Kind: captions
Language: en
Trump changes his tone on tariffing
China. Besson says China still needs to
rebalance their position on trade. Crack
show and 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 70%. Echoes
from World War II give new perspective
on Ukraine Russia conflict. Trump admin
floats idea of incentivizing motherhood.
And Shannon Sharp plays a literal game
of fafo with an only fans model. And boy
oh boy, Drew is he finding out. Yikes.
Now, today's uh live on the Tom Billy
Show was very spicy. And uh a lot of
people think that I am sanewashing
Trump, as they said, but I don't think
that's true. I think the reality is I'm
just willing to admit that I don't know
how this is all going to play out for
good or bad. Uh and my default stance is
don't be on a team. Really try to figure
out what has predictive validity. Uh, is
Trump uh, nut job who is just throwing
the world into disarray? Maybe. There's
a very real possibility that is exactly
how this plays out. Uh, or is he
somebody that actually leverages chaos
as a stated tool, which I haven't read
the book, but supposedly in the art of
the deal, it says exactly that. You ask
for the moon, you introduce a ton of
chaos, and then as you begin to cobble
something together that people think is
more reasonable, you're able to have
moved them a lot farther than you
otherwise would have been. I want to be
very clear. What I'm not trying to say
is that's what he's doing. What I'm
trying to say is that is one of what I
see as the two most obvious
possibilities. Total lunatic who is not
gonna get us where we want to go. Uh or
somebody who has a strategy, he is
deploying that, which again, even if
that is a strategy and he's doing all of
this on purpose, does not mean that it's
going to work out. Um so, but man, am I
really trying to be heard on the way
that I process information because I
think it has a lot of utility. Um, and
so my frustration right now is the very
thing that I think makes this show
valuable is that people are likely to go
with their biological instincts. So to
be on a team, to steer by emotion,
rather than to say, "Okay, I don't want
to be on a team because then I'm
incentivized to think one way or the
other. I want to be obsessed with an
outcome." And then simply ask, "Are the
things that I'm doing actually yielding
the outcome that I thought they would
and moving me towards that outcome? And
if they are, I'm going to keep doing it.
And if they're not, then I'm going to
adjust along the way. And I have a
feeling that people don't know how to
parse somebody in the political sphere
that is very intentionally trying to
avoid being on a team. That doesn't mean
I don't have a perspective. I do. But it
does mean that I really do want to break
out of that mold whenever I can to
remind myself, hey, what you actually
care about is this outcome. And are you
sure that the things that you think are
leading you down that path are not? And
I think that we need to highlight the
outcome a little bit more now because a
lot of times in recent politics, it's
when my team loses, I want the president
to fail. I want the country to fail so
that way my team can come back in power
and save it again. And I think we should
be looking more as what would be best
for America in this moment. If Trump
passed a whole bunch of progressive
policies, would the left be like, "Oh,
thank you. Good job, Trump." Or would
they still be mad because it's it's
their person doing it, you So we want
this is why the parties flip over time
because what ends up happening is you uh
the right way to map it I think is um
James Bham man is political animal. They
will do everything they can to control
the narrative. They will do anything
they can to get and maintain power. And
when they see that whites space because
when I was a kid Republicans were very
much in bed with business. They were all
about um giving tax breaks to the rich
all of that stuff. never marketing their
um they never tried to make the working
man their base. That was always the
bread and butter of the Democratic party
and now it's completely flipped and
billionaires are far more likely to
donate to the um Democratic party than
they are the Republican party. Uh that
the people that appeal to the working
class like I'm going to bring jobs back
to you um is very much the Republican
party. It's crazy. And that's certainly
the vote that they won. Uh, so because
for sure you can say, well, the
messaging of the progressive wing of the
Democratic party is very much tax the
life out of the rich. Uh, so I don't
want to blind myself to that. Uh, it's
not super clean, but I think that's
Republicans seeing the space to get
elected far more than I think that it's
um, oh, this is just how Republicans
think and this is just how Democrats
think. I think that with enough time
watching the two sides, you begin to
realize, oh, this isn't about
ideological terrairma. This is about
what way are the winds blowing? How do I
position my message so that I get
elected? Yeah. To get the early win.
Now, this conversation is on the back of
Trump saying that terrorists on China
will come down uh substantially. And I'm
phrasing it and looking at it as this is
him saying, I put up 145 to kind of goat
them. Once we have those negotiations,
we're going to find a number that's a
bit more down at earth. I don't
necessarily saying he's a failed or he
lost the policy. Let's listen to Trump's
answer directly. Secretary Dustin
suggested that tariff rates as high as
they are now
effectively trade between the United
States and China. You see that? That's
true. 145% is very high and it won't be
that high. It's not going to be that
high. Uh it got up to there. We were
talking about fentinol where you know
various uh elements built it up to 145.
No, it won't be anywhere near that high.
And what level do you think it'll come
down to if you haven't? It'll come down
substantially, but it won't be uh zero.
It used to be zero. We were just
destroyed. China was taking us for a
ride, and just not going to have it's
not going to happen. We're going to be
very good to China, have a great
relationship with President Xi, but uh
they would make billions and billions
and billions of dollars a year, and they
would build their military out of the
United States. and what they made. So
that won't happen. But they're going to
do very well and I think they're going
to be happy and I think we're going to
live together very happily and ideally
work together. So I think it's going to
work out very well. But no, it's at
145%. There will not be anywhere near
that number. So for me, the words that
Trump is saying are not that different.
But the way that he is talking, um the
tone, the tenor very much feels
softened. And I think that uh you've got
I I think it is a very reasonable thing
to look at this and go Trump realizes
he's in over his head and uh that he's
caused problems in the economy that he
didn't think he was going to cause or
it's possible China's just been like
we're not taking the bait. We're not
coming to the table. Um and Trump is
doing the calculus on the game of
chicken and realizing I'm going to lose
this and so he's backing off and he's
totally accepting defeat. That may be
true. That may be how this plays out. It
is I don't think the most likely answer.
I think the most likely answer is
something that blends the two of um he
does listen to signals. So if he tries
something and the voting public is like
[ __ ] you then he will back off that. Uh
so I'm sure part of it is that that
people are just squawking loud whether
privately or publicly anxiety. Yeah.
Like look there's too much uncertainty
in the market and so he's backing off
and part of it is that yeah this is what
you do. you sew some chaos uh you create
this upended um situation. His
administration has been talking about
that from the beginning. Besson has
talked about this endlessly. Letic has
talked about this endlessly. So I have
no reason to believe they know how to
message that point, but they're not
actually doing it. That doesn't make
sense to me. I don't think you have a
cleanup crew, especially from what I
understand. I have not read it, but from
what I understand, um he writes in the
art of the deal that this is what you
do. like you create that little bit of
chaos and um we talked about it already.
So that to me is I think a more logical
read that it's a combination of uh we
have not gotten an easy win with China.
Um we haven't been uh we've had more
turmoil in the market than they probably
anticipated. Uh and so now the sensible
play is to begin bringing the house of
cards back in order. To me the KPI that
people need to be looking at because I
think you have until the midterms. like
I won't consider his um attempts to have
hit a brick wall until if and when he
loses the house then I would say okay he
tried and he failed it it did not work.
So people want to know what would need
to be true for me to go, oh obviously he
just did not know how to play this well.
The thing that would need to be true is
he loses control of the house. If he
loses control of the house, he didn't
play this well is a catastrophe. Even if
from a political standpoint, even if we
end up getting the concessions that we
want from China, it would be a
catastrophe. Now, if he holds the house,
but we never get manufacturing returning
to the US with or without jobs, I'd
rather see it with jobs for reasons I've
talked about endlessly before. But even
if it's all AI, all robotics, we still
have to bring manufacturing back. If
that doesn't happen, but he stays in
power and the and the Republicans stay
in power forever, that would also be
from where I'm sitting a catastrophic
failure. So, I'm not judging this just
by whether he stays in power, whether
anybody stays in power, though I would
consider that part of a um he had a
strategy and it clearly did not work the
way that he was expecting. But for the
end case that I want to see us move
towards, I want to see us be prepared
for a future in which uh we're dealing
with a an adversary in China. Right now,
I'll clock them more as a rival, but if
they become an open adversary, um we
need to be ready for that. So to me,
that's a far bigger issue than who's in
power. So that's those are the fail
states. Uh until we get there, it is a
question. It isn't a question of the way
that Trump started to play the game at
the beginning needs to be judged as
right or wrong. That's the team sport
thing that drives me crazy because it's
it's not a question of it. I do a thing
in business that I call the physics of
progress. I do it in my marriage.
Literally, every aspect of my life is
the physics of progress. The physics of
progress is you try a thing and it's
probably not going to work as well as
you think and you adjust adjust adjust.
In politics, you try a thing and if it
doesn't work immediately, this is just
my chance to be like you're a loser. And
that's the thing where I I really do
feel like I'm screaming into the wind
where I'm like that won't help you in
your life. That's not a useful way to do
politics if you want the country to win,
which I think your point about people
just want the other side to lose even if
it means it burns their own house down,
which is insane to me. So that they can
say, "See, I told you you're dumb." And
I'm just like, uh, I have no interest in
that. I don't care who's in power. I
want to make sure that we get to the end
state that I think is human flourishing
for the people in our country. Um,
and I don't mind who gets us there. So,
the person that's in power now is Trump,
and I want to see it work. I don't care
if he had to change, adjust, adjust,
adjust, adjust to get there. Now, I
think it will be a fair criticism if he
adjusts adjust adjusts to what people on
the left were saying this is how you
should pursue it. And if that ends up
being the case, that's important to
recognize. Like, okay, hold on. There
were people that saw this better than he
did, than I did, whoever. Uh, that's
really helpful to understand one from a
are they the better person to listen to
the next time we get into this? or at a
minimum, is there a cause and effect
here that I can map that will help me
make better decisions in the future? Um,
that I think is the way to look at this.
But I know the comments are going to be
full of people saying, "Tom is just
doing mental
gymnastics." And that makes me lament
for people's ability to make good
decisions in their own life because they
prioritize being right over identifying
the right answer. I make want to make
sure we're all clear and sober as we're
calling this to realize that we're still
in the first 100 days, guys. We haven't
even gotten into the second full quarter
of Trump's presidency. So, let's just
kind of take a break and really let
things materialize before we can
concretely say it's a past fail success
anything. And I think the same
curiosity, so I feel like I've
articulated why I want people to do
that. Do you want people to do that for
the same reason or do you have a
different reason why you want them to
like, hey, pump the brakes for a second?
I see a lot of emotional reactions. I
check every comment. I like And you
don't think emotional reactions serve
people or is there something else? I
don't think they serve people in this
moment. At least when it's coming to
things that are more complex. If
somebody comes into your house and
they're trying to kill you, guess your
emotional reaction of trying to fight
back is the right one. I'm not saying
everything needs six days of uh
understanding to know if it's a right
decision or a wrong decision. But to
categorize a internationally economic
policy implementation in the first two
weeks to me isn't something that's going
to give you lasting predictive validity
is still one of your words. Like even if
if a workout routine should last longer
than liberation day to where we are now,
let alone to and you won't judge that as
success or fail. If I go to the gym for
two weeks straight, I'm not like, "Yep,
I'm I'm a pro now. Like I'm ready to be
a bodybuilder. I need at least three
months, you know, 21 days to make a
habit." Like there's all these other
axioms that we give ourselves grace for
other stere for other scenarios in our
lives. But when it comes to Trump, it's
like he did something wrong. He did
something on April 2nd. April 4th, the
market sells off. It's a failure. He
should stop doing everything
immediately. And it's let's just take a
breath and let things actually play out
and then judge a tree for the fruit that
it bears versus just judging. Agreed.
Agreed. Yeah. Um Scott Besson had a
different take. Um so as Trump is kind
Scott has a different take. Interesting.
as Trump is turning down his rhetoric on
China and saying, you know, we're going
to bring it down. That's not where we're
actually going to end up. I hear from
Bessant, cuz some people might say Trump
turning that down is we're giving
something away to say, okay, now we're
trying to start those negotiations.
Bessant saying that China's current
economy is unsustainable to me is
reading as they need to make this deal
more than we need to make that deal.
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 an unsustainable
model that is not only harming China but
the entire world. China needs to change.
The country knows it needs to change.
Everyone knows it needs to change and we
want to help it change because we need
rebalancing too. China can start by
moving its economy away from export over
capacity and towards supporting its own
consumers and domestic demand. such a
shift would help with global rebalancing
that the world desperately needs. Two
things. One, I think the Besson is right
about that. I think China does need us
more than we need them, but we're
obviously seeing that we are intertwined
at this point. But I don't see Bessant
as like coming in hotter now. Besson's
been pretty look I'm sure there is some
amount of Besson has always perceived in
relationship to Trump and I myself have
pointed people towards Besson to say hey
he's the calm voice. Um but Besson
doesn't seem like he's changed his
rhetoric much to me. Um he's just saying
that listen what we were doing before is
completely unsustainable. We can't live
in that world because of where that it
goes. And I I don't understand how
people push back on that. Like if
somebody is saying we should have just
kept doing what we're doing, I I'm
always open to being wrong, Drew, but
like I immediately write them off. That
that is so nonsensical. So that to to
pierce my frame of reference on that,
you would have to show me how a country
can continue to rack up the kind of debt
that we are on the growth trajectory
that we are with the debt to say that we
should keep doing the same thing. um
because the history just says that ends
in what's known as a debt jubilee, which
is a lovely way of saying a lot of
people die. So, um I don't understand
anybody that's saying we should have
just kept doing what we're doing. Now,
if somebody's like, "Yeah, we have to
make a change." I totally get that. I
agree on uh where we want to end up,
which is rebalance trade, a different
relationship with China, something where
the US isn't just deficit deficit
spending their way to uh GDP. that's 70%
we buy things um that we need to make
things that China is an adversary to or
a rival today but could rapidly become
an adversary and um yeah we have to
address all that. I just don't think the
way that Trump is doing it makes any
sense. I think that this idea of
introducing chaos first of all I think
he's too dumb. I don't think like if
they were saying that I'd be like okay I
get it now put forth the thing that you
think is the thing that we should
actually do which is one of the things I
think causes problems for me is I will
put forth I think we should do this even
knowing I have to wildly incomplete
information imperfect information I
think as they say and that I will
inevitably think I will refine my
beliefs over time but if I don't force
myself to crystallize what I think the
answer is I'll never find out where the
actual limits of my understanding are.
And because emotions make dots feel like
they connect that don't actually
connect. When you're never forcing
yourself to articulate out loud what you
think should happen, you never find
that, oh, wait a second. Actually, I
don't what would we do? People just
never do it. And I see this with
entrepreneurs all the time. Like they
think they have an idea and then you
just start asking them really basic
questions and it all falls apart. And
the reality is they don't see it coming
that they don't have an answer. They
think they do because it feels like they
have an answer because they never force
themselves to map out
like oh god at at the risk of
derailing. If you can't prioritize
things it's because you don't understand
your own end goal. You don't understand
your own belief system and you don't
understand your values. So, one thing I
will ask parents tongue and cheek,
tongue and cheek, if you could only save
one of your kids, which one would you
save? I don't need them to answer out
loud because I get it. You won't allow
yourself to utter those words. But the
reality is what's sketching out in
somebody's mind is
that they've never stopped to ask
themselves like, "What's my priority
here?" Mhm. And they want it to be,
well, I love my kids equally and
therefore I would save them equally.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But if you could only
save
one. And if you can allow yourself, if
you can force yourself to prioritize, it
means you have clarity. You may still be
wrong. It may have been a poor choice,
but at least then you can say, "Okay, I
put them in this order for this reason."
Then you've at least got a shot of
moving forward. if you're unable to
articulate like what the priority of
things is, you end up getting stuck. And
so, um, as we look at what's going on
with the tariffs, specifically in the
case of Bessant, Besson is
saying, here's what I think needs to
happen for, he's now talking from a
really global perspective, and this is
new in his rhetoric. I wouldn't
necessarily say his tone, but his
rhetoric of like it's good for China to
grow a middle class inside of their
country that are able to buy the things
that they make. And he wouldn't say the
word out loud, but this is the
intimation that they're currently
dumping on the rest of the world. And by
constantly just manufacturing literally
as much as they can manufacture and
sending it to the rest of the world, um
they're making it hard. Like we already
see how it's playing out in America.
Yeah. And it also puts them in a very
fragile position and it creates and this
isn't Besson talking. This is like if
you start researching like why would
this be a problem? you're going to run
into
um economists just around it saying
things
like you're incentivizing people to do a
trade war against you to stop you from
dumping cheap goods into their country
which stops them from having a
manufacturing base which is exactly what
America is doing right now. Uh, and then
also you make your own economy very
fragile because if America does, if if
the people that buy things from you do
the thing that America is doing right
now, now all of a sudden you're in dire
straits. So anybody that thinks that um
a trade war won't impact America is
delusional. Anybody that thinks that a
trade war won't impact China is
delusional. And in terms of if we were
racing towards demise, China probably
dies first. But we would do so much
damage. It's not worth It's like
chemotherapy. It's not a game you want
to play. It's definitely going to
shorten your life. Mhm. Um,
but the cancer cells do usually die
first and that's the whole game. In
other Bessant news, apparently him and
Elon Musk got into a screaming match
earlier this week. U Bessent slam Musk's
overpromised and undervalued Doge plans
while Musk called Sor called uh Bessent
a Soros agent and and him out for a
failed hedge fund as like a failed hedge
fund manager. Um, per Axios, people in
Axios itself said that it was two
billionaire middle-aged men thinking it
was a WWE in the Hall of the West Wing.
Um, I know Egos and Pride does a a lot
of crazy things, but to me, this sounds
like two guys getting into a heated
argument. I got into a heated argument
with one of my friends like a week and a
half ago. I still love them, but do you
think that this might be a crack in the
Trump administration? Probably. I mean,
look, you if everything was going
smoothly and America was like, "No,
we're here for it." You're probably not
going to see these kind of fights. Um,
but at the same time, like this to me is
not some gigantic red flag. You've got
people that get to the top of their game
because they are extraordinarily good
and they realize that they have to push
forward. Uh, they've developed a mindset
that nobody's going to think through
this problem as well as I am. They've
learned to trust themselves. They've
been right a lot, which is how they've
gotten to where they're at. And if they
don't want the dynamic tension as a
fundamental part of their psyche, then
when they collide with somebody, it's
like, how can you not see that I'm
right? Now, as an outsider watching
countless debates, um the thing that I
see is people argue at the level of the
tea instead of getting to the base
assumptions. What I mean by that is um
the biggest fight my wife and I ever got
into was over a cup of tea. Two hours
into a screaming match, I realized
there's no way that this is about tea. I
just don't care about tea that much. So
I was like, what is this actually about?
And so that was in our lives when we
realized, oh, you always have to talk
from a position of base assumptions,
insecurities, um like what are the
things you believe? What are you afraid
of? And if you lay all that out, then we
can drill down into that and we can say,
okay, this is why I think that base
assumption is incorrect. Mhm. Um but if
you're arguing on the surface, so from
what I hear, the argument was over um
Elon pushed through a um interim leader
of the IRS and the head of the IRS
reports to Bessant and Bessant wasn't
consulted. That's pretty crazy. So from
where I'm sitting, it's like if you're
and I wasn't there, reports coming out
are all um secondhand. People say they
wrote it down. Who knows?
Um, but I would not at all be surprised
if what they were arguing about was the
person this guy either should or
shouldn't be put into the IRS. Instead
of saying, "Here are the base
assumptions that make me think he's the
right person." So, here's where I'm
trying to end up. Here's the things that
I think very specifically he's going to
do that will lead us to that. Then you
can actually argue about those points
and you can say, "Here's why um either I
disagree with your end goal. I don't
want to end up there. I want to end up
here. Cool. That's what we have to
debate on. Or if we agree on that, then
it's like point number three, I don't
think it's going to happen. And this is
what I think is going to happen. And
then at least we're arguing about that
point. Doesn't mean that they don't end
up in a screaming match. But it does
mean that it's a screaming match that's
far more fruitful. That isn't about that
surface layer thing. Now, I wasn't
there, so maybe they were they handled
it brilliantly. I don't know. But um
dude, when I say it's 90 plus% of the
time where people are yelling at each
other, uh they don't want tension. So
they have cobbled together a belief
system that says I'm smart enough to
solve all these problems by myself and
so I want you to shut up and just do
what I say. Um and or they're not
arguing about the actual point of
conflict. And so this is certainly what
I see in the Douglas Murray Dave Smith
debate. They weren't arguing about the
thing that they actually disagree on.
We'll get back to the show in a moment.
But first I want you to picture this.
It's Monday morning. Your co-workers are
texting about being stuck in gridlock
while you're cruising past them, getting
some fresh air, and actually enjoying
your commute. It's not a fantasy. It's
what happens when you switch to an
ebike. The average commuter spends over
54 hours a year stuck in traffic
congestion. And if you live in a major
city like LA or New York, you're looking
at nearly a full week trapped in your
car. If you're ready to upgrade your
commute, check out UPW. They've created
a marketplace for premiumcertified
ebikes from top brands like Specialized,
Cannondale, and Aventon at up to 60% off
retail. Each bike is professionally
refurbished, fully certified, and comes
with a warranty. A $1,700 Aventon that
typically sells for full price can be
yours for just 900 bucks through Upway.
Plus, you can get $150 off any purchase
over a,000 when you use code impact.
Head to upwway.co and use code impact.
Now, let's get back to the show. I'm
getting vibes like that about this
argument specifically because there was
a rumor that Elon Musk is frustrated
with the tariff policy because the China
embargo on rare earths is going to delay
Optimus and some of the other minerals
that he needs to fund Tesla and the
projects that they have for that. Um,
that's our next story that Tesla Elon
Musk is taking a step back away from um
Doge to focus more on his individual
companies. But do you think that second
order consequences like that could lead
into these frustrations? So maybe Elon H
is actively struggling and getting hurt
on his businesses arguing with a guy
who's championing those policies that
are hurting his business and then now a
IRS debate comes up and then it's just
to your point that becomes the the tea
over a much held resentment for other
things. For sure. I have a feeling it
goes something like this. Um I don't
think anybody has damaged their personal
life more than Elon Musk by getting
involved in the government.
If it is true that Elon is doing it
because he believes um I think we were
headed down a path where America as we
know it would cease to exist. Not saying
that you have to believe he's right,
just that he believes it. if he believes
that that's true and he is paying a Drew
a freakish price for again that he
believes he's helping and not just
helping himself but helping all
Americans he's paying this incredible
price whenever you're going through
something like that whether it's
sleeping in the hallways uh because
you're working on Doge or it's just the
watching your stock price plummet seeing
uh your staff be demoralized because
Everybody hates um Tesla or it has
become very popular to hate Tesla.
Hopefully it's just a minor number of
people but nonetheless obviously very
very loud minority and you will ask
yourself the question why am I doing
this? If nobody wants me here, if
nobody's listening to me, why am I doing
this? And if you couple that with, I
really believe I'm right. I really
believe that if we do this, it will be
better for Americans. Then you can
imagine how much frustration there will
be and that it can spill into that and
then make it even more complex. For as
first principles thinking as Elon is,
there's going to be emotion in this man
from uh it can't be fun to be hated by
that many people.
Um, it really can't be fun to watch your
company drop in stock value. That's
probably the most brutal profit. Super
brutal, but probably temporary. Um, same
with stocks for that matter. But that
that's rough. You start getting a ton of
pressure. And also, I just can't fathom
how many people actually want him dead.
And so now you've got to worry about um
security. You've got to worry about your
kids. like it's just a level of
brutality. So, I get how they end up
clashing, but um I think that to map his
behavior, you also have to put in but
this is also a guy that understands how
if he can position things right, it's
going to be good for his companies. And
there's no way, even if it's
subconscious, there's no way that he's
not influenced by that. I think people
are right to be paranoid about that. Um
I don't think it is wise to map Elon as
somebody who's purely altruistic. He may
have the altruistic impulse. Um, but
it's certainly not going to be only
altruistic. Uh, I mean, look, as
somebody who understands like there are
even down to I do have an algorithm in
the back of my mind running that says
you got to find a way to be more
entertaining. And so there are times
where I'm like, okay, do I give this in
a droll way? Even when I read the
intros, I try to like give a little bit
of bounce uh because I am highly
cognizant that that I have end goals
that that will help me move towards. And
so I'm trying to walk an ethical line
and not fake it, not be WWE. Um so it is
inevitable that and look, it's entirely
possible that he is just an unethical
human being and in the wash we realize
this guy's a total sociopath. I would
admittedly be surprised by that. It's
possible though.
Um, but it's there's no way his motives
are pure. But I don't think anybody's
motives are pure. I think you can always
trust people to be selfish. And the good
news is I feel like the things that he's
fighting for from free speech to getting
rid of uh waste in the government to
upgrading the technology in the
government uh to wanting to unlock
innovation to grow GDP through all of
that. Um I think all of that makes a lot
of sense. Yeah. Speaking of free speech,
he's actually under fire right now. Um,
friend of the show Ian Bremer tweeted
this that he got into a feud with Dr.
Anastasia
Lupi. Um, she's like a right-wing
commentator at the end of the year last
year. After their feud, her impressions
pretty much got throttled. So much to
the fact that you're not looking at your
phone like this is dramatic. It's what
like 90% drop. Um, so much so she
created a a second alternative account,
brand new, that has gained more traction
and gotten more reach than her current
account, which was 1.5 million
followers. Um, he got called out for
faking his uh ranking in the video game.
I still don't know how that didn't
become a bigger thing. Like that. That's
egregious. That so he already kind of
that one's crazy. Got exposed for from
gamer side. The gamer side got exposed.
It seems like with this his his ex
exposure is there, too. I'm starting to
see those chinks in the armor with Eon.
I love him. He's a great entrepreneur.
He's done a bunch of great things. Um,
love is a little bit of a strong word,
but uh I do feel like this is the second
time that I'm like, "Okay, your pride
got hurt and you did something that I
personally against your own stated like
morals and this doesn't look good. This
is horrific." And listen, it's possible
that the people on X just stopped
enjoying uh her content once they knew
that she got in a beef with Elon in
there. X is so full of people that love
Elon that anybody that goes against him,
they just lose interest. That doesn't
strike me as true. That feels like it
has low predictive validity given how
much people love to hate inside of
social media full stop and like dial it
to 11 on X. Um, so this strikes me as
the thing with the highest predictive
validity is he was like, "Okay, what is
a way even if he did it at the level of
policy where it's like that would zero
in on her like a biological weapon?" I
mean, it just seems tough to read that
any other way. Uh, so yeah, this one
feels gross. Um, extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence. So
anything other than Elon went in and did
something to the algorithm,
uh, seems pretty hard to believe. So
yeah, I I chalk this up to here's a guy
that's done incredible things. He is
wildly imperfect. Here's an example of
his imperfection. This really bothers
me. I do not like this. Uh this is one
of those things, bro, if you're going to
beat the free speech drum. If you're
going to go out of your way, he for a
while really made his life worse with X
from like he looked like a [ __ ]
financial fool. I don't think that's
going to last for very long because I
think he's so good at product uh that
he'll build something incredible and if
it isn't already because I think at one
point they were either breaking even or
losing very little which was already one
of the greatest if not the greatest
corporate turnaround ever. Uh so very
very impressive and I think it will just
get better from here. But I hate
everything about that that is some
pettiness that look people have it. This
is why you should absolutely loathe the
idea of a monarchy or a dictator because
bro, you don't want one person to have
the power to come after you. Yeah,
that's what it looks like. Uh Mus
responded indirectly stating he doesn't
silence critics even on his platform,
but also indicated that accounts
engaging in certain behaviors like
blocking or muting others could face
reduced re reach. Look, it th this is
where it's like, okay, if you do it at
the level of policy, that's better
because a lot of people are going to get
caught up. But if you make a policy,
that's like your name has to rhyme with
octor Anastasia or whatever. You know
what I mean? And so it's like, okay,
like I see who this is aimed at. Yeah.
Uh, and I don't know what he changed,
but if there, and and this is fair, if
there are a bunch of accounts that at
that same time period, they just made a
change in the algorithm and it happened
to punish, you know, whatever 1.6
million people that were engaging in
that same behavior. And there's a whole
bunch of people that you could pull up
and show that same graph, then I would
update my thinking. Um, but certainly at
the level as presented there, it's like
that's pretty icky. Yeah. So, we'll keep
monitoring the situation. It does seem
like he got caught. I don't know, Elon.
He You used two two of the strikes
already. After the third one, it's going
to look real iffy. I mean, I'll take a
slightly different stance, which is
everything is about on balance. On
balance, is he better or worse for
moving people towards human th uh human
flourishing? I would say right now is
way way way on balance better.
Um but I hate that one. I hate that one.
This is why dude people have to distrust
themselves. Distrust.
Now, every time I say that, there's an
algorithm that runs in my brain that
says, "Hey, Elon has built things way
bigger than what you've built." So, it's
entirely possible that it's actually
from a functional standpoint. It's
better to have a little bit of that. I
don't know if we want to call it
sociopathy, whatever that is, that lets
you say something in public, but
secretly be like, "Nope, psych. Doing it
like this." I I want to be honest with
myself about that. And then I can make
the decision whether I think from a
value standpoint I would be willing to
go down that path. Um, I don't want to
blind myself to what's true. I don't
know. That that makes me nervous cuz
that's a copout. That was kind of like
the cop out. Exactly. I'm going to give
you the uh example. There was a wave of
entrepreneurs who thought they had to be
[ __ ] so that way they can be like
Steve Jobs. So they left all of the
innovation, all of the creativity, all
of that to the side and just overworked
and abused people. So I think there is a
balance between talent, effort, the
things that you So you believe that it's
been proven that that's not necessary.
I think you can be successful without
being abusive. Agreed. Now, do you think
that you can be that on balance if you
are going to um look at the entire
population of people that end up being
successful, do you think that uh more or
less than 50% of them will have a trait
that will be frequently perceived as
being an [ __ ] I think more would.
Yeah. So do I. So instinct, both of us
are just going off gut. We've not run
those experiments. Uh but I have a
feeling that it is a strategy that is
more likely to be found in the bag of
tricks of people that are successful
than less likely. Now, I was very
careful to use the word perceived by
many to frequently be um abusive, but
the things that I have witnessed up
close, the times where I've had to
really push like there are guaranteed to
be people that think I'm an [ __ ] And
I'm like, yikes, man. I've really gone
out of my way uh to try to uplift people
and make sure that they have a voice and
that they feel heard and seen and
appreciated and all that. And even
within that context, there are times
where I do something and I'm like,
"Yeah, that that moment right there
gives them the fuel that they need to
walk away and go, "This guy's a
dickhead." Yeah. And if they were to
recount what just happened, it would
sound like I'm a [ __ ] Now, if I
give you the full context, I feel like
people would be like, "Okay, I get it."
Yeah, but the reality is that yeah
the when you are aggressive forceful
about an issue when you are just point
blank and don't give somebody an out and
you just say you [ __ ] that thing up.
You nobody but you. You made that
mistake. I didn't want to be here saying
it like this but I've tried to like
steer us in a different direction and
we're just you are not getting there.
When you do that, and I have had to do
that. When you do that, I have perceived
with my incomplete skill set that that
was necessary. That's a more honest way
of saying it.
Um, it works and now you can move
forward again. And some percentage of
the time that person quits and is like,
"Fuck you and I never want to speak to
you again." And you're an [ __ ] And
you just accept your lumps and hope that
on balance enough people go, "Actually,
on balance, like he was decent." Anyway,
do you think there's a bell curve for
like success? Like my frame of reference
is that I think there's really smart
people that are really rich. I think
there's really dumb people that are
really rich. I think there's really
ambitious people that are really rich. I
think there's some lazy people that are
really rich. I think that it's kind of a
a assortment up there like within the
group of 1% 5% whatever top group we
pick. If you didn't inherit your money,
yes, I think odds are far more likely
that people that have prolonged success,
so you didn't win the lottery, your
parents didn't give you money, um you
didn't uh your friend said, "Hey, buy
Bitcoin when it was at 13 cents and you
put $100 into it and then you lost your
USB drive and so you couldn't sell it."
And so all the times you would have sold
it, you couldn't. and now it's worth,
you know, whatever
$84,000 and you're stupid rich. Setting
those aside, people that build
something, people that, you know, it
took them years and years and years to
finally get successful. Um the odds that
there's somebody who's really really
dumb there is very low, very low because
you are trying to um create order out of
chaos. What I think you will find is,
oh, this person isn't any smarter than
me. And that will be startling. And that
is true. And I think that Steve Jobs got
directionally correct with something
where he said, "The world is built by
people no smarter than you." Not
entirely true. You're going to run into
some really smart people. Uh but you
will also find that there are people
that are just good at organizing people
and getting them pointed in the right
direction. And so those people are far
smarter than them, but they are not as
good at a concept called VMG, velocity
made good. It is very hard to explain
very quickly. But that is the difference
between extraordinary entrepreneurs and
like good entrepreneurs is the ability
to no matter which way the wind is
blowing to get your company moving in
the right direction.
Copy. All right, let's uh hop in the
time machine. Go back to 1941. Uh on the
precipice of the Second World War,
30,000 people were in New York for an
America First rally. They were
protesting to try and keep the USA from
going to war with Nazi Germany.
Celebrity aviator Charles Lindenberg
says it's obvious that England is losing
the war and they must seek negotiated
peace with Hitler. Um, yeah. If I change
Hitler into Putin, if I change 1941 into
2024 and I change Charles Lindenburgg
into some type of progressive uh
celebrity, I don't know, George Clooney,
a lot of this will be kind of what we're
going through right now. I think it
would actually be the right. It's the
right that's saying uh it's obvious that
Zalinski is losing and he needs to come
to some sort of negotiated. So instead
of an aviator it'll be Elon Musk saying
it's obvious that Elon David Sachs like
a lot of people by the way that I
respect. But the reason I pulled this
tweet is um when I saw it I was like oo
that's a good reminder because my
default stance is if China invaded
California I would relent at nothing.
I'm getting every grain of sand back.
And I'm like, "Huh, interesting."
Because when I look at Ukraine, I'm
like, "Guys, they've got it." Like, let
it go. The Dawnbass Crimea, it's done.
So, I'm like, "Okay, that's important to
map. When it's my backyard, I've got a
real problem." Yeah. When it's somebody
else's backyard, I'm like,
"Well, dying, guys." Uh, and so I don't
want to blind myself to how radically it
shifts. There's a little bit of the um
uh oh god Dave Chappelle where he says
everything is funny till it happens to
you. Everything is easy to negotiate
until it happens to you. So I want to be
honest about that. But um seeing that
did give me pause that like it seems
self-evident to me that Ukraine is not
going to be able to militarily take that
land back. But then in World War II, it
really did seem like Germany's just
unstoppable, bro. Negotiate something.
and Churchill just wouldn't go for it.
And this is part of the big like
kurfuffle around um Martyr is his
Twitter name. I forget his real name.
Daryl Cooper, thank you. Um
that he's like, well, tongue andcheek a
little bit, but maybe
uh Church Hill wasn't such a good guy
after all. A, if you could know all of
Churchill's thoughts, you'd probably
vomit in your own mouth because I'm sure
that he had uh
murderous, unrelenting [ __ ] kill them
all mentality that would creep people
out. Um, I'm sure he did super shady
[ __ ] but I'm pretty happy with the fact
that Germany lost. And he really was. I
mean, for a hot minute, that guy was
standing alone, man. And that's dope.
And so, I'm not saying that he's uh a
perfect human. I'm not saying that I
want to emulate his morality, but I am
saying if I'm being attacked by [ __ ]
people who exterminate people, I want
said sociopath in the lead. I'm going to
fractal for a minute, Drew. This one,
this one is interesting. So, uh, look at
the Vikings. Mhm. Study the Vikings. Ask
yourself about the Berserker
idea. Ask why did the Vikings fight? The
Vikings started doing Viking things,
like what we think of as Viking [ __ ]
like going and conquesting because they
had surplus males who weren't getting
laid. That is the real truth. And we're
like, well, we have to go into other
areas, get access to resources, get them
access to women. And that's the human
experience. And so these guys would you
find the sociopaths among you and you
put them at the front and probably give
them drugs and they would literally
fight naked and just kill kill. Now if
you're being attacked like they roll up
on your house and Lynn is inside and
your friend happens to be hanging out
and your friend is that
guy. I'd be like there's the front door.
There are the [ __ ] Let's go. I
would be stoked that of all people to be
hanging out at the crib, even though I'd
be a little like, "Oh god, I don't know
if I love it when he's here." Uh, in
that moment, I'd be like, "Let's [ __ ]
go." Because you have to account for why
do they exist? Why do sociopaths exist
from an evolutionary standpoint? There
has to be a reason. It's either a
byproduct of something else or it
actually has an evolutionary advantage.
And when you look back at history and
you see a neverending string of death
and murder, you realize, oh, the Jessups
of the world, the Colonel Jessups of the
world, they really are a role. They
really do a thing. Uh, I know we've
looked them up before, but there was
that guy, I need to memorize his name,
that I saw on Joe Rogan who was like, I
don't understand these uh stories like
Lone Survivor where you're being pursued
by seven Taliban. want to see seven dead
people real fast. Have me pursued by
seven Taliban. And I was like, the way
he said it was like, this guy's not
posturing. Yeah. All he does is kill.
Yeah. He's seen some [ __ ] Yeah. Like he
said, I'm almost certain it was the same
guy. He said, uh, oh, we stopped
counting after in one fight after we
killed 100 people. It was like, he's
just like, we're killing so many. I'm
going to keep [ __ ] counting. I was
like, god damn. But hey, the you need
somebody who sits on the wall, man. But
that's really hard to look at
nakedly. Anyway, it's an attack vector
on me that
um I just accept that that is true. Not
saying I like it. I accept that that is
true. That's a good point though because
it brings me back to that Jordan
Peterson quote of, you know, if you're
in Nazi Germany, don't think you would
be the the person in the prison camp.
You might be a guard. And and a lot of
these likes their job. That's the Jordan
Peterson part that I'm always like, "Oh,
yeah. don't think you would hide Anne
Frank because almost nobody did it. So,
and even in these moments where we're it
seems so apparent that Zalinski is going
to lose and we should rally against it.
There was a time where people thought
Hitler was going to win and we need to
just give up. So, to that don't don't uh
trust yourself completely. Like there is
these moments that our emotions get the
best of us that we need to look at
history and see in all these other
turning points. It was high stacked
odds. People didn't believe in us and we
overcame. we should still make sure
we're sober. We're looking at these
things in a different way versus just
well the proof is in the pudding. We
should just give up. Yeah. And then now
I'll go back to but it's not my country
and at some point negotiating a peace is
probably a very good idea. Uh so I don't
know man it's tough. You don't want
dictators to feel like they can just
barge in uh and take [ __ ] We lived in a
world where that was clearly
unacceptable on the international stage
for like 80 years and it was awesome.
Mhm.
Um but it also came with a lot of drone
strikes. So um this is not it's there's
no easy moral answer. And this is why I
think Israel and Palestine just won't
give up in the public consciousness
because it is the thing that forces us
to
say what's actually the moral answer
here. And there there are exceedingly
compelling arguments on both sides. that
will be unpopular because people like to
team up. Uh and so you're either on the
side of uh the Palestinians, which even
that is got to be careful how you phrase
it. Yeah, that's a side or you're on the
side of the Israelis. So it's uh I think
that's unwise. I think looking at the
messy reality is the only thing that's
going to help you find a solution. So
we'll see. We'll see. Yeah. We'll be
back to the show in just a moment, but
first, let's talk about what makes a
truly unforgettable meal. Most people
think amazing meat is something you only
get on special occasions, but with
ButcherBox, you can turn Tuesday night
dinners into experiences worth looking
forward to. Take it from someone who's
been a ButcherBox customer for years.
The taste is
undeniable. This isn't just me