Kind: captions
Language: en
Douglas Murray and Dave Smith collide in
a viral Rogan interview. China slaps
America with more tariffs as the
economic war continues to rage. China
pressures Chinese companies not to open
manufacturing bases in other countries.
Besson breaks down how the tariff game
will play out. Dr. Phil makes the case
to Trump that China is buying American
farmland near our military sites on
purpose. And Minecraft the movie
introduces a new generation to the joys
of interactive cinema. Drew, Douglas
Murray, and Dave Smith were getting
pretty heated about something I call the
dumb voter problem. It's pretty crazy.
Yeah, they were going at it. You talk
about this dumb voter problem a lot. I
think we need the level set on it before
we jump into their commentary before we
play a clip. What do you mean, if you
could give it to me, 35 words like,
okay, uh, super succinctly, there is a
belief by some people that some people
are too dumb and they need their
narrative controlled. A lot of people
are calling that the experts problem. I
know Sam Harris did a video about that.
We don't want just anybody to say become
the expert on anything. Podcast, anybody
with a mic is a authority. Things like
that. Yep. Even uh my boy Asmin Gold uh
was going on a riff. I saw it today. I
don't know when he recorded it, but
recently about we need to disenfranchise
more voters. Fewer people making
decisions, Drew. That's what the world
needs. I get the impulse, but I think
ultimately it is very misguided and we
saw it play out in a very heated
exchange. The interesting thing is
there's two ways to approach uh the clip
that I assume we're about to show people
from uh Rogan uh where Dave Smith and
Douglas Murray were arguing. And one is
that they're like two ships passing in
the night. They're not having the same
conversation, which is why
literally just the opening salvo is like
almost 50 minutes long, 50-0, where
they're just trying to understand where
each other's coming from. And at one
point at like 38 minutes or something,
um, Douglas Murray's like, "Nope, you
still don't understand my point." So th
this is one of those, and I get it. I've
fallen prey to this. I've thought I've
understood somebody and and gone down a
path. But there is a mechanism by which
you can tease that out. We'll talk about
it after we see that so that you don't
death loop any more than you absolutely
need to. Uh, and then the second part is
the do we want to control the narrative?
That I think that's Sam Harris's
position. He does not think I accurately
represent where he's coming from. So,
let's uh keep that in mind. I think that
Douglas imbussed that same idea of there
is a knowable narrative. We need to have
it and to not have it. He kept using the
word weird. We're going to talk about
that. Um and then should only experts be
allowed to speak. Um and we'll talk
about that. But to set things up, I am I
love that Rogan had these two people
on. I'm far more interested in the grand
scheme of things on their disagreements
specifically about Israel Palestine. But
what's going viral is this disconnect
between not who should get to speak, but
I'll represent it as that as it's easy.
Who should get a talk? Here we go. Let's
take a look. I don't quite get like
what's all the appeal to authority
stuff? I mean, would you have to be an
expert or No, I think authority matter.
I think authority matters and I think
that if you just throw a lot of [ __ ] out
there and then say I'm not interested in
the alternative views on this and
particularly when it's a
counternarrative that is wildly off and
when you get people with this look I I
just feel we should get it out straight
away. I feel you've opened the door to
quite a lot of people who've now got a
big platform who have been throwing out
counterhistorical stuff of a very
dangerous kind. Look, the these guys are
not historians. They're not
knowledgeable about anything. No one's
calling Ian Carol. No, but then why
listen to their views on Churchill?
Daryl is incredibly knowledgeable. It's
just he's not he's not wildly.
Several reasons. One is when he was
offered to debate the current greatest
living biographer of Churchill, he said,
"I can't because he knows much more than
me and I admire his work and I've
learned from it, but I I can't possibly
debate him. That's Andrew Roberts." But
you don't have to be able to debate
people to have opinions. No, no, no. You
don't have to debate people if it's not
your thing. But if you, for instance,
Well, okay. But if you say I've decided
that Churchill is the bad guy in the
world, it's not what he said. It's not
what he said. Neither Carol nor Cooper
have said that. But if you only get the
contrary view, which is, isn't it fun if
we all pretend Churchill was the bad guy
of the 20th century, at some point
you're going to lead people down a path
where they think that's the view, and
that's horshit. It is very important
that people understand that their
thinking sits on top of a foundation.
That foundation has three parts very
simply. Your biology, so you react
emotionally to things and that emotional
reaction and your biological ability to
process data. Like all of these things
play into how you see the world. Some
people can deal in higher nuance, more
resolution. Other people need things
slightly more simplified. Um so biology,
that's one. Two is your belief set. What
do you believe is true about the world?
People think that they're witnessing
objective reality. And this is what's
happening here. Both sides think they
see the world accurately and the other
side just doesn't get it. And they
presume that the other side believes
what they believe. And the fact is they
don't. They're they are looking at the
same thing and they are seeing very
different things. So you've got your
biology, you've got your beliefs, what
you believe is true about the world. And
then you have your values, what you uh
believe ought to be true, the way people
ought to act. It is a statement of um
rightness or righteousness. So once you
understand, okay, I've got my biology,
which most people just completely
ignore, have no sense of awareness of
themselves, how they process data,
whether they're in a bad mood, uh low
energy, whatever, and how that impacts
the way that they think. Most people
just set that aside. Uh beliefs, most
people think that they're recognizing
objective truth. Values, people think
that they are universal and not entirely
subjective. And because you have what
and those three things together what I
call a frame of reference. So from your
frame of reference and I think the right
analogy to use for a frame of reference
is you are looking through a distorted
pair of lenses and that distorted pair
of lenses you have no idea that you
could just take that off, put somebody
else's distorted lenses on and suddenly
see the world from their perspective. So
when I'm trying to um get into a
discussion with somebody, the first
thing I try to do is map what their base
assumptions are, their beliefs, what
what is the thing that foundationally is
there. Now the clip we're showing you is
40 minutes in to this discussion and
they're finally just now starting to try
to map like where everybody is. Uh, I
think if you understand Douglas as
saying it's perfectly fine for anybody
to talk who wants to, but dear Joe
Rogan, dear Dave Smith, as podcasters
who have a platform, you have an
obligation ought, you ought to have so
values, you ought to have a balanced
take. You need more experts that can
tell you what's real. And if you want to
balance out all the people that are
talking that have entertaining
perspectives but are not necessarily
accurate, fine. But you ought to balance
that out with these experts. Now, he
he's never able to
articulate why, but it certainly isn't
difficult to prognosticate. Um, so we'll
let the clip keep going and I'll address
where I think he's coming from in terms
of what he believes um are the
downstream consequences belief set of
what happens when you only go with the
entertaining stuff that gets clicks and
fun cool framing. Uh, glad everybody
that wants to speak can speak, but then
you start making those um fun
entertaining fringe views the actual
mainstream narrative that people are
telling. And that has downstream
consequences from his perspective. All
right. I'm still slightly beused about
this move from I'm an expert on this and
I have views to I'm a comedian. I've
never claimed to be an expert on
anything. This is the problem, Joe. I
mean, if if if if somebody say you have
to claim to be an expert on something to
have an opinion on something. You don't
have to be. You don't have to be. But
this is like I'm not a historian, but
I'm pumping out history. I'm not an
expert, but I'm talking all the time
about this. But you're not even talking
about specifically on what he just said.
No, I'm saying this is my point about
this. He You say I'm not an expert. So,
what's the solution? To not talk about
it. No, it's to have more experts
around. Well, the expert class hasn't
done a great job. This is follow the
science. We're now what 41 almost 42
minutes into it and Douglas Murray is
saying, "You still don't understand what
I'm saying." Uh, this is why I say so
often, longtime listeners of the show,
especially people that come to the
lives, will have heard me say the
following phrase over and over and over.
Say in 35 words or less what it is
you're trying to articulate because it
forces people not to talk in fractals.
It's like, okay, I'm going to simplify
this down to because what I'm trying to
get you to is you have a belief. What is
the belief? Or you have a value. What is
the value? What is the thing that's
driving this conversation? if Douglas
Murray had said some and I think and
maybe when he hears this he'll be like I
totally disagree with Tom summation. Uh
but I think Douglas Murray's um stance
can be summed up in the following way.
Anybody who wants to talk should be able
to talk but if you don't balance that in
a volume way with experts who actually
understand the factual
interpretation then the conversation
becomes false.
And so obviously with more words I could
take it even further but like just to
keep it concise and then it's like okay
I Dave Smith am going to repeat back to
you. This this is the idea of steel
manning. Uh I use this in my marriage
all the time. I'm going to repeat what I
just heard from you back to you until
you will say the phrase you understand
my position perfectly. And oftentimes
you'll say it and they'll be like uh
almost cool. What's the nuance that I'm
missing? But again, you need to be able
to give it to me in 35 words or less, or
you don't understand your own position,
and now I'm just like chasing you down
blind alleys. I'm trying to figure out
like what what you're actually saying.
Um, and this is how you can have three.
These guys are very smart to a man, very
intelligent, uh, very thoughtful. I
think they're very sincere. I don't for
the fact that Joe and Dave are
comedians, I think is irrelevant. I
think they're being sincere. like they
are really pursuing things they've
thought a lot about with very high
intellect and yet you've got three
people that they legitimately don't
understand where each other are coming
from. So as a PSA it's like getting down
to what is the base assumption upon
which all the other words that you're
saying are resting on top of. And if you
force yourself to do that, you force
yourself to be able to articulate the
other person's base assumptions back to
them. Now you can actually have a
conversation at the point of actual
collision. Because if they were arguing
about that, should you have to have
balance? Now it's like we can get into a
real conversation and maybe both um
Rogan and uh Dave Smith are like
balance Douglas that's stupid. Like this
is a form of entertainment. And then
Douglas goes, "Wait a second. So your
base assumption is uh despite the fact
that you get millions of views, it
doesn't matter." That's correct,
Douglas. It's just entertainment. Okay.
So I, Douglas Murray, am now realizing
as you say that, and it bothers me,
biology, that um my emotion is telling
me that I have something under here,
either a belief or a value that's really
problematic. And I think you would tease
this out into Douglas's belief is that
if no one can agree on the official
narrative that said another way,
understanding history accurately matters
because it allows you to navigate the
future. Well, Mhm. it is very difficult
to understand
history accurately. The fastest way to
derange that understanding is to let
people who don't actually know the
nuance of this give you like some pop
psychology version of history. Uh, and
that will have negative downstream
consequences that could lead to things
as bad as war. Not that he would jump
straight to that, but it's like this is
how we end up in wars, gentlemen. that
you get this high level miscommunication
between these countries and so you don't
want these false narratives to go
unchecked and I Douglas Murray also have
a value that one ought to pursue maximum
truth maximum efficiency whatever and so
there you have the biology discomfort
around what they're saying which is why
these guys are all talking over each
other uh to identifying what the belief
is that's driving uh the the topline
words that you're actually saying and
then getting into the odd of it all. And
this is how I believe that people should
deal with that thing. Um, all right,
back to the clip. During all of CO, I I
will put my track record against any of
the expert class on CO. I'm glad to do
that. So, should I have just shut up?
Should I have shut up by opposing
lockdowns and opposing vaccine mandates
and talking about theory? That's that's
the entire argument that you're making.
Let the experts handle this. No, you're
not an expert. You're right. I was just
wildly mis uh not listening to what I'm
saying, Dave. To be driving home the
instead of just saying I'll put my uh my
performance in COVID against any of the
experts. What you say instead is what is
the belief that you have writing? Uh I
think the belief is that either the
expert class specifically tries to
control and manipulate. People use
narrative to control you. And I, Dave
Smith, believe that it's going to be
people like a Rogan, like you Douglas,
like me that will have the courage to
challenge that conventional wisdom. And
as the expert class has proven that they
either are mouthpieces, even if they
have good intention, they're mouthpieces
for effectively propaganda trying to
keep us all marching in the same
direction. And I Dave Smith going into
ought I believe we have a moral
obligation not to try to control people
at the level of narrative. And so yeah,
you need people like me, expert or not,
to speak up because you've got to
um resist
aggressively the urge that governments
will have to control the way that people
think.
Now, if they had laid all that out, then
it's like, oh, we can debate that, but
they keep debating at this is what my
wife and I call don't argue about the
tea. One of the biggest fights we ever
got into, probably the biggest fight we
ever got into was about a cup of tea.
And two hours into the screaming match,
I'm like, there's no way I'm this mad
about a cup of tea. So, what are we
actually talking about? And that's when
we got down into the base assumptions,
values, all that. And then I was like,
oh, this is easily resolvable. But not
when we're yelling about the tea. I can
kind of see both of their sides, Dave
using the co example, Douglas Murvy
using the history repeats itself
example, but do you think even at the
fundamental historian podcaster, should
there be a line drawn in there? Should
non-experts be even allowed to talk? Do
you think that that should be a thing as
opposed to if they don't talk da da and
everybody kind of goes into the
consequences? Let's just start at the
very beginning. Do you think that? Okay.
So, getting into my own is an ought. Uh,
okay. So, I think that it is
absolutely true that history is a long
string of the elites controlling the
narrative as a way to control the
populace. And I hate everything about
that. But I am well aware that we it is
not going to be consequencefree to live
in an era where anybody can talk at all
times. Mhm. It's good. My own ought
here. It's good because now you're not
able to trap people with one top- down
narrative, which is exactly what
happened to all of us during COVID. I
think it had wildly deranging
consequences. I don't think the people
trust the government. Uh this is
certainly um a big reason that I ended
up swinging over to uh voting for Trump
because I was like, this is crazy to me.
I feel like the authoritarian um
inclinations of the Biden administration
are so strong that I want to get out
from under this massively. And so this
was really what woke me up political uh
from a political perspective was all
throughout 2021, 2022. I was like, what
is happening? I feel like I'm being lied
to up, down, left, right, ba select,
start, like every direction that they're
coming from, this is just um it's
clearly BS. And so I just want to know
what is true. And you can't silence
people like Brett Weinstein. He's not
gonna be right about everything, but you
can't silence him. Like that's crazy.
This is somebody who is extremely well
educated in biology, who is more likely
than the vast majority of humanity, uh,
to be able to understand the science
that's coming out around vaccines and
things like that. And I want him to be
able to talk. Now, I also want people
who think that he's a lunatic to be able
to say, "I think he's a lunatic. Let me
walk you through why." But I want to be
able to make my own decision. So from an
isot perspective for me uh I think that
people and governments have just an
absolute authoritarian bent. They want
to control the narrative. They know that
it is effective to manipulate a
populace. That you can absolutely get a
populist to do what you want. If you can
control the narrative, you can control
the narrative by silencing dissenting
voices. It is ridiculously effective.
But I also believe foundationally that
it is impossible for any one person to
get everything right. I also believe
that to get things right over time you
need tension between sides. Uh I believe
foundationally that it is very it's
impossible effectively to know which of
the two sides is going to be right. And
that to get to the right answer, you
want to let well-intentioned people
debate whatever they think is true. And
I think that ultimately that's going to
be the best path forward is the dynamic
tension between those two sides. Uh but
given that it is harder than it seems to
pick ahead of time who are the right
people to listen to. You just have to
let everybody talk. Now in an age where
you have the volume and velocity of
information that we have in a social
media age, there is a consequence to
that and there's so much noise that it
can be very difficult in a short amount
of time to find the signal. And Douglas
is right that this will derange over
time. and uh you really hope that you
have the best people arguing for the
highest signal to noise ratio
interpretation of history interpretation
of this moment. Um but I don't think you
get there by telling people to be quiet.
But again, my takeaway from Douglas is
he's not saying people need to be quiet.
He's saying that balance because and I
we didn't show this part in the clip,
but he goes on later to say that he
keeps saying I think it's weird. But I
think it's weird that people only show
one side of it, the entertaining side.
And he goes on to put it very pointedly.
I think there's an algorithm in real
life now that's matching the algorithm
of social media platforms that only
pulls forward what's most engaging,
keeps people on the platform with total
disregard for truth. And you're now
seeing that play out where the far left
will use ideology to um try to
manipulate the public to their side. the
far right will use ideology to try to
manipulate people and move them to their
side and there's no more shared truth.
And in this world where there's no
shared truth and there's only
propaganda, he's like, Douglas Murray, I
believe the correct interpretation is
that is a deranging world that I don't
think any of us should want to live in
because it will have negative
consequences.
Um, my thing is
that I firmly believe in the fullness of
time that people will get to that some
people will get to the right answer and
that you have to let it play out. And
even though there will be good and bad,
that system, I'll call it democratic,
it's not objectively democratic, but
that's directionally close, just has far
fewer negative consequences than
authoritarian manipulation, lying, um,
and coercion. So, the final takeaway on
the should Rogan, Dave Smith, or Tom
Billu have uh this really balanced
thing, I think the balance has to play
out at the level of the person watching,
not at the level of the person
broadcasting. You just you can't take
that whole ethos on. The New York Times
biased as hell.
Uh every podcast is coming from a
singular frame of reference. So even if
I'm like I do my best to actually pull
myself to the center because I think
it's the highest utility position to
stand on but even that I know that I
have I see the world in a certain way.
And so my and you will I hope attest to
this in the lives that we do. I
routinely tell people I hope I'm not the
only voice you listen to. Like go find
other people. We're all groping in the
dark trying to figure out what is true.
And the only way to really get there is
to listen to a bunch of people who
disagree with each other sincerely and
then try to map cause and effect. This
conversation mirrored another
conversation they had later on in the
conversation about Israel Gaza where
Douglas Murray presses Dave, "Have you
actually been there?" as Dave was
retorting about whether or not um uh who
I'm not going to say who's right or
who's wrong, but whether or not it's the
correct interpretation what Israel is
doing. Do you think that that has kind
of mirrors to this expert conversation
as well? It it's a layer of the expert
conversation. So you've got the
question, what qualifies as an expert?
So this is a big part of why their
conversation was derailing was they had
not yet defined the base assumptions
that were driving each of their
thinking. So Dave's whole thing is you
don't need to be an expert to be
valuable in the conversation because I
have a feeling that Dave is a little bit
closer to my take of ultimately the onus
is on the end user. I have never heard
Dave say that. I don't know that that's
true but that's my read of it. Uh and
certainly speaking for myself um that
ultimately the end person taking in this
information the onus is on them to
figure this stuff out. And if you have
that driving assumption now, it's like,
well, oh sure, if you want to go listen
to somebody that has been there, and for
sure, I think that firsthand experience
can't be beat. Like, that's amazing. But
I would rather somebody that really
understands how to think through a
problem that doesn't have firsthand
experience give me their take than
somebody who's just, man, they can't
even live their own life. Like, they're
just a mess. But they've been there and
now they're trying to tell me what it's
like. It's like I don't trust your
ability to think through problems well.
So this becomes a hierarchy. Uh ability
to synthesize would be the most
important thing from my perspective on
somebody whose opinion I'm going to
take. Uh but somebody who has been there
and has a high level of synthesis is
much higher to me than someone who has
synthesis but hasn't been there. So, I
think everybody will agree that there's
nuance when you've done the thing. So,
one of the um arguments against myself
that I completely understand is I love
talking about parenting, but I don't
have kids. And so, the push back on me
is often, well, if you had kids, you'd
think differently. Yeah, I agree. So, I
am giving you my sincere strong take
from where I'm sitting. By all means, if
that doesn't resonate with you and you
only listen to people that have kids, go
for it. Um, I think that I'm decent.
I'm, you know, I'm not Einstein by any
stretch of the imagination, but I think
that I'm decent at synthesizing the
human experience. And so I would um
ignore what I'm saying uh only because
you have found people that are equally
good at synthesizing or better and have
the firsthand experience that I would
certainly understand. But I'm my whole
thing is I don't understand why people
are racing to find a reason not to
listen to somebody. I'm always trying to
figure out does this person have even
one nugget of information that I can
take away? If they do, I'm going to
listen to it. Uh, and I will often find
those people because I'm seeking
disisconfirming evidence. So, um, I'm
trying to map people that are coming at
things from very different angles. So,
that is how I would navigate this. I
don't think it is in any way, shape, or
form a requirement that somebody be
there, but it is for me bonus points if
you've seen it firsthand. We'll get back
to the show in a moment, but first,
let's talk about a reality many business
owners are facing. You understand the
power of social media, but you're not
posting consistently because the editing
process can take precious hours out of
your day. Nobody wants to spend hours
cutting up videos when they can be
running their business. The solution is
to turn the things you're already doing
into social media content automatically.
That's why I'm excited about Opus Clip.
Their Clip Anything AI tool is changing
everything. All you have to do is upload
any long- form video and clip anything
automatically finds the best moments and
turns them into social ready clips. Our
social team at Impact Theory has been
using it to streamline content creation.
But this isn't just for media companies.
It's for any business owner who needs to
maintain a social presence without
sacrificing hours to video editing.
Here's your chance to try it. Go to
opus.pro/clipip
pro/clipip anything and give it a try
for free right now. That's
opus.pro/clipip anything. And now let's
get back to the show. All right. In
liberation day watch day nine. You'd
have thought this thing going on
forever.
China has raised crazy. It's only been
nine days. It's only been nine days.
China has raised their tariffs on us. We
have it at 145 and they just increased
their 84% to 125%. You clap. Someone's
going to clap back. This move is in
response to tariffs by the Trump
administration. Trump's universal
tariffs on China total 145% right now.
The president has paused most of his new
tariffs, at least for now, but we'll be
watching for potential impacts in the
stock market after the opening bell.
Man, it seems like this trade war is not
slowing down anytime soon. Definitely
not. that once you realize that the war
is really between the US and China, uh
this is going to keep escalating until
somebody uh blinks with an off-ramp that
they can take that doesn't look like a
blink. So, because both sides now have
to look good in front of their citizens
and so um I certainly hope that there is
something that allows for this to
deescalate, but I am very much of the
camp something has to change. the status
quo leads to a dire future as um
Thusidity's trap all but guarantees that
we're going to end up in a we're either
going to play this whole game out
economically and we're able to we either
win or lose decisively. We go, huh, not
the game I want to play anymore. Or it's
going to play kinetically. And I'd much
rather it play economically than
kinetically. But uh a global depression
is pretty bad. So, you certainly don't
want to end up in that position.
Um, I think that Bessant has a really
good take on this. I think that China is
in a much worse position than we are.
Uh, we showed the graph that I think
really brings this home in the last uh
episode that we did, but the the amount
that China sends to us for purchase is
much larger than the amount that we send
to them for purchase. So, uh, Besson had
warned about this, um, I don't know, a
week ago or whatever, or maybe it was
on, uh, liberation day. So, whatever, by
the time people hear this, um, it'll
have been almost two weeks. But it's,
you've got the scenario where he is
warning people the the DTOR nation, the
nation that is behind in the trade
game, when it comes to the tariff war,
they usually win.
and China is in a more precarious
position than we are. Um, depending on
how people read Trump given the 90-day
reprieve will determine how you read the
following statement. But I think that
the US is in a stronger position. I
think Trump has the constitution to keep
pushing until we're in a dominant
position. And I think he will go all the
way into a recession. I think he'll pump
the brakes before we get to a
depression. And so some people think
that him backing off was a sign that he
thought he was worried that it was going
to go too far, that it was going to
spill beyond a recession. I don't think
that that's got the highest utility uh
or the highest predictive validity. I
think it's something more like I need to
show the world that we're for real, that
we will do this, but at the same time,
my only goal is to isolate China. So, if
I got what I needed, which is the 75
purported countries that are lining up
to negotiate, I mean, you've even got,
this is a headline level. I haven't dove
deep on this, but at the headline level,
looks like Italy is even willing to go
against the EU, not come as a block,
come individually, um, if you start
seeing stuff like that, if we can get a
big partner like Japan, uh, to go,
"Yeah, I'm here for the new world order.
I get it. And we're going to remove our
tariffs. we're going to remove our non
uh trade tariff or non-tariff trade
barriers uh and really get close to
parody then all the world starts going
uh oh like we need to really get in line
and I it might have been Bessant who
said this uh I think it was oh man he
used really harsh language I wish I had
pulled this clip maybe maybe it is one
of the ones we have but um he said there
was a country I forget which that was
thinking about aligning with China And
he was like, he didn't say suicidal, but
that was like the language was almost
that hard. Like that is not the game you
want to play. Implying that we would be
very punitive if they do that. Happy.
Um, I'm curious to see how this actually
plays out because I'm using the story
with Shien, popular Chinese retailer
that is actually looking to diversify
its uh supply chain, but the Chinese
government is now warning them that they
should consider otherwise. And I
remember the Jack Ma story a couple
years ago. He said something about
China, disappeared, came back six months
later, now he loves the government.
There is some other he's 30 pounds
lighter and loves the government. It's
like, huh, that's interesting. There's
other knobs here that China can pull
that I don't think America, just because
we're not that level of government, can
do. Do you think China's going to start
stronging carp companies to make sure
they win? Like, of course, they're an
authoritarian company. This is what they
do. For the good of the organism, we
will do whatever we have to to the
individual, including uh weaguer
minorities in concentration camps,
re-education camps, sorry. Uh so yeah,
that is the strategy. The strategy is we
know best. Shut up. Do what you're told.
That's the
strategy. This is why I'm so freaked
out. Look, I stand in awe of what China
has been able to do economically. I'm
just not willing to pay the price. I am
not willing to give up uh freedoms,
liberty because I think on a long enough
timeline that ends up being so
destructive you you can't play around
with that. But that's my is and not.
Yeah. And jumping continuing right into
it. This is Besson explaining his
radical economic plan, how he justifies
the reasoning of the recent stock market
volatility for a moment too that one of
the things that the tariffs are doing is
we are pushing back against other
economic systems. So the Chinese have a
very different economic system. They
have uh low cost, some would call it
literally slave labor. They um subsidize
industry with subsidized loans. They
have a lot of non-tariff
barriers. Your show can't be shown
there. Yes. Um so um so we're pushing
back the against that and with the
tariff income it it can be substantial.
And if if we think like a classical
model of tariff income would say if
there's a 10% tariff then the currency
would appreciate about 40% of that so 4%
of it then the producer in the other
country would eat about 4% and then the
US consumer might have a one-time price
adjustment of 2%. So, you know, in a 10%
tariff, maybe the consumer pays 2% of
it. We saw there's a study out recently
from a group at MIT that shows that with
President Trump's first China tariffs,
which were approximately 20%. The price
level went
up.7. So to answer your question, if we
could put on a 20% tariff and have the
foreigners pay that and use that money
to bring down our government deficit and
keep taxes low here, that's a very
unique formula. What say you about his
Trump formula? I know it's not the one
that they got from CHP GBT, but it seems
like he has a reasoning of why they're
doing it and why they're deciding now to
even double down against Yeah. I mean,
listen, I I think Bessant is one of the
best macro minds on the planet. And um I
certainly buy that historically
speaking, you do not if you raise
tariffs to 20%. It does not raise the
price of the consumer good by 20%. Mh.
Because ultimately these are companies
and the company's like, "Damn, like I
don't want to lose the business." So
even if the government is trying to mess
with me, I'm going to try to do anything
and everything I can. I'm going to try
to lower my COGS cost of goods. Uh I'm
going to try to um eat some of it so
that I can keep my price down. Like I
remember at Quest, we would change an
ingredient. That ingredient would be
more expensive, but we knew there was a
psychological barrier for people to make
a purchase. So whatever if they were
3.99, uh you know that you don't want to
be 415. you don't want to be 420. Like
you you want to stay at that 3.99. So
you're like, "Okay, God, I'm going to
eat this one." So my margins go down a
little bit, but you're like, "But the
velocity of sales that I'm going to get
is going to be so much better by not
raising the price uh that I'm better off
just eating that margin." But then
there's sometimes where it's like, "Oh
man, we've had to change a bunch of
ingredients. Um other bars have raised
their price, so we're going to raise
ours." And so this is where it's going
to be this whole game of this is why the
free market is so effective. Uh there's
going to be this game of some people
will raise theirs. Like I heard I heard
the headline headline uh that Best Buy
was going to use the tariffs as an
excuse to raise their prices or may have
already done so. And like it was
something they've been wanting to do for
a long time, but this gives them a
tremendous cover story. Oh, guys, sorry.
It's not This is Trump. Uh but then
other people are going to go, "Oh, cool.
Best Buy just raised their prices. I'm
going to eat it and try to eat their
lunch by keeping my margins a little bit
tighter, but keeping my price down." And
so now I'm going to leverage. And so
there'll be this whole battle back and
forth. And for people who are like,
"Tom, but this these guys are using
tariffs. This is not the free market."
Now, believe what you believe. I want
people to make up their own minds. But I
look at this and I say, "These are
people that understand that we've been
going up against unfair pricing
effectively since World War II. That
we've allowed other countries to put
um barriers, whether tariffs or
otherwise, on us that we didn't put back
on them. We're trying to end that. We
were trying to just absolutely smash
that old world order even though we were
the ones that created it and we're
trying to build a new world order u from
a trade perspective. And so if that's
true, it's like we weren't in a free
market. And so listen to Kevin Olir's
rant that we played in the last episode
uh about like there are so many American
companies, Canadian companies that are
getting just absolutely ripped off by
the Chinese government. Now, if they're
wrong about that, let's argue that. But
if those things are true and you've got
all these barriers being placed in the
way of our commerce, but we don't put
any barriers on anybody else, um, you're
already not in a free market. And so,
um, I do want to see us get to a free
market. I don't want to live in a
totally manipulated world forever. Um,
so for me this is about reorganizing the
world order from a trade perspective so
that we can hopefully get to a truly uh
free market so that competition
innovation is what wins the day 100%.
And to make matters worse, Dr. Phil sat
down with Donald Trump and laid down how
China is buying up farmland mysteriously
close to military encampments. Somebody
did another map that shows they're close
to fiber optic lines. Um, I will just
say hold your tinfoil hat even if you
don't put it on because this is one I
have not done a deep dive on this. So,
Douglas Murray would be so ashamed of me
right now. Uh, I'm going to talk all
about this, but I am certainly not an
expert. Um, so yeah, I don't know
whether I should be tinfoil hating this
and this is like super conspiracy land
or if this is like obviously anyway,
play this and then we'll talk about it.
Fed is where
Chinese government has funded buying
major farmland. Yeah. And then
superimposed on that are some of our
most
strategic military bases and and you So
they want no farmland in North Dakota.
None in Wyoming. Had to get in Utah.
So here's why I say that this might be
tinfoil hat territory. Um, some of the
farmland they have is by military bases,
but there's a ton of farmland that is
not. But the farmland, certainly the
farmland areas like in the center of
California that I'm familiar with,
that's just the best farmland in
America. So, it's not like if they were
buying it in North Dakota right next to
uh, you know, like a nuclear launch site
or something, then I'll be like, yo,
that's super sus because so little is so
little farming is done uh, in those
areas.
Um, but no, I mean, I'm looking at the
map, again, this is not my area of
expertise, but being from California, I
can certainly speak to that one. Looking
at the Washington one, um, certainly
some of the areas that I see, the one up
against the Canadian border, I'm a
little more sus. I don't, my sister used
to live up there and I don't think it's
really known for farming, but the one
against the Idaho border that is, that's
like their um, Napa Valley. So, it's
like, h, none of that seems crazy to me.
So, at least the areas that I know it's
there is a case to be made that this is
just we're buying up all the like prime
farmland, but that's bad enough. Like I
don't need this to be uh that it's by
military sites. Now, if I'm China, oh,
this one happens to be by a military
site. It just goes up in value. Not that
it's the sole reason I'm doing it, but
oh, that one's even more valuable
because now we can keep eyes on it.
Listen, America, I promise you, is
trying to keep eyes on China. So do not
be surprised that China is trying to
keep eyes on us. The bigger question is
how much foreign investment do you want
in things that are critical like
farmland? And this is one man it's
interesting in my own mind watching how
my values shift over time as I begin to
upregulate my concern over a kinetic war
with China. And I'm like oo interesting.
Now I start you know co really changed
things for me where I saw oh damn like
we're not manufacturing anything here.
And so now I've got somebody who's
becoming more and more of a
competitor that controls a lot of things
that are essential to the functioning of
my country. That's just that's just
dumb. Like when as as a capital
allocator running a company, you look at
things like that and you go, "Oh,
strategically you just can't have that."
Like you might have reasons why it's
easier. It's this that or the other, but
it's like you can't have that. Um and so
you just have to have these hard lines.
And again, people that have heard me
talk will have heard this a lot. Being
able to be choked out from a
manufacturing perspective is a hard pass
for me. You can't do it. You can't put
yourself in that position. It's too
weak. Countries do invade. Uh it hasn't
happened in our lifetime on our soil. Uh
but throughout history, it's happened
all the time.
Yeah, man. And in culture news,
Minecraft is going crazy right now.
Dude, this is nuts. I want to go see the
movie. I never go into movie theaters
anymore, but seeing some of the footage
of kids watching Minecraft and going
absolutely berserk at the um what do
they call it? The chicken. Chicken
jockey. Thank you. Uh is like I'm
tempted. I won't lie. This reminds me of
this make me sound so old. Uh this
reminds me of um Rocky Horror Picture
Show.
It's I mean it's doing 300 million at
the box office. It's Killing Snow White.
So, let's go. It's the biggest superhero
uh video game movie I should say opening
of all time. Um which brings me to my
question. Favorite video game
movie. There are no video game movies
that really jump out to me and that
makes me sad. I was very excited for the
um
Master Chief. They did a series Halo
series and it was horrible. Yeah. Um
there might be something that I've
forgotten is based on a video game, but
like the Mario Brothers one was okay.
The Sonic ones were okay, but there was
nothing that I was like, "Yo, this is
dope." Um so I forgot about Tron. Tron
might be it. Tron though isn't based on
an actual video game. Tron was based on
a concept of getting sucked into a video
game and then they made it into a game
if I'm not mistaken. I don't think that
started arcade game. Can you look that
up because I want to know? I think the
movie came first. Uh if that isn't true
then Tron would 100% be my answer, but I
have it in my head. The Tron game came
out actually after the movies. Yeah,
that's what I thought. It's I um I
pitched to a bunch of writers basically
a reverse of uh Tron where think of it
as a video game breaks open and the
characters spill into the real world and
then they come in, they grab a kid and
they take him back inside the video
game. Uh, and obviously influenced by
Tron, but the vibe right now, um,
although I'll be interested to see this
is the reverse. Like, um, isekai, which
is what I was just Tron is like the OG
isekai. People that know, uh, anime and
manga will know exactly what I'm talking
about, but um, getting sucked into a
video game has been so hot for like 15,
20 years now that it's going the other
way. You get the powers of a video game
outside in the real world. So, that's
what we ended up doing. But um I'm still
just beyond fascinated by the idea of
living inside of a video game. Nice. All
right, we got to go. That's all I got.
If you guys aren't already joining us
for the lives, you're going to want to.
Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday at 6:00
a.m. Pacific time. And here are some
highlights from today's. Who do I trust
more, parents or the government? I
absolutely don't trust the government to
educate my kids, but I do trust them to
have a baseline that they should have a
standard that kids should be in school
because there are parents that are
ruining kids because they think they
don't have to. Yo, so at least what I'm
saying. Yo, Drew. Well, the good news
is, Drew, not everybody uh on these mics
is forced to agree because that is crazy
to me. Literally crazy. That's unhinged.
When I look at the history of Israel,
what I see read like the actual
conversations that the founders of
Israel, the nation state, were having,
they're like, "Let's go around the
world. Let's convince people to move
here. we get enough people here, we will
have economic and political power. We'll
be able to form the state because
there'll be so many of us. And it's
like, let's just say, and Eric, if
you've got beef with this, I was
thinking about you this morning. I want
you to speak up. Uh Eric is Mexican for
everybody wondering why I would say
that. Um if so we straight we defeated
Mexico in a war to get what is now like
California, Arizona, parts of New
Mexico. uh and the generals some at
least one let me be very as close to
accurate as I can at least one general
and I know other people were saying this
that the way that we did it because we
were such a superior military force at
the time they were like this is a stain
we will never be able to get off of our
hands we went into a weaker country and
just said [ __ ] we'll take that and we
took
it now
if Mexico is running a strategy Y of
let's use the open southern border to
bring a bunch of people into America uh
not assimilate and we're going to take
this back as is because everyone's claim
is that hey the Israelis this is their
ancestral home. I'm in [ __ ] Los
Angeles. No one can claim that Los
Angeles it's [ __ ] got a Mexican name.
uh is going to be able to claim that Los
Angeles is not the ancestral home of
Mexicans. So, it's like if they were
trying to run uh a deal where they're
like, "All right, let's just go in and
[ __ ] over time we're going to outreed
and we're going to uh import as many
people as we can and we are going to um
speak Spanish and we are not at all
going to assimilate into American
culture." I'd have [ __ ] beef. I would
have beef. So, how can people not be
like, "Yeah, I get why uh Palestinians
are like, you can [ __ ] right off. Yes,
uh this is your ancestral homeland, but
you literally ran a strategy that was
really effective to create your own
state."
Okay, so now that backs me into an
ethical corner because I have marched on
the streets of London saying in Greek a
chant, Turkish troops out of Cyprus.
Now, I did that to impress my wife and
my in-laws because now that I think
about it, the honest answer is, kids,
you got to move on. It's been 50 [ __ ]
years. Either you're going to have to
use military force or you just need to
move on. And so that's where I'm at with
uh America. It's done. And now you've
got to expect Americans to fight back.
Uh Israel, Palestine, it's done. They're
going to fight back. And so if you
[ __ ] invade, [ __ ] around and find
out. And they're going to come at you
hard. Uh Cyprus, if you invade the north
of Cypress, you can really expect Turkey
is going to
respond. that that's just I don't know
what else to do with that. So, I think
you're being disingenuous if you don't
recognize how America came to be
America. I think you're disingenuous if
you don't understand how Israel came to
be Israel. And I think you're
disingenuous if you think people are
just going to be like 70 years later, 50
years later, in our case, 250 years
later, that's not quite true. Uh less
time for America. That we're not going
to be like, "Yeah, I'm going to fight
back." So, um, that's the messy reality
that we live in. Okay. Um, give me the
most hateful response to that from chat.
Who's mad? Because there's no way people
are like, "Yeah, word."
I just had one, too. Lost it. Not
possible. Uh, October 7th was horrific,
but decades of oppression, blockade, and
displacement has pushed people to the
edge. No people can be crushed forever
and stay silent. Yeah, I agree. Here's
the thing. Were they? Um, that is the
question. I do not know enough about to
answer. When you talk to Douglas Murray,
it is um they were given billions of
dollars in aid and they built terror
tunnels and they themselves said, "We're
not going to let the civilians hide
here. These are for our fighters." Okay.
Well, then you get the result that you
get. Um that is not me saying that's as
it should be. That is me saying that is
what's going to happen. That that is the
most predictable response ever of all
time. Uh, so take Russia. Hey, we've
been provoked and so we're going to come
in. Yeah. And they're going to shoot you
in the face for doing so. Uh, I'm having
a hard time tracking what people think
is going to happen. Now, if we want to
talk about what ought to
happen, what ought to
happen gets complicated very fast, but I
will certainly give you my answer. What
ought to happen is uh the Israelis
clearly need a state. They did it
in it's a gangster way, man. [ __ ] This
is so complex. Uh if I were doing it, I
would do what they did.
And so if, let's just say, China comes
in, Holocaust, uh, all Americans being
killed, chased the ends of the earth,
um, I'm going to find a place that we
can go. If every, oh god, this is going
to fractal so fast. Uh, this will be a
much more constructive conversation if I
am asked very specific questions so I
can not run down an ever fractling tree
because you're running into value
systems. You're running into beliefs
that are so
interconnected. Um, so let us take one
thing at a time. Go deal with it. Is
what it is. It's a pain in the ass. I
hear you. Got to do it.
I'm I am surprised. What people are
pushing back on is it's a pain in the
ass. It's not I can't do it. I agree. It
is a pain in the ass. I have a wife that
took my name and she had to go through
changing all of her documentation. All
of it. And this was all back in the
poverty days. You gotta do
it is what it is. Drew is what it is on
that one. I Yeah, on that I don't while
I totally understand uh nobody wants to
do things that are a pain in the ass.
Empathy at
zero. So, but it's one of those things
and like is
it red? Yeah, because I feel like there
what is the al alternative agreement if
because I mean pain in the ass is like
the number one and number two
like uh yeah on this listen doing your
civic duty comes with pain in the ass.
So um you just have to do it. I I'm not
sure the value system on which this is
writing. So, if you think democracy
doesn't need to be protected, then I'm
going to sound crazy to you. If you
think that you can manipulate all of
this by um bringing people in uh giving
them the social security number or just,
hey, like California, you can't show
your ID in California. That that is so
insane. Uh that you're creating avenues
for manipulation. And given that you're
creating avenues for manipulation, then
that's bad in my opinion because now you
are [ __ ] with the tenants of a
thriving democracy. You've got to be
able to know who the people are that you
are allowing to vote. Um Lyn Lavoy
brought up a great point. Um at least
have a way of identifying people exactly
like RFK uh Junior played out. RF one of
RFK's platforms was yes, voter ID should
be manual, but we'll give credits to
anybody so that way everybody has access
to get ID. So for the next What does
that mean? Credits like it's essentially
free easy access. They'll make the
process of getting a stateisssued ID
less paperwork. So now everybody's not
rushing to the DMV and having to wait 5
hours. That was somebody's point
earlier. Yeah. They said if you're going
to make it mandatory, you need to make
it free and accessible. Yeah. If you're
going to make it mandatory, at least
give people a easier way to do it. Um
because people are worried about the
90-year-old the 90-year-old grandma who
leaves her house for church in the vote.
Like now she has to go to the DMV and
then you just said yes pain in the ass.
So that [ __ ] your grandma and her her
Saturday afternoons. 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 flat lines 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 use this
thinking to grow Quest Nutrition by
57,000% in our first three years alone
and scale to a billion-dollar exit. And
now I'm teaching this framework to a
select group of entrepreneurs who are
ready to scale. Now, I want to be clear.
This is not for everybody because I'm
looking to work with serious
entrepreneurs that already have an
established business and a proven track
record of execution. If that's you and
you want to learn how to break through
your biggest business bottlenecks using
first principles thinking, be sure to
apply now. Just go to impact
theory.com/scale or click the link in
the show notes. Again, that's impact
theory.com/scale. All right, everybody.
If you haven't already, be sure to
subscribe. And until next time, my
friends, be legendary. If you like this
conversation, check out this episode to
learn more. Tariff Hokeyp Pokei
continues. Trump offers a 90-day
reprieve to everyone but China. Stock
markets surge on the news. AOC points
out blatant congressional insider
trading. Mr. Wonderful demands more
tariffs on China. Now, Victor Davis
Hansen breaks down how AI automation