcast about that. But it's
different when you're actively trolling
that community as if you were one of
those people from the community. I
agree. But now let's talk about um my
initial question which was if I play as
a black Fortnite character, you guys
have no beef with it. That's what I'm
taking away. Even though for some weird
reason you guys won't just say that's
not problematic. It's different. It's
because say the words it's not
problematic. So that I don't feel okay.
Why is it worse for the ambitious
builders? It's worse for the ambitious
builders because you are going to be
taking on all the risk. you're going to
have all of that stress of having to
build and create something. And I think
companies are going to pop in and out of
existence like uh bubbles in a bubble
bath. Like you're just part of the foam.
You blink out of existence, nobody
notices. Um yeah, there's going to be
none of this staying power. So, you can
already look at the um there were if you
got on the S&P 500 back in the 60s, you
were likely to stay on the S&P 500 for
an average of 67 years. That number is
now 16 years and they expected to keep
dropping. So,
um growing as a company is no longer a
sign of longevity. And so, that's
brutal. And I think when it's a
fourperson company, they will nail a
moment and then it will go away. And
this is like a Tik Tocker that has one
viral smash that does 350 million views
and then they they're never able to
replicate it. And some people will be
able to um but I think most people will
not.
So it running a company is extremely
stressful. Uh comment from Wall-E in the
chat. What's up Wall-E? You have Wall-E
what's up brother? You have every right
to make anything in public style all you
want. The issue with AI that needs
discussion is do you have the right to
let machines photocopy that style based
on just a prompt. Yes. Yes indeed you
do. You just um you ought not like
here's a thing you shouldn't be allowed
to do. Uh somebody films something and
you then use that like you take that
shot and you say just turn this into a
different style and then you release it
as if you created it. That would be ass.
And I see people aren't monetizing it
now, so it's not a big deal. But if
somebody were going to monetize like,
oh, what I did was I took the underlying
like this is actually a shot from
Jurassic Park and I just made the
dinosaur a big chicken and now I'm
selling that movie. Uh that I think is
you can't do that. So just like you
can't sample a song without paying
people, it would be like that. If you're
going to use the underlying shots, uh
you should have to pay. But if you're
just using the style of that thing or
you're taking that shot, feeding it into
AI, and you're saying, "Hey, I want the
camera to move something like this, but
I want it to be in this universe, this
shot, whatever." That's totally fair
game.
[Music]
um
life, freedom,
um not to have your mind
controlled, the ability to pursue the
things that you want to do that, um
don't impinge on other people's
freedoms. I mean, you could probably get
pretty close just by enumerating the
rights in the Constitution. Uh but the
idea the reason that so much of
capitalism is built on property rights
which is absolutely critical is that I
have this thing and I now own it and it
can't be taken from me. Not by
government, not by anybody else. And
that allows people to create financial
momentum. And that is 100% what you need
to do. This is exactly why people that
were um victims of discrimination are
like, "Fuck all of you." Because you
have been able to build on the back of
the momentum that even if it's just your
great-grandfather was able to own
property and even if his kids squandered
all that money, his kids got educated,
so they educated their kids, so they
educated their kids. Uh and that alone
is such a leg up. But that's all on the
back of private property. You don't want
people to be able to take your [ __ ] Not
the government, not anybody. Like that's
crazy that people would ever vote
against that, but they do. Um and yeah,
read read about mouse China, please.
Read about um Stalin's Russia. I It's
just when you violate
people's property rights, everything
deranges. Uh the color of law is another
one about imminent domain and how
certain uh highway systems and things
were ran right through communities to
split them up and break them up and get
people to move. But somebody said, Pedro
P, in your postc capitalist world, who
gets the house and the keys on the golf
side with ocean
access. When we think of capitalism, we
think of acquiring capital. We think of
the rich people getting buying a nice
thing and people who can't afford it
living in subservient like quarters.
Yeah. In post capitalism, now if Eric
Weinstein is right, geometric unity is
like a record player. You can pick the
needle up and move it anywhere that you
want on that thing. So I didn't I don't
remember asking him if he means time as
well, but he probably does. Um, but
certainly what he calls pinch to zoom is
how you would travel through space very
rapidly. So if we want to get into math
and numbers, I think that's the most
interesting thing happening in math and
numbers right now. Because if that's
true, our fundamental understanding of
the universe is just wildly different.
Um, though I grow more convinced by the
day that we're in a simulation. Like for
real, for real. Or at least what we
think of as real life operates on the
same principles and that computers are
our way of sort of mimicking that
information
theory. But man, if this is a
simulation, they could do a lot better.
I won't lie. I won't lie. Here you go
again. I can make although maybe I can
make a better vagina. I can make a
better industry. I can make a better a
better vagina would be the easiest in
the world. I can't believe this was even
controversial. Uh, but certainly we can
agree that space travel could be a lot
easier. Like if we were making and
here's here is basically what I read
from Eric. I'm about to say a sentence
that Eric is going to scream into the
void and say this is exactly what I'm
trying to [ __ ] say. Uh, this
simulation would be a lot cooler if we
could travel around the cosmos
instantaneously. Cue Eric screaming.
That's the whole idea behind geometric
unity is you can that the layers like
those distances collapse as you do what
he calls pinch to zoom. So I don't know.
I don't understand it. This [ __ ] is way
it requires a way bigger brain than I
have. My brain hands back a null signal
when I try to conceptualize deep
mathematics. It's very interesting. Uh
Mr. G2 says, "We should have Scott Adams
on the show ASAP." Okay. Scott Adams
falls into my early days sense of Jordan
Peterson. So, I didn't have Jordan
Peterson on the show for like two years
because I just kept hearing he's a
misogynist. So, I didn't look closely at
him.
[Music]
Uh, I have seen some headline stuff
about Scott Adams that freaks me out.
Now, I have no idea if it's real or not,
but it it was enough where I just
haven't looked at him. Uh, so I don't
know enough about him to know if I want
him on the show. That's the real answer.
All right, back to Trump and his tough
week. Um, let's go. It's not just about
the markets. It's about the activist
judges. I'm not going to call them
activist judges. I'm going to call them
judges because that's their job. Um he
had one judge, Leandia McCaffrey. This
is a federal judge, I assume. Yeah. Who
blocked um his funding cut to schools
that promote DEI. He had another judge
blocked the SAVE Act from being
implemented, which would require a proof
of citizenship for uh voter
registration. Um there seems to be a
he's he's done very much I'm going to do
it quick and fast. I'mma break things
and put it back together later. And I
feel like a lot of his uh ambitions have
been cut at the waist by these judges.
Checks of power, checks and balances.
This is what it the system is built for.
Yeah. Um how do we navigate around this?
I like this tension because I think it
then brings it up to Supreme Court. If
it's that big of a deal, they'll weigh
on it. If not, they'll kick it back
down. Um I think the thing that needs to
go to the Supreme Court is how can
executive orders be used? I want a
ruling on that so we don't have to do uh
all of this back and forth where no
matter what Trump does as an EO,
somebody's going to try to block it. Um
that if that is how the system works and
the Supreme Court says, "Yeah, that's
exactly what we want. EOS, they're not a
thing. [ __ ] EOS." Um this is a uh it has
to go through Congress and that's simple
as and we're no longer going to tolerate
um we believe it is unconstitutional.
That is the right way to say it. We the
Supreme Court believe it is
unconstitutional for the executive to
use executive orders as a way to manage
the government and those should be
reserved for some like very narrow case
that we are now clearly defining. Okay,
if that happens, great. Uh, but what's
happening now strikes me as wacky and
wacky meaning and this is a paraphrase
of something that Elon uh has said and I
think it it makes sense conceptually as
an orienting device for me to go look at
this thing. I won't say that I absorb
it on any level other than emotionally
it feels right, but I know not to trust
my emotions. But the emotional statement
that the statement that feels
emotionally right is if a judge can
block any executive order anywhere
um then how is it that we live in a
democracy? You have the executive branch
for a reason and they put forward
um executive orders and say okay this is
how uh my mandate is meant to be read.
Mhm. And if and again, we're in emotion.
We're in uh early days of me trying to
orient myself to what the issue really
is. So, uh all anybody should hear right
now is journaling and process thinking.
Um if you don't
have the executive order, then all you
have is basically a PR machine and the
ability to veto. So, there have to be
things where the president can take
action. Whether it's firing people,
hiring people, um whether it's uh doing
executive orders where you say, "Okay,
we're no longer doing that thing. We're
going to be doing this thing." And they
have to carry some weight. Otherwise,
you're you're going to have a battleship
that you can't turn. Uh and you need the
president to be able to move quickly on
certain things at certain times. And I
think that there need to be severe
restrictions on those things. But it
does feel like right now, unless there
is already clarity on this from the
Supreme Court, and I'm just not aware of
it, which is very possible. Uh that what
we're in now is a political battle where
judges are throwing their weight in
politically. And flip it. So imagine now
Trump, let's say that the Republicans
stay in power for another eight years
after Trump. So, you have a 12-year run
and they go in and appoint just a ton of
uh federal judges all over the place.
And now the Democrats take power again.
And the Democrats were like, "God, we
got to use executive orders to unwind
some of this." And then you've got
federal judges everywhere that are like,
"Nope, we're not doing that." And all
those things you want to do, hard pass,
can't do it. I think they would be just
as pissed. So anyway, we need the
clarity from the people that are meant
to interpret the Constitution, the
Supreme Court, as to whether executive
orders are even a thing that we should
be pursuing. And if they are, we need
very clear uh guidance on what can and
can't be blocked. Now, recently on the
immigration case, uh the Supreme Court
very clearly said, "Hey, you the court
owe the executive branch difference."
They didn't go into detail about what
difference they owe them other than to
say foreign policy. So we at least know
in foreign policy there is a very
substantive amount of difference that
the Supreme Court believes that the
lower courts owe uh to the executive
branch. So yeah anyway that you get into
these fights specifically so that you
can remap the territory and say exactly
uh constitutional not constitutional.
Most entrepreneurs don't outright fail
they plateau. And if you're stuck right
now, you know how true that is. It could
be that your revenue flatlines every
time you step away. Or maybe you're
trapped in a commodity market that's
racing to the bottom. Or maybe you're
one of the lucky people who is
navigating a very complex partner
dynamic that turns every decision into a
battle. These problems and a whole lot
more can seem impossible until you break
them all down into first principles. My
partners and I used this thinking to
grow Quest Nutrition by
57,000% in our first three years alone
and scaled to a billion-dollar exit. And
now I'm teaching this framework to a
select group of entrepreneurs who are
ready to scale. Now, I want to be clear,
this is not for everybody because I'm
looking to work with serious
entrepreneurs that already have an
established business and a proven track
record of execution. If that's you and
you want to learn how to break through
your biggest business bottlenecks using
first principles thinking, be sure to
apply now. Just go to impact
theory.com/scale or click the link in
the show notes. Again, that's impact
theory.com/scale. All right, everybody,
if you haven't already, be sure to
subscribe. And until next time, my
friends, be legendary. If you like this
conversation, check out this episode to
learn more. Trump changes his tone on
tariffing China. Besson says China still
needs to rebalance their position on
trade. Crack show in Trump's admin as
Elon and Besson get into a screaming
match. Elon announces he's reducing time
at Doge as Tesla profits plunge over