Kind: captions
Language: en
A US senator traveled to El Salvador to
free Abrego Garcia. The Supreme Court
made their feelings on the matter clear
for anyone willing to read it. Trump
herangs Powell to lower rates. Powell
continues to ignore him. Gavin Newsome
sues Trump on behalf of California and
alien life may have actually been
discovered without needing to rely on
shaky handheld footage. Drew, the
immigration debate continues to rage on
in crazy fashion. Shall we jump right
into the messy middle of it all? Let's
get let's get messy. Let's do my
favorite line of yours is we are sexily
pole dancing along the middle. So, you
know, we're going to piss everybody on
the left and right off. Let's do it. Um
I really want to break do our Supreme
Court breakdown cuz once um you read the
opinion and kind of gave me the
response, it completely blew up every
narrative I've heard in the last like 72
hours. So, I definitely want to get to
that. But first, covering recent news.
Senator Chris Van Holland of Maryland
went to El Salvador. He was trying to
get access into CEO. This is so crazy.
This is the most American thing I've
ever heard of in my life. Knock knock.
American here. Let me Yeah, let me get
inside the prison. Give me the keys. I
want to go check on somebody. Like I've
been this guy. Uh I hate to say it. I am
the most brash American ever. So it's
like on the one hand I'm like, "All
right, respect. This is seriously
American." And on the other, it really
is cringeworthy. Yeah. Um on one hand, I
respect a US politician that puts, you
know, his money where his mouth is. He
got on a plane. He went he tried. I'm
hope it's not grandstanding, but he
tried to get it was grandstanding. I
assure you. But maybe also true. It is a
little though sus given that the woman
uh who's also in Maryland whose daughter
was beaten to death and raped by an
illegal immigrant did not get this kind
of love from him. Wow. But in fairness,
I do think we have to tease these issues
apart. Yeah. In terms of um what we're
about to talk about really hinges on the
idea of due process. Uh, so anyway, with
that interruption, back to what you were
saying. Um, I really want to just level
set on this is because yes, he's the
arrogant American, but do you think El
Salvador has some responsibility? Might
be the wrong word, but should they have
let him at least see him? El Salvador is
a sovereign nation that should do
whatever the laws of El Salvador require
them to do. They should be able to make
up their laws. I mean, this is the whole
idea even behind states is h we're going
to do things the way that we think
things should be done. this is an
experiment that we're running and we all
get to see uh if this is to the benefit
of their citizens or not and if we were
in a similar context would we want to um
act in the same way. It's the same way I
feel about China. I look at China. I do
not want to live in China. That is not
my style of governance. No thank you.
But I'm not going to lie about how
effective Xiinping's version of um what
I call red light green light capitalism
uh has pulled the the vast majority the
vast number of people that it has pulled
out of poverty is absolutely
astonishing. And so to pretend like um
there are no benefits to their system
would be a mistake. And so I want to
learn from a lot of different things,
but the value system that my comment is
writing on the back of is that sovereign
nations are exactly that. They are
sovereign nations. And um you got to
give them their space. So whether I
think America is the rightest uh system
or not, you can't roll up on a sovereign
country and be like, "Hey, uh this is
now going to be done our way.
I know you love the quote James Burnham
and man as political animals. So I'm I'm
apprehensive as I ask this question, but
is this the proper use of a senator's
time? Cuz to me it felt it felt like 80%
grandstanding, 20% like I'm going for a
grand slam win and I felt like there was
probably.1% that actually cared about
like hey let me make sure the Garcia
family is good. Like I'll say this, he's
got his finger on the thing people care
about right now. I did not expect
immigration, illegal immigration to
continue to be the thing that people
want to talk about. People really care
about that. Uh and you can feel when you
get into a vein that like, yo, the
public really cares about this thing. Uh
and so as a politician, he has good
instincts. People care about this thing.
He is willing to say where he falls on
this. I think he's wrong. I think he is
um acting a bit the fool to roll up and
knock on their door and make demands.
But if he's rolling up and just saying,
"Hey, I'm going to try. I at least want
to be here. I'm going to give this a
shot and I respect that they're not
going to let me do it, but I really
believe in this thing and and therefore
I'm going to make a move and I'm going
to show my constituents uh who I am,
what I care about, what my value system
is, what my beliefs are. I love it. That
that's perfectly fine with me. Do I
think it's a good use of his time?" No,
I don't. Uh, I think that he should
really be looking at what is the thing
that's going to make life better for my
constituents and I don't think this is
the play. Um, but anybody that puts
their finger on due process is like the
thing that I'm going to rally around. I
get it. I think it's a big debate. I
think it's very important. We're going
to go through what the Supreme Court
actually said because they are trying to
keep this grounded on this is about due
process. Due process. And you either are
or are not adhering to the laws of the
United States. who either are or are not
giving people the due diligence. And
there's an interesting collision here
with JD Vance. So JD Vance and and I
when I first read it, I was like, man, I
really get where he's coming from. And
so my sort of knee-jerk reaction was
that JD Vance saying that the Biden
administration has overwhelmed our court
system and it we just cannot go forward
like this. Um I was my impulse was yes,
that is correct. He is reading the
situation in the right way. But my more
thoughtful analysis of the structure of
our government is that we have three
competing branches that are meant to
create tension between the three. Uh
that was put in place for a reason
extremely intelligently by the framers
of the constitution. Uh, I think we we
should want the tension between those
and as we will see in a minute, the
Supreme Court is not being wishy-washy
about this and we are being spun to high
heaven about what the Supreme Court
actually said. Uh, and so I was very I
love doing the lives and admittedly in
the lives I sound very different than I
sound in these which we call our tight
60s.
And the reason that I love doing the
lives is it really gives me a chance to
say out loud the emotions that I have,
which forces me to concretize a feeling
into a concrete string of logic. When
I'm doing that, I can feel when I get to
the edges of what I understand. And over
the last few days, I keep going, man,
I'm taking the headline level about the
Supreme Court, and I'm getting these two
very opposing views. N0 victory for
Trump. 90 defeat of Trump. They can't
both be right. Yeah. Uh and so finally
today I was like after today's live
where I could feel myself continually
bumping up against the there's something
wrong here in my analysis. I need to go
to the source material
and the source material is very revoly.
During the live today we went everywhere
from the 14th amendment to the fifth
amendment. People were arguing about
articles. So, I think the opposite
approach that we're taking now is like,
okay, instead of arguing which part of
the Constitution Trump violated, what
did the Supreme Court actually say given
that their job is to interpret the
Constitution? Exactly. Yeah. So, I think
that's the perfect time to jump into it.
The first thing I want people to
understand is that the Supreme Court is
publishing this stuff. So, you don't
have to guess at what the Supreme Court
says. They are actually going to write
it. And please, I would like to remind
everybody, you live in the era of AI.
So, AI will help you understand this.
So, I am by no means a um constitutional
scholar. I am not super familiar with
the intimate workings of the Supreme
Court like most people. I've gotten to
this stage in my life being like, "Oh,
politics and Supreme Court's a thing
that happens over there." And then I
just operate within the framework. Uh
now that I'm beginning to talk about the
stuff and really piece together the
chain of logic to figure out how all of
this stuff actually works, which again
for anybody new to me, that that is the
thing I'm trying to model for people.
I'm not trying to give you final
answers. I'm giving you my sincere take,
but in no way would I even want people
to simply take what I say and go, "Well,
then this must be the thing." Uh,
because I have found Tom and Tom is
always right. I'm saying Tom is like
everybody deeply flawed. Uh, I am well
aware that the way that my mind works,
I'm going to draw conclusions that are
not useful. Now, my barometer is
utility. So if I believe this, does this
move me with high efficiency towards an
honorable goal? I won't bog us down in
all my definitions, but that's what I'm
always trying to do. Uh so now my chain
of logic here is okay, the Supreme Court
publishes their decisions. Their job is
to interpret what was a an intentionally
very high level constitution. When you
read the Constitution, you realize
there's not a lot of words. Like this
thing is brief and it has given you this
extraordinary country. But coupled with
the constitution was the federalist
papers which were written by the way to
convince these states at the time the 13
states to come together and say um we do
or do not want to be a federal system.
And obviously in the end they decided
that they did. But to understand that
it's like a nonofficial but highly
informative document that explains to
everybody um what the constitution the
way in which the constitution should be
interpreted. There is no document that
has been quoted more times than the
federalist papers in Supreme Court
decisions as of 2000. It was like uh 291
times at an increasing rate. So I'll
assume that we're well over 300 um
citations now at this point, but I don't
know that. I I only know the number as
of 2000. Okay. So, with all of that in
mind, then you can uh drop these
documents into AI. You can start asking
it questions. Uh the first thing I asked
was, is this really the sum total?
Because this is pretty brief. It's only
four pages long. So, I was like, is this
really it? Um Chad GPT uh swears up and
down that yes, that is indeed it. If you
go to their website directly, that is
all you're going to find. So I will
assume that this really is the sum total
which you can find on the Supreme
Court's website itself which is where I
read this. uh and I read it word for
word multiple times and at a high level
what it says is um the we agree with the
under court in part but not in full and
that given that the Supreme Court
decided to pick this up, the um timeline
that the under court put on this uh has
expired and so the Trump is no longer
held accountable to their ruling And the
Supreme Court ruling is broken into two
parts which you will see it's very
clearly uh expressed in the document
itself. There is the overall ruling that
has the 90 stance and that overall
ruling is exactly what I just said. We
agree with part of this not the other
part. Um, and this is going to need to
be kicked back to the um federal
district court that made the official
ruling because they have a word in it um
which effectuate uh and they were
unclear as to what they mean by
effectuate. And if you can highlight
this part because this is um very
important. It says the intended scope of
the term effectuate in the district
court's order is however unclear and may
exceed the district court's authority.
Okay, this is the part that the Trump
administration is saying, hey 90 in our
favor because the district court should
clarify its directive with the with due
regard for the deference owed to the
executive branch in the conduct of
foreign affairs. Now, that's all it
says. I want to be very clear about
that. That's it. Now, the administration
is like banging a drum. They're totally
on our side, bro. Uh they said that the
um the federal district court has
overstepped. No, I just read you
verbatim what they said that you may
have overstepped, that you definitely
owe them difference when it comes to
foreign affairs. Now, after that, you're
in the land of spin. And the Trump
administration in my opinion is going
way too hard saying that these guys that
the Supreme Court has 90 said you guys
are correct and what you did is fine.
Now there is something called a a
statement of concurrence or a concurring
statement. So you get a dissenting
opinion but you can also have a
concurring opinion. So there is a
concurring opinion uh written by Justice
Sodtoayor uh backed by justice Kagan and
Jackson. Now, I just don't know how to
interpret the fact that only three of
the justices, three of the nine justices
have signed off on this. So, I don't
know if we read that as the other six
are like, "Yo, you do not speak for me.
This is not why we said what we said.
You're overstepping." Or if they're just
like, "Oh, yeah. I just didn't have time
to I I don't know. So, let let the facts
of my stance be known." But given that,
they go on to say that deporting him was
an egregious error that should not have
been made. That um Trump should in fact
get this person back with due deference
to you may not be able to do that Trump
because El Salvador is a sovereign
nation. This is not a citizen of our
country. We cannot go and insist that we
get them back is the implication or what
I infer from this. Uh, but they're very
clear that Trump's argumentation, the
argument that they're using, does not
concur in my read what they're saying.
They are saying this person was owed due
process even as an illegal alien. Now,
they never say illegal. They say
immigrant. Uh, in fact, do do me a
favor. Do a search for illegal and see
if that word shows up. Uh my reading was
that they're just saying regardless of
their immigrant status, they are owed
due process. This is where Yeah. the
word illegal doesn't. It appears one
time that the rumor was therefore
illegal. Okay. But they're just talking
about as a rumor. They're just saying
immigrants. So maybe they feel
differently if it can be proven that
he's an illegal immigrant. Um, but
they're saying his due process was not
given to him, that this has already been
adjudicated and they cite the case uh in
there and the way that Trump handled
this was an egregious
error. Okay. So, armed with that, all of
the like this is 90, they totally agree
with us, this is a victory for us, that
does not feel true. And so, I think
we're going to see this go through a
process again where it's going to go
down to the lower court. the lower court
may just give up on that word and say,
uh, it never should have happened this
way. Um, we accept that our timeline ran
out, but it shouldn't have been done
this way. Moving forward, this is a
clear violation of previous Supreme
Court decisions. So, moving forward,
there's no universe in which um, illegal
immigrants should be treated like this
again in the future. That word illegal
is going to have to like have
adjudication somewhere somehow. But to
Vance's point that, hey, the system is
overwhelmed and we're just going to have
to do this stuff. That is going to have
to go through the courts because my read
of this is the court is saying, hey, you
made an egregious error. You cannot do
this. And so even though my sort of
emotional impulse as an American citizen
who does believe that having let however
many tens of millions of illegal
immigrants into the country makes it
functionally impossible for us to try
all those cases, you have to adhere to
the [ __ ] Supreme Court. Like you
can't just say me, we don't like it. Uh
so this needs to go through a process. I
think you are at high risk of what's the
right way to frame this? Trump is
pushing hard to find the edges of what
he can get away with from a legal
perspective. Do I think we're in a
constitutional crisis? No. Uh but I
think that depending on
how much Trump is going to push and
ignore, it could become a constitutional
crisis. And I absolutely, now that I've
read this, I hate the way that they're
framing this as like a 90 victory for
us. It is, I would say, a 90-0 victory
for um the lower courts. The courts,
full stop. The courts owe the executive
branch deference on foreign
policy. Okay? Now, you can't just lump
everything into that. But you can't as a
senator roll up or even as the president
roll up in El Salvador and say, "You're
gonna give me this person back." Just as
a quick plant, I also don't want to
pretend. I think Trump and B Kelly are
like, "Hey, bro, let's like pinky swear
up on this one. Uh, don't send him back
and just say that you this is a citizen
of our country. We believe that he's a
gang member and we're going to keep
him." And I think that there's a ton of
political will on B. Kelly's part to be
like, I want Trump to feel like I'm on
his side so that if I need something,
I'm going to get something. That that's
just smart politically. So you now enter
into the James Burnham territory of this
is political people gonna politic. Yeah.
And now he's a political prisoner
unfortunately. Yeah. Now the question
becomes does he deserve to be? So is
this guy MS-13? Uh the Supreme Court by
my read is saying it doesn't [ __ ]
matter. He is owed due process. He was
not given that due process and therefore
this is a problem. So we're going to see
this work its way back through the
courts. Uh this does not strike me as a
clean victory that Trump would have you
believe it is. Yeah. And there's two
things I want to highlight because to
your point, they have that decision of
what they thought about that the um
lower courts ran out of time to judicate
this position, which is good politics.
Smooth move. But then the second order
to your point is like they also wanted
to make sure that this is not setting a
precedent. Three of them, let me be
clear, three of the justices want to
make sure that that is spelled out, that
it is very clear. Now, they cite Supreme
Court decisions. So, I think we're going
to see it bubble back up through the
court as to what any administration can
do moving forward uh in this situation
and the thing that they're going to have
to and this by this situation I mean
where you have so many illegal
immigrants in the country that the odds
of you being able to give them a trial
of peers is basically zero. And the
Supreme
Court, three of them are making it very
clear. I don't give a [ __ ] They are
owed due process. And if they don't get
that due process, they stay. Like that
seems very clear to me what they're
saying. Yeah. And these are the two
point like sentences I kind of want to
jump dive in on. Um this is part of S
mayor's uh concurring opinion.
Concurring non-conenting. The only
argument that the government offers in
support of its request that it cannot
bring uh Garcia back is that the United
States courts cannot grant relief once a
deport crosses the border is plainly
wrong. The government's argument
moreover implies that it could deport
and incarcerate any person including US
citizens without legal consequence as
long as it does so before a court can
intervene. So to our point that the
lower court ran out of time to fully
adjudicate this. We don't want to set
the precedent that now the government
could just go fast, get them out and if
we get them out before the courts get to
it, then that means we did it cuz we got
away with it once. So I do want to
highlight this cuz this the next
question that people are asking after
this Garcia decision is is this opening
us to fascism? Is this opening us up to
like a authoritarian kind of practices
where we're just going to round up a
gang of people and get them out of
there? Um, so the Supreme Court is is
fighting and outlining it that this is
not a precedent setting uh decision.
This is just a decision that yes, the
lower court got some things wrong. I'll
put it that way. I think the the next
question is what does it mean that the
other six people didn't sign this? Yeah.
So, and this is where hey, welcome. Um,
I'm learning this stuff in real time.
So, that'll be the next area that we
have to dive into to figure out exactly
what that means. Um because you also,
this is Tom Billy speaking, you don't
want to set the precedent that you can
bring anybody into the country and as
long as you get them here, uh then now
they're here forever because we have a
system that's overwhelmed. That is also
horrific. So you have two horrific
things colliding together. Uh and the
right way for this to be handled is the
Supreme Court. And so I am perfectly
happy to abide by whatever the Supreme
Court says even if I um feel like it's
the wrong answer. Like I am not here to
disrupt the three um branches of
government. So uh I like hearing that
they're saying that there is a certain
amount of difference that's owed to the
executive branch. I like that Supreme
Court decisions make clear where those
lines are. Uh and so I want to see this
process continued to be used. Um, so
we'll see how this plays out.
Yeah. So you're looking up what does it
mean that only six people? My bad. Yeah.
Yeah. As so according to Gemini's AI,
it's saying that not all the Supreme
Court justices necessarily offer
opinions after a case. Um, the majority
opinion therefore is the majority
viewpoint of the justices. The
dissenting or concurring opinions can be
written by individual judges. though
with it now being a 9-0 victory plus
three of them have descent or uh
concurring opinions I concurring
opinions with additional details. So the
part that's in the 9 simply says this
must go back to the federal district
court and they need to get more clear
about what they mean uh by that word
that we were just talking about which
effectuate effectuate. Thank you. Uh and
that they need to show difference as it
speaks to international affairs. Uh
so that's the only thing that all nine
of them are saying my stamp is on this.
Now all the other stuff about this um
case something Rumsfeld uh that that
clearly outlines that Trump was out of
his mind and made this egregious error
and all that that doesn't have the stamp
of all nine of them. So that's what I'm
saying like you uh I don't know what to
make of that. I think that means you're
gonna have to see all those additional
details adjudicated. That's my
instinct. So, we'll see how this plays
out, but that's my read. Um, it it
should be read that the three justices
who left uh uh concurring opinions.
Concurring opinions. Thank you. Um, were
three liberal judges, Sodom, Kagan, and
Jackson. They both are typically uh more
liberal. So, I don't know. That's I
don't know if it's a party lines thing.
they just want to make their point made
or but uh I think by the time you get to
the Supreme Court you should be looking
at them not as political appointees but
people that have a
um they have a value
system bent in one direction or the
other. Mhm. Uh so this is uh longtime
listeners of the show will have heard me
talk about this a lot before, but if
you're just encountering me, I have a
belief that the reason that societies
have a left and a right is because for
humans to cooperate flexibly in large
groups, you need the tension between
people that come with a compassion first
approach to life. like they are
literally hardwired to see it that way.
And then people that are personal
responsibility leaning because for a
society to function well at a time where
you're just at constant risk of um
running out of food, being attacked by a
neighboring tribe,
um famine, disease, all of that stuff is
just life is hard. Like you've got to
have people that say um you can't
freload on the system. And then you've
got to have people that say we've got to
take care of each other. You need both
of those impulses in dynamic tension.
And the second that dynamic tension
breaks, both of them steer towards
pathology. There is pathology on the
left, there's pathology on the right. Uh
so when I look at a Supreme Court
justice to go who appointed them only
says what value system do they lean more
towards. I don't go oh this person is a
political hack. Now I think a lot of
people do lean that way. Um I think
that's the wrong way to look at life. I
think the wiser way to look at life is
uh they sincerely believe that thing.
And you don't want a Supreme Court
that's like smashed hard left or smashed
hard right. Agree. You want a Supreme
Court where very sincere, very
intelligent, very knowledgeable people
that want the best for America are going
to do ideological battle with each other
um and try to steer us all forward.
Well, so I wouldn't want a Supreme Court
that's stacked in either direction.
Agreed. We'll be back with the show in
just a moment, but first a brief history
lesson. Throughout history, one pattern
repeats with absolute certainty.
Economic instability. The Great
Depression, the 70flation, the 2008
crash. Each time, paper wealth
evaporated overnight. And each time,
those who owned physical gold preserve
their purchasing power. A tangible asset
created by exploding stars that can't be
printed away or deleted with a
keystroke. American Alternative Assets
makes protecting your wealth simple.
They provide the white glove concier
service that serious investors deserve.
Their team guides you through every step
of securing your financial future with
precious metals. Don't wait for history
to repeat itself while you're
unprepared. Call
1888-6158047 or visit tom
getsgold.com. Again, that's
18886158047 or go to
tomgetsgold.com. This is a paid
advertisement. And now, let's get back
to the show. In other law news, I try.
Gavin Newsome is suing the Trump
administration over tariffs. He claims
tariffs are alarmful and are wrecking
chaos. He put up a video on his uh ex
account. Today, I announced a lawsuit on
behalf of the state of California, suing
the Trump administration. California is
the largest manufacturing state in our
union, one of the largest trading
partners around the globe. No state will
be impacted more than the state of
California as it relates to the
unilateral authority that's being
asserted by the Trump administration to
impose the largest tax increase in
modern American history. How do you
think uh this will impact the trade war
that we are in the middle of?
Okay. So the legal challenges are good.
You want friction. You want people to
challenge this stuff. What's interesting
is if you read the constitution, the
constitution is very clear that congress
has the right to levy taxes and duties.
The executive branch does not. Uh but
there are things like the emergency
economic act,
the something like that. Um and that's
what Trump is claiming. Trump is saying,
look, there's historical precedent for
this. I'm uh calling on there's actually
a few different acts that in certain
circumstances give the president the
ability to uh levy tariffs specifically
just to keep it about that. Um so now
they're going to debate whether those
things apply to the way that Trump is
moving right now. Trump isn't saying oh
no the Constitution does say that I can
do this. He's just saying that there are
acts that have been signed into law that
uh Congress has put forward and I'm
simply using those in good faith. And so
this lawsuit is going to be no, you're
not. You're not using them in good
faith. Uh you do not have the right to
do this. This should not apply that act
should not apply to your behaviors for
this reason. And that's the precise
thing that's going to be adjudicated.
This is a system working as it should in
my opinion. Uh and this is how we built
it. So, um, this is the tension between
the sides working the way that one would
expect them to. And so, we'll see. The
courts will make their ruling. As one
citizen of the United States, I'm
perfectly happy to abide by what the
Supreme Court decides. I don't know how
popular that is. People seem to really
like picking a side and being like, I
know better than the Supreme Court, and
so this is how it should be. But people
should have their voice. They should be
able to say what they want. But uh may I
represent the um side that recognizes
how fallible humans are? Does this
empower China who is our adversary in
this trade war? Are they looking at this
and saying, "Oh, this is going to like
we can just wait this out. They're about
to eat each other alive." Like a as
China, I'm going to look at the world
and go,
"Uh you guys had your moment. Democracy
works, but it's not as effective as red
light, green light capitalism." And when
you can just have one guy who
is so smart, like you don't have to
worry about him making bad decisions.
Um, he's going to decide that is going
to be the thing that's best for us. And
now we're all moving in one direction.
And as a business leader, I get it. That
is how businesses are run. It's like,
I'm going to listen. I want to know what
people think, but at the end of the day,
I'm going to make a decision to ensure
we are all moving in the same direction.
And that's how they run their country.
And so, again, I wouldn't want my entire
life to be run like that. And at the
same time, I recognize how much momentum
you can create when you can do that. The
problem is you can get a lot of momentum
going in the wrong direction that takes
you off a cliff. you don't have to look
any farther than 1960s China itself. Uh
so it it is a um it is a system that
says if you have a good leader, you can
get a lot of momentum going, but if they
are blind to something and they cannot
be convinced otherwise, they will
literally run you off a cliff. And our
system was created at a time where the
Americans had had enough. Uh that sure,
if you have a good king, things can go
well for a while, but they're likely to
run you off a cliff. the power is likely
to corrupt. And so they did their best
to come up with a system that had checks
and balances for that to ensure that
that wouldn't happen. But one of the
biggest debates that happened at the
time of framing the constitution was uh
a strong executive branch sounds a lot
like a king and so we want to weaken it.
And Alexander Hamilton was the biggest
proponent for we want a stronger
executive branch, which is why he was
accused of being a secret um supporter
of monarchy. And that was like the big
like if you're trying to dish on
Alexander Hamilton, you were like he's
unfaithful to his wife and he secretly
wants a monarchy and that's exactly what
he was drugging the mud over and he
fought against it his whole life and was
like no that isn't why I want a strong
executive. Um and he believed that to
get the momentum you needed I forget the
word he used I think active. You needed
an active executive. you needed somebody
that really had a vision, that really
was pushing something forward, that
wanted to create something and get
something moving. So, he understood the
advantages, in my opinion, the
advantages of a king and understood how
despotic that can become and that that
had to be checked and that if you were
going to um balance, you balance with
the check. Um, but you don't want an
inert person at the top who can't affect
change.
We'll see how it's impacting the
economy, but that's already going
through some things right now as uh the
tariff war is ripping through the stock
market in other places. Trump tweeted
from Truth Social, "The ECB, the
European Central Bank, is expected to
cut rates for the seventh time and yet
too late." Jerome Pal of the Fed, who is
always too late and wrong, yesterday
issued a report which was another
typical complete mess. Oil prices are
down, groceries, even eggs are down. and
the USA is getting rich on tariffs. Too
late should have lowered interest rates
like the ECB long ago, but he should
have certainly lowered them now. Pal's
termination cannot come fast enough. He
tweeted that on April 17th at 6:12 a.m.
I just wish that Donald Trump would say
what he really means and like stop with
all this hedging and uh soft mushy talk.
Like for once, Donald, can you just say
what you mean? Please, Jesus, man. Uh I
I don't know what to do. It is amusing.
Uh the way he talks, it is certainly
direct. So okay, first before I uh
herang him too much for the way that he
interacts with the world. Is he right
about
this? Sort of. I'll take the Supreme
Court. He's right about some of it. He's
wrong about others. Uh he is pretending.
Is it dissenting or what kind of opinion
is it? Do you want me to agree with him
first or disagree first? I'm going to do
both. You said Supreme Court. Which side
would you like? Well, the Supreme Court
said the same thing. The district court
was right about some things, wrong about
that's literally like the first sentence
is yes to some, no to others. Uh, and
that's my take on the way that Trump is
pushing Powell right now. Okay. So, um,
if you look right now, the cost of
essentials, some essentials are going
down. Energy costs matter a lot. Grocery
matters a lot. Uh, housing matters a
lot. And if you zoom in on those three
things, uh, and the debt, the national
debt matters a lot. Uh, so Trump, I
think, is pushing on the right things,
but he is admittedly I I think I'm mind
readading admittedly. I have a feeling
he is aware of all the things I'm about
to say, but he knows that he can't say
one of them out loud. And the one that
he doesn't say out loud is the very
thing that makes him seem unhinged to
some. So the here are the parts. Many of
your essentials are going down. The
reason they're going down is because I'm
weakening the dollar by being an agent
of chaos. And I am freaking everybody
out. And because I'm freaking the
markets out, I should be more clear.
Because I'm freaking the markets out.
The dollar is weakening. Uh because of
that, interest rates are in a position
where you could lower them because the
dollar is becoming weakened. And given
that the dollar is weakening, the cost
of things is going down, that now you
have an opportunity where you you he's
asking you to read those signs as see
inflation doesn't matter. Okay. Uh just
to put them in direct conflict, what
Powell is saying is maybe they don't
matter right now in like a month
snapshot, but we don't know anything
about where this goes long term. And
Powell in his speech, which we'll play
in a minute, is saying very clearly, I
expect long-term the prices to go up
because I think the tariffs are going to
have that impact on the economy. Now,
the reason I don't think Trump is
oblivious to that. In fact, I think
Trump believes that that is true. I
think Trump knows that now there's a
difference between some prices go up and
inflation, but we have a global enough
economy that a lot of prices are going
to go up. We'll we'll get into the
nuance of that in a minute, but for now,
I don't think Trump is blind to the
threat of long-term prices going up
across enough things that the average
person will just be like inflation. Uh
because the things I'm paying for are
bad. What I think Trump is focusing on
is I have intentionally driven down the
costs of things like energy. Uh I've
weakened the dollar and I'm doing those
things for a very specific reason. We
must, and I mean must, from Trump, we
must re
um re-up our debt at a lower interest
rate. So, I've done all the things I
need to do, but Powell won't do the
thing he needs to do, which is at least
give me temporary reprieve on the
interest so I can refinance this debt
that we have as a nation that is going
to hit us in the face like a [ __ ]
sledgehammer. And this is this is why I
voted for Trump. He was being very
cleareyed in my opinion about how
devastating the debt was. It's one of
the reasons I should say. And he's
actually got us, even if it's only for a
minute, he's got us to the point where
he could say
um convincingly that lower the rates can
always raise them again. Lower the
rates, [ __ ] so that I can
refinance this debt so that we don't
drown in our debt burden, which right
now is at much higher rate. Now, if you
think of Trump as a real estate guy, you
will understand this is the game. You
build on debt. You leverage yourself
into building this incredible building.
And then when rates go down, you
refinance like as fast as you can. You
don't care if the rates go down that low
for a week, a year, 10 year, doesn't
matter. They're low now. I'm going to
take advantage of this. I'm going to
lock it in for 10 years, whatever. And
now I'm in a much better position. And
on that, I'm with him. I'm like, that
would be amazing. lower the rates, even
if only temporarily, let us refinance
the debt. And then we can, if we see
that actual inflation does start going
up, then we can go, okay, cool. We've
got to raise rates again, and you should
be able to cool the economy back off and
stop inflation from going ham. Uh, but
if this moment is temporary, then
Trump's behavior makes more sense, not
less, because you you have somebody who
realizes, I have urgency. this has got
to happen right now and he is acting
like somebody who believes this has got
to happen right now. Uh so all of that
makes sense to me. Now when you have
somebody at the Fed, you want them to be
more cautious. Yeah. So it's one of
those where I'm again there's a reason
that we have the Fed has political
independence. I am not voting for the
Fed. I think the Fed
is it is very easy for me to get on a
moral soapbox and say they've created an
an immoral situation, which they have.
But because we are in the middle of it,
I do not want to pretend that there uh
when you're in the middle of the system,
you don't want to suddenly like poof,
it's gone and now it's like, oh [ __ ]
Like you could have catastrophic
problems happen all at once. You're in
the situation, you want to manage your
exit out of it. So given that we have a
Fed, I want a conservative Fed. I don't
want them throwing money around. I don't
want them whipssawing the rates
everywhere. But given that we have this
looming spectre of the debt, this is one
time where I could see moving with some
urgency because you can always raise it
back up, but they said at least let us
refinance the debt. Before we jump into
uh Jerome Pal's actual words, what do
you think is his cautiousness coming
from raising or uh lowering the rates?
Like what is he trying to hedge against?
Congress has given us a dual mandate to
keep us at full uh employment and low
inflation, 2% inflation. And to do that,
we have to be cautious because if the
long-term um rate begins to um if we
take it down and then inflation begins
to um skyrocket because of that, well,
now we've broken our mandate to keep the
inflation down. So the part that um is
definitely over my pay grade, but the
part that I'm looking at going, but you
can always raise the rates again. So um
it just comes down to what what is
whipssawing? Like would they be creating
more drama by lowering and then raising
fairly quickly or would it be like thank
god we lowered them, lock that in before
the inflation kicks up if it's going to?
And again, I don't know, long-term
listeners of the show will understand
that I draw intentionally a distinction
between rising prices and inflation,
which are two slightly different
phenomena.
[Music]
Uh because inflation is across the
board. Prices are going up because the
value of your dollar is going down. It's
very different than um we put a tariff
on things coming out of China and now
the things coming out of China are more
expensive. But there could and should be
in the long term American alternatives.
And so that would be a temporary thing
where as we improve our supply chains
and our manufacturing here in the US,
those prices would naturally come back
down. Whereas inflation tends to be a
one-way street. Prices only go up. They
don't ever come back down. Copy. Copy.
All right. Let's jump into uh Jerome
Pal's speech that he gave yesterday in
at the Economic Club of Chicago. Looking
ahead, looking forward, the new
administration is in the process of
implementing a sub substantial policy
changes in four distinct areas. Trade,
immigration, fiscal policy, and
regulation. These policies are still
evolving and their effects on the
economy remain highly
uncertain. As we learn more, we will
continue to update our assessment.
The level of tariff increases announced
so far is significantly larger than
anticipated and the same is likely to be
true of the economic effects which will
include higher inflation and slower
growth. Both survey and market-based
measures of near-term inflation
expectations have moved up significantly
with survey participants pointing to
tariffs.
Survey measures of longerterm inflation
expectations for the most part appear to
remain well anchored as well.
Market-based break evens continue to run
close to
2%. So as we gain a better understanding
of the policy changes, we'll have a
better sense of the implications for the
economy and hence for monetary
policy. Tariffs are highly likely to
generate at least a temporary rise in
inflation.
The inflationary effects could also be
more
persistent. Avoiding that outcome will
depend on the size of the effects, on
how long it takes for them to pass
through fully to prices, and ultimately
on keeping longerterm inflation
expectations well
anchored. Our obligation is to keep
longerterm inflation expectations well
anchored and to make certain that a
one-time increase in the price level
does not become an ongoing inflation
problem. Another thing I think it's
important to understand about um where I
think Trump is coming from is when you
lower rates, you tend to increase
economic activity. So, uh businesses are
able to borrow money at better rates,
which means that they're able to do more
investment, which means they're able to
hire more people. And so, if Trump is
like, "Okay, I'm smashing part of the
economy uh by doing these tariffs, and
so I'm going to slow things down. I'm
going to put us at risk of going into a
recession if we can upregulate the
economy and unlock growth."
uh then we can combat the impact of the
things that I'm doing. Um so needless to
say, if Trump was able to do this
himself, that's exactly what he would do
is he would uh break part of it and um
quote unquote fix another part. So uh
that they would sort of come out in the
wash that he would increase the growth
um internally while breaking while
making certain items more expensive. And
so he'd be able to balance those two out
by saying, "Yeah, some things cost more,
but you're making more money." Yeah. And
then Pal uses interesting language
calling rising prices inflation. And I
know you and some others kind of hate
when he bangs that drum. Can we kind of
spurse out the difference between parse
out the difference between inflation and
rising prices? So I was alluding to it a
few minutes ago. So the way that this
works is inflation, the phenomenon of
inflation, the reason that it gets the
name inflation is because you're
inflating the money supply. When you
inflate the money supply, every dollar
in circulation is worth less. So assets
appear to go up in value, but for the
most part, it's an illusion. You can
have a concurrent rise in the actual
value of an asset. So take Austin,
Texas. People moved to Austin, Texas.
Prices went up uh because there was
higher demand for a scarce resource, the
houses that already existed. And so
those legitimately did go up in value.
Uh for anybody paying close attention,
you will note that the free market
worked and the prices ended up coming
back down, which didn't happen in
California, but that's that fractal. Uh
so we'll hold off on that. So, but there
are times where prices can legitimately
go up because the value of that thing
has increased because supply and demand
has changed. There's more demand for a
constant supply. Uh but inflation is I'm
weakening the value of every dollar
that's out in the market. So what used
to take $100 now takes 110 or 120. And
so it looks like the value of that
asset, your house, went up, but it
didn't. The dollar went down in value.
And that it's nuanced, man. And it's
very hard for people to hold in their
heads. So when prices go up versus the
dollar weakening when a price goes up so
his tariffs will anything that was being
shipped to us from China if there is no
alternative the price of the things
coming in from China will go up by some
amount. Now uh Bessant is very careful
to point out that in Trump term one uh
he raised the tariffs by I think 10% and
the price only went up by.7%.
So it is not a one for one that whatever
you do on the tariffs then the price
that you have goes up by that exact
amount uh for a couple of reasons. One
the tariffs are not paid on the final
sales price of the good. So like as
people are pointing out, hey that Birkin
bag that you're paying $30,000 for
whatever absurd price it is, uh we're
making that for $20. So the tariff is on
the $20. So you can imagine if you've
got that kind of insane margin, you
don't have to pass that on to customers.
You can just eat it. It literally
doesn't matter. Um if something is like,
hey, we don't have those kind of crazy
margins. You as the company are going to
eat some of it, you are going to um
force your supplier to eat some of it
and then you're going to ask the
customer to eat some of it. This is why
we talked about this several episodes
ago where I said part of the reason that
tariffs become a popular form of tax is
it is a tax that's shared across
multiple people. It's not a tax that the
end consumer pays by themselves. And so
it's yet another way to get the tax
revenue without putting all of the
burden just on the end consumer. And so
people are talking like oh the tariffs
are 145% therefore the goods that you
buy are going to be 145% more uh
expensive. That's not true. But
businesses that have tight margins will
go out of business. Uh so you'll get
like those small mom and pop like
importers and stuff. They're just like,
"We just can't do it. We can't eat it
all. We don't have enough power with our
distributor to get them to eat any of
it." Because the distributor is going to
be like, "Sorry, it's your problem." Uh
and so we are going to have to pass it
all on to the consumer. And then the
consumer goes, "Sorry, you're a luxury
good and I just can't afford this
anymore." And so poof, you cease to
exist. Um, so there are real things like
that that are going to be brutal, but it
won't be a one for one, but at 145% it's
brutal. Okay, so you've got these things
that are going to get more expensive. So
if you're getting it from China, it is
going to be more expensive almost
certainly by some amount. How what
percentage? I don't know, but some
percentage. Uh,
so that's very different though than
everything that you have to buy having
that problem. energy cost people should
care about and do care about. I don't
think anything matters as much to people
as the cost of energy. First of all, it
just it impacts everything. So, if he
keeps energy cost low, he's driven them
low right now, but if he keeps energy
costs low, that'll be a huge win. Huge
win. I can't overstate that one enough.
Uh essentials. So, keeping the cost of
food low, which keeping energy costs low
will impact the cost of food because it
all has to be transported. So even if
it's made here in the US, if energy
costs are high, then food costs. Even if
your supply chain is entirely US to US,
it's still going to be a problem. Energy
costs low, if the good is made in the
US, it and if the vast majority of its
supply chain is made in the US, um
you're in a great position. So if he can
be selective with tariffs, which is not
in his personality, certainly not with
China, he's just break everything. So
I'm not blind to that. But what you want
to see is when the dust settles that
this is done far more specifically so
that essentials are not impacted at all
or very little. Uh energy costs are
going down, housing prices coming down,
which again if you can lower rates,
that's going to wildly impact housing
prices. Another reason why he's beating
that drum with Powell to get him to
lower the rates so that the basket of
goods that people really care about go
down. And this is why I get so annoyed
when uh governments change what they
have in the CPI basket because when you
start taking out energy and housing,
which they do because they're like,
"Well, those prices swing." Yeah. But
they're also the things people care the
most about. What the [ __ ] So energy,
uh, food, housing, healthcare, like
those are your big ones, man. And if you
can keep those static or down, people
will forgive the rest. If those go up,
they're not going to care. You will lose
the midterms. Game over. Yeah. So,
Anthony Papliano, a friend of the show,
uh, tweeted this earlier that true
inflation shows inflation is 1.3% today.
Real time inflation has been crashing
since tariffs were announced. Tariffs
are deflationary, not inflationary. The
Fed should be cutting right now. That's
his kind of hot strong take. Do you
agree that Fed should be cutting right
now with where the market is today? I
mean, for the reasons that I was saying
I would love to see the Fed cut
temporarily because I want us to
refinance the debt. The fact that it's
1.36 today doesn't mean it's going to be
1.36 tomorrow. I mean, you don't have to
look very far back on that uh true
inflation graph itself to see how uh
recently I mean, we're talking back in
January, back in February, uh the
numbers were a lot higher. So, this
stuff can fluctuate very quickly. This
is exactly what Jerome Pal is saying is,
hey, sure, right now they're down, but
if you look long-term, the odds that
these tariffs drive costs down is
effectively zero on some goods. Now,
what um I think Pomp is trying to get to
is Trump has actually intentionally or
unintentionally, he has weakened the
dollar, and that's great for exporters,
bad for people that are trying to send
goods to us. So the US sending our goods
elsewhere, people like, "Oh my god,
these have gone down in price. This is
amazing." So it offsets some of the
tariff wars for people that are trying
to reciprocally tariff us. Um so that is
uh a good thing, but when you're
bringing something in from China, it's
going to make that thing even more
expensive. And so given how much we
import from China, I think that in the
long run, Pomp, that's going to be a
slightly misleading statement that there
are going to be a lot of things that go
up in price. Um, and it isn't purely
deflationary. Some things will go up,
some things will go down. Uh, for China,
it will be deflationary in a bad way
because they're going to be dumping a
bunch of goods in their hometown. Right
now, I think what you see is just people
panicking and so people aren't buying
and so rates uh prices are coming down
because they're trying to incentivize
people. But in the long run, what will
happen is they just stop making as many
things. They start laying people off
like crazy, and it really does have a
negative impact. Nice. Nice. All right,
it's time to go into a galaxy far, far
away. Let's do it. Let's hop in the
Millennium Falcon. Um, according to a
study from the University of Cambridge
Institute of Astronomy, they have found
gases in an alien planet
K2-18b. It's about 2.5 times the size of
Earth. It's a water It's a water world
with a hydrogen atmosphere similar to
Earth. And they found some very specific
uh gases that on earth are used to
produce life. And those gases are
dimethyl that on earth are present due
to life I think is probably a more
accurate way to say that. Oh yeah. On
earth they are only produced by life.
Yeah. Yeah. Um so it's dimethyl sulfide
and dimethyl dulfide. Um and this is 124
light years away this planet. Is this a
telltale a tail telltale sign that there
are aliens in the universe? I can
promise you that this is going to end up
being debated. Okay. Uh but I mean the
article right there says this is a
revolutionary moment. So some scientists
are going to be like, "Oh my god, what
else could it be?" But all too often
things like this end up being a huge
nothing burger and it makes me very sad.
I want to believe uh more than uh my man
on uh XFiles, but I I don't know. I
don't know is the only honest answer.
It's very exciting. I'll be paying
attention to see what happens. But we've
had stuff like this before where it's
like, "Oh my god, this is like a sign of
life." And then you look close and it's
like, "Nope, Psych. Just kidding." Uh so
we'll see how this plays out. But um
there are few things that are more
intriguing to me than life on other
planets. Like I am a total sci-fi
psychopath. Like I just am
enthralled by this stuff. So fingers
crossed. I hope it's real. That would be
amazing, but it's too early. All right,
three lightning round questions. All
right. Do you believe in the entirety of
the universe there is other living like
life like advanced societies, they cars,
they work, all that stuff. Got it. Are
they active right now? That I don't
know. So I have always loved about Star
Wars. Shout out to my man Lucas. In a
galaxy a long time ago, in a galaxy far
far away. A long time ago. This was
meant to be something that happened oh
god knows how many eons ago and that
civilization may not even exist anymore.
Uh that's the other thing about just how
old the universe is and that's the
visible universe. There could I mean it
could just go on and on and on and on
and on and on forever. Uh and we're just
talking about the part that we can see.
Like we could just be some ejection uh
out of a black hole somewhere else and
that's what we call the big bang. And
it's just like some small part of the
universe somewhere. Uh, and to us it's
everything, but really it's just the
part that we can see. Do you think that
any human has ever made contact with a
extraterrestrial? Definitely not. 0%. I
think 0%. Okay. And then so that also
means we never seen a craft Area 51.
There's no space technology on Earth.
I'm giving you pure emotion based on all
the things that uh if they were actually
coming here at this point, I think that
there would be evidence that would be
irrefutable. Got it. and it's still
always shaky, blurry over a military
base, like you know what I mean? It's
one of those I so want to believe that I
admit I dial up my um disisconfirming
evidence to a thousand to make sure that
I'm not just chasing vapor. Uh but yeah,
my instinct
is I can't build a chain of logic that
makes me go. Believing that they exist
and that we've encountered them predicts
what I see around me. Believing that
they exist just because the vastness of
space says that well we're here so we
know life is possible. What are the odds
that
something so random happened here and it
didn't get like extinguished? Yeah, it
seems like this has to be something that
when you find something in the quote
unquote goldilock zone that it then
becomes likely to happen. That would be
the way that I would put together the
chain of logic. Therefore, given the
scope and scale of the universe, like
the one that always freaks me out, you
look up into the sky, those points of
light that you see are not stars. They
are galaxies. They are collections of
billions of stars, bro. Like it the
number is just so massive. And then
because I believe that um we are either
in a simulation or that advanced
civilizations are far more likely to
create simulations that people then go
inside of. I don't think people go
explore space unless uh Eric Weinstein
or somebody like him is right that there
will eventually be what he calls pinch
to zoom where you just rip and you then
can travel light years. But my thing is
like going from Europe to America, we
just killed everybody with smallox. Just
like you dead, you dead, you get a
death, you get a death, everybody gets a
death. And if you roll up on another
planet, like dude, that's the highest
risk [ __ ] ever. Like just having the
wrong atmospheric pressure, your dust,
let alone microbes that you're not ready
for. It would just wipe you out. The
radiation in space, like all of it's
crazy. So, I have a gut instinct that
simulations will become so compelling
and indistinguishable from reality that
if you said, "Hey, Tom, I can
genetically alter your physiology so
that you can spend God knows how much
time traveling through space,
high-risisk, high risk in the [ __ ]
extreme. Or uh you can go into a
simulated
world where from one minute to the next
you can decide like right now I want to
be uh a spy on a planet full of robots
and the next minute I want to be fed
grapes by uh a herm of the most
beautiful whatever like you can just run
simulation after simulation after
simulation. It does not strike me that
the vast majority of people will go
explore the cosmos. The only impetus for
that that I can see is Elon's thing of
being multilanetary so that you can't as
easily wipe people out. But I just have
a feeling that the answer is we collapse
inside. Now that is me projecting
because that's how my imagination works.
Um but the string of logic makes more
sense to me. Wow. Video games are going
to kill space travel. Who would have
thought? There it is. That's all I got.
If you guys aren't already joining us
for the lives, make sure you do. They
are Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, 6:00
a.m. Pacific time. Here is highlights
from today's live. So, due process for
citizens, I have a screaming alarm bell.
You absolutely have to have it. It seems
worthy of debate below that. I think
we're entering that territory where
we're kind of have to draw the line of
is the Constitution for persons, is it
for American citizens? Is it for It's
for American citizens. It's just help
you out right there. It's for American
citizens. I'm as much as I hate that
when they wrote the constitution they
weren't even talking about all the
citizens in the country. So now to act
like in 2025 they were including illegal
immigrants is kind of a stretch when
they weren't even including the
population of the current like country.
Um but yeah it just it feels icky though
and I just have to acknowledge that that
it does this is one of those there's not
going to be a clean solution. The
problem is that you let a bunch of
people in the country illegally. You had
an effective strategy. Whether it was
the intentional strategy or not is a
totally different question. But you had
an effective strategy of unfettered
illegal access to the country at there
might have been times in history where
that's less
problematic. Maybe not. I'd have to
think through that. But certainly right
now you can't have that. You you
absolutely cannot have that. Um basen
basen I hope I'm saying this right. It's
a very easy moral question here. If you
support Garcia being sent to El Salvador
or death camp with no due process even
though he was here legally, then you be
a Nazi in a previous life. Um, I feel
like the legally is where I'm learning
like I'm honing in here cuz on one hand
he was at he was told that he couldn't
be deported because a former gang he
would be his life would be at risk. That
gang is now no longer like I guess
around and the protection order was
rescended. So, if you resend that
initial order, that would make him being
here illegally. So, technically, like I
I don't want to act like he deserves to
be in America. It's his like god-given
right or anything like that. Would you
would you have sex with a sexbot? Would
you have sex with a sexbot? If nobody If
nobody would find out, would you have
sex with a sex? And it's non-scentient.
Hold on. That would you have sex with a
nonscentient sexbot if nobody would find
out? Perfect. Good one. Somebody didn't
even wait for the poll. Somebody was
like, "Yes,
yes." If nobody could find out afford
it. If nobody could find out. Yeah. If
nobody will know, nobody will find out.
Nobody will know. Are we doing just Yes.
Dererva wants to know just one time?
Just one at a time. Damn. Skurva. Skirva
horny. I didn't put not sure because I
don't want the not sure. Man, you guys
are icy to the not sure crowd. Nope. I
mean, for this one, it's kind of like
Pedro. Just once. Yeah. Just once. Just
once. Just once.
If it's amazing, I'm telling everyone.
That's good, Ricky. That's good. Brian,
yes. We'll assume you find the sex robot
super attractive. Technically, isn't
that already there? What? A non Selena
wants women to rule the world before
even asking this question. Um, they
already make the mechanical ones that
move and stuff and people already buy
them. No, not lame ones. Like proper
like this is like a human. Yeah, I'm
talking about like every level they pass
the but they are not of course. Yeah,
they could talk to you. They're chat
almost there though. People are already
having sex with the ones that can't
talk. But we want to know where people
put little things in there to push on
them and make them talk. You know what I
mean? So like put things in there. Yeah.
Like the little buttons that you can
press and you record a little voice
line. It's like a build a bear but a
build build a babe. You know m I saw
what you were trying to do. Build Mystic
Gardener. you you you wouldn't exactly
where I want to go. She says, "I'm a
female, live alone." And voted yes.
Let's go. I think like Sex Spots isn't
going to be the sexual revolution that
men think that it's going to be. Like I
think men are going to be like, "Yeah, I
get to have all these big titted women.
They're just going to love me." D like
85 or 75% of women never orgasm with
their partner or something crazy like
that. Like I think women going to sex
bots is going to be a way bigger
phenomenon than is currently being
talked about. Like all the incelss will
definitely be phase one and they're
going to buy them and they're going to
drive the market share up, but I feel
like phase two, phase three, kind of
like the iPhone 17 of this of the sex
bots is going to be some suave Fabio
dude with who like doesn't get solved.
And I was like, "No, I actually believe
it. Cool." uh started interviewing and
hiring um drug dealers, gang members,
blah blah blah, and come smack uh into
the reality
of, oh my god, some of these people are
some of the most
incredible,
kind, smart, amazing people I've ever
met. And I'm like, damn. like you took
this job as a front for your drug money
because you needed to prove to your
parole officer that you could be making
the money that you're making. But you're
telling me that because you now believe
that your life can be something
different. And I'm like, yo, this is
crazy.
and you go to the um baby showers,
kinettas of these people and you get to
know their families and you're like,
"Yeah, I was right to believe that
people deserve a second chance."
And you also come smack into the reality
that the vast majority of people waste
that second chance and they keep doing
ridiculously dumb [ __ ] And you're like,
"Fuck, I hate that this is true."
Because there are some people
that violent Drew, like if I described
the things to you, which I will never
uh you'd be like, "That's a bad person."
Yeah. But I got to know them up close.
They were dope.
So, uh, I have the chills because this
is the hard reality. Some people really
can make that U-turn. And you want to do
anything and everything you can to help
those people. But in my NF1 experience,
the vast majority of people, they're
baked. All right, everybody. If you
haven't already, be sure to subscribe.
And until next time, my friends, be
legendary. Here is the brutal truth
about scaling. 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. If you like this
conversation, check out this episode to
learn more. Trump wants to liberate
Americans by sending US citizens to jail
in El Salvador. He also declares victory
in the Kilmar Garcia deportation case.
While the Supreme Court is like, "Hey,
that's not what we meant." Ray Dallio is
worried about something worse than a
recession. Martin.