Kind: captions
Language: en
Revolutionary breakthrough in cancer
treatments turns tumors into pork. You
heard that correct. The JFK files drop
and the CIA headquarters go on lockdown.
CBDC's are coming to Europe in 2025. Get
out while you can. Senator Schumer mocks
people for wanting to keep their money.
Tim Walls celebrates Americans losing
their retirement funds. Elon brings the
astronauts back as Tesla owners are
doxed and threatened and another Tesla
dealership is firebombed. Bology says
tariffs won't work because China is
skilled labor, not cheap labor. China
drops a new humanoid robot that costs
just over five grand. Google launches a
satellite to detect wildfires. And David
Freeberg offers an American dream tied
to stocks instead of houses. Drew,
welcome to the simulation. This timeline
is wild. It just keeps getting better
and better, you know. Yeah. the fact
that you can now turn your tumors into
pork. Uh once you understand it, how it
works, the Jews and Muslims got
something right about pork, man. The
body goes ham when you turn those Oh, I
didn't even mean that like that. But the
body goes ham when you turn a tumor into
ham. You do it without even knowing it.
You do it without even knowing it. All
right, jump right to it. We got to talk
about the elephant in the room. The JFK
files were released and shortly this
morning, the CIA headquarters was
attacked. So, this is a developing
story. We don't have all the quite all
the information. We don't know that
they're related, but uh the headline
goes, "Gunman opens fire outside of CIA
headquarters in Virginia. Heavy police
deployed." I would be so surprised if
these have anything to do with each
other. This feels like somebody
unhinged. But is it possible that in
their unhinged mind that the CIA is
leaking secrets? Or are they mad because
they think that the documents prove that
the CIA was in on it? They're trying to
take them out. I don't know. This is
pure speculation at this point, but
honestly, the files so far seem to be a
nothing burger. Now, there's 80,000
pages, so it is entirely possible that
as the internet sleuths do what internet
sleuths do that we will find that there
really are a bunch of dots that you can
connect that show something. Uh, but so
far it's not been very interesting. Even
AI reading everything that everybody's
saying on X is like like this isn't
there's really not anything new. Uh, so
we'll see what comes of it. I think
everybody has been focused on this Gary
Underh Hill story though and Gary Underh
Hill left Washington in a hurry late in
the evening. He showed up at the home of
friends in New Jersey. He was very
agitated. A small click within the CIA
was responsible for the assassination.
He confided and he was afraid for his
life and probably would have to leave
the country. Less than 6 months later,
Under Hill was found shot to death in
his Washington apartment. The coroner
rooted suicide. So, while yes, the CIA
isn't the smoking gun, seeing this
happen and people going viral with this
on X and then the gunman going outside
the CIA headquarters shooting up in the
air almost like a I'm coming for you
type thing. I do have my tinfoil hat on.
Yeah, this this is hard to foil hat.
I'll be interested to see my whole thing
with this is something is sus. When
Trump first got into office, as he
relayed it, somebody came to him and I
don't remember who, but they said,
"Listen, if you know what I know about
what's in those files, you wouldn't want
to release it either." And so, they
ended up not releasing it. And the fact
that you can release it to the public,
and look, limited amount of time, but
people have not found anything in it
yet. I'm like, okay, was that guy BSing
and he just was being lazy and didn't
know it was in the files? And so there's
just this perpetual motion inside the
government to want to hide hide hide or
have they pulled things out of the
documentation and so they know the
whatever the smoking gun they went in
they deleted the life out of it. There
were a lot of rumors going around that
when Cash Patel got appointed that
people were just burning and deleting
things as fast as they could. So it's
possible that whatever there was in
there that was damning enough that that
guy went to Trump and said if you knew
what I knew you wouldn't release these
that's just been pulled out. But that is
with Tin Hat firmly in place. Yeah,
we'll keep going through it. There's a
whole lot of files, so I'm sure this
story is going to keep developing as
time goes on. Stuck astronauts Sunni
William and Butch Wilmer returned to
Earth after 9 months in space after
Space X splashed down in Cape Kernal,
Florida. This is incredible in two
lanes. Incredible number one, that you
could reach out to a guy and be like,
"Hey, we've got some astronauts stranded
in outer space." and he's like, "Say
less, fam. I got you." Uh, and launches
a rocket that docks with I've and this
footage I have seen. It looks so fake. I
get why people are like, "There's no way
this is real." Uh, this is real. And the
fact that we were able to do that with a
private company is absolutely
incredible. Now, Elon's gone way out of
his way to say that this was a SpaceX
NASA collaboration. So, hey, word. Uh,
full credit. whatever NASA's role was in
this, I love it the most. Um, but it
really is incredible that we were able
to do this. Now, it's incredible in the
other sense of lacking credibility uh
that Biden or the Biden administration,
maybe is a better way to say it, was so
focused on the politics of not wanting a
guy who supports Trump to grab these
people that it ended up stranding them
for months and months in space. Um, that
is really grotesque. Now, that's in
keeping with what I know about man's
political animal. So, every politician
is going to do this, but given that this
one was a Biden administration play, uh,
point fingers where fingers are due,
that that's nasty. I hate everything
about that. They were supposed to be out
there for six days. That trip turned
into nine months. That's insane. Being
in space that long is not good for you.
So, uh, first of all, you have an
increased exposure to radiation. Uh,
second, there's all kinds of weird
things that are happening to your body.
the way that the fluids like are forced
out of the eye or drift out of the eye.
Like there's weird things that can
happen there. Your spine begins to
expand because there's no gravitational
force on you. Uh when you come back to
Earth, that can create a problem. You
start losing bone density. So, it isn't
like just an inconvenience to these
people. It is potential that this will
have long-term consequences. It's my
understanding that you don't want to
leave people in outer space for I think
three months is like the sweet spot. So,
you start going north of three months uh
and it starts being problematic. So
again, for this to be a political play
is super lame. Both sides do super lame
things. So I don't want this to be a
beat up on one side versus the other.
What I would love to see is for America
to rally together and say this is dumb.
We don't want to see things like that be
turned into politics. So uh that means
that when it's your team, you have to be
the one to pump the brakes. So uh if
you're on team Trump, pump the brakes
when he's doing dumb [ __ ] If you're on
the left, you got to pump the brakes
when your side is doing the dumb [ __ ]
like we really really as a a nation I I
forget who said this. Make America moral
again. I love that. Uh so yeah, I would
love to see that. Doing things like this
for political points is super lame.
Super lame. In other Elon news, uh Tim
Waltz wanted to dunk on Tesla sock. He
was speaking to a crowd yesterday and he
shared his idea of a pickme up. Saying
on my phone, I don't know some of you
know this on the iPhone. They've got
that little stock app. I added Tesla to
it to give me a little boost during the
day.
225 and dropping. It is my understanding
that Tim Walls actually bragged about
not owning any stocks. This is somebody
who does not understand how money works.
And this really grosses me out. This is
somebody who hates Elon Musk and his
politics so badly that he would rather
see him lose phantom net worth. Because
keep in mind, this is just Elon is
wealthy because he owns stocks that the
world says are valuable. But that is a
world who has already bought those
stocks and they're just saying if he
were to sell the remaining stocks that
he has at the price that people are
willing to pay right now, then he would
get rich. It's it's all makeelieve. But
the thing that's real are average
Americans that are holding those stocks
as a part of their retirement fund. So
this is Tim Walls saying, "I don't care
about grandma. I don't care that her
retirement fund is going down. I hate
Elon so much that it actually puts me in
a good mood to see grandma's net worth
going down because it also damages the
theoretical wealth of a very wealthy
person. That is so grotesque. Now, I can
say, okay, he just doesn't understand
the way that all of this works. And so,
he's not thinking about the fact that is
a baseball bat to grandma far more than
it's a baseball bat to Elon Musk. Elon
Musk is going to be just fine. grandma
is not. So when you have a very small
number of stocks making up the vast
majority of the gains in the stock
market and Tesla is one of the biggest
success stories of the last 25 years and
not understanding who is actually
benefiting from that. It is a whole lot
of average Americans who we finally got
to invest money in the stock market
through their uh retirement accounts and
uh investment portfolios that are
managed by other people. These are not
people who are saying I support Elon
Musk and his politics. These are just
people who are like hey because you
print money I have no option but to own
assets otherwise my savings will get
absolutely eroded. And he is celebrating
and a whole audience is cheering for
that reality. That kind of financial
illiteracy at the level that he's at is
unacceptable. It's it's nasty because it
I can understand if it was just jokes,
but it's now starting to creep into
actual results. And that takes us to the
DogeQ website that was actually
DogeQuest, I think, DogeQ.st,
uh, was literally listing supercharger
locations, Tesla dealerships, and the
cursor, if you would scroll through, it
actually had a Molotov cocktail. And
that led to again these might be
completely unrelated incidents but then
now we're seeing people set fire to a
Las Vegas dealership. So we're seeing
this political jargon and we don't like
this guy. Let's dunk on him turning into
actual acts of terror. Like this is
scary. It shouldn't be okay for average
citizens to go around and start bombing
Tesla dealerships or Ford dealerships or
whoever pickup trucks. Like nobody
should be bombing dealerships. Like that
shouldn't be the end goal. Uh agreed.
This is people who do not understand
that when you are doxing and terrorizing
the average American who owns a Tesla
because it's an exceptional car. Uh that
people were pressing Americans to go
green to get rid of their gas uh
guzzling uh traditional engine cars and
to get something that was more green and
better for the planet. And so a whole
bunch of people did it. And now those
same people are put on a list and told
if you don't sell your Tesla then you're
going to be doxed and to your point the
cursor being a Molotov cocktail
obviously encouraging people to uh
commit acts of violence which they are
actually doing. So, this
is this is a grotesque attempt to make a
political statement, which I'm all for,
in a nonviolent manner when you're
taking out out on the people that you
want to see them change their behavior.
So, if you don't like what Elon Musk is
doing with Doge, I love that. I want you
to speak up and I want you to give
people what you believe to be the right
angle to look at this, the right way
that we should be looking at government
spending and whatever you believe to be
true. I'm all for that. Even if you just
are trying to propagandize people and
sway them, freedom of speech says that
you have every right to do that. I'm all
for that. What I am wildly against is
conflating an average American, again,
it could be um just some random guy,
housewife, mom, dad, whatever in middle
America who's like, I really want to do
my part to make sure that my kids have a
better environment to deal with in the
future. And so I got a Tesla to support
it and I love the car and think it's
really cool technology and now people
are defacing that car which does not
hurt Elon Musk. It hurts that person who
now has to either deal with insurance or
drive around with a car that's been you
know defaced in some way. It it is an
illogical attack vector that is not
going to have the outcome that people
want it to have. So when I see people at
the highest level who are supposed to be
our leaders championing this kind of
thing, it is it is really distressing,
man. It's stupid. It's ill-informed and
it's going to
have a different outcome than they were
expecting. I'm starting to see kind of
common threads pulled between these
first three stories where something
happens in the government. Whether it's
a file that is leaked, whether it's
political prisoners, something happens
and then now the public reacts like the
little man ends up getting the grunt
like ends up getting hurt, you know,
like and JFK files were released. This
one person really thought he was doing
his thing and trying to help it. He's
going to be in jail for the rest of his
life attacking a government facility.
You have astronauts who are just in
space doing what they dreamed of when
they were kids and now because of a
political election they're in space six
months longer than they needed to be.
You have somebody who's driving a Tesla
probably got two kids in the back and
now they come back to their Tesla and
it's keyed and there's a flat tire and
it's like I I didn't even vote for
Trump. Why am I getting It seems that
we're we're misdirecting the anger is
it's like weird. Aggressively. This is
the problem with protesting. When
protesting is done right, you can
actually move the government in the
direction that you want them to go. If
people are activists, that's great.
People really should fight for the
things that they believe in. But you
have to think about the method in which
you want to fight. And we have people
resorting to violence so early. And you
resort to violence when words no longer
have the impact that you want them to
have. That is somebody who is saying, "I
give up. I'm not able to be persuasive.
I'm not able to um show people that my
way of viewing things is the right way.
And I am so blinded by my own sense of
certainty, my own emotions that I'm now
going to act out in a way that is
violent, that is destructive. And like
Nelson Mandela says, I always keep
violence in my back pocket as an option.
It is a card. And I get why we have the
Second Amendment. I get why we all
reserve the right to at a certain point
saying armed resistance is the only
thing that's remaining. But the fact
that people are going to armed
resistance this early is insane to me.
And we are going to see things continue
to escalate out of control until the
point where this becomes it's already a
cold civil war between the left and the
right. It will become a hot civil war.
You already have people as an act of
political defiance blowing things up.
Okay. I I don't know how much hotter. I
mean the the only way to escalate that
even further will be to kill a Tesla
owner. But at the rate that we are going
doxing people and all of that, you get
there way faster than you expect. Here
is where people need to understand. You
do not act out in a vacuum. People will
respond. This is the dumbest [ __ ] I've
ever seen in my life. If you think, dear
left, that you can go as crazy as you
want, that you can blow [ __ ] up, and
people on the right aren't going to clap
back, they will clap back with violence.
Violence beggets violence. If your
argument is so trash that you cannot
talk the other side into doing what is
actually good for them, you have a
terrible argument and you need to ask
yourself, am I actually right? Am I
actually leading the country in the
direction that we want to go? And the
reality is the left was not leading the
country in the direction that the
country wanted to go and so they voted.
Now, I am not saying that Trump is doing
all the right things. I don't know yet.
I don't know if all he's doing is
interjecting chaos. That may be the
final analysis and we may have to get
him out of office just as speedily as we
got Biden out of office. It is entirely
possible. But right now to think, oh, I
can act violently, stop using
argumentation as the path forward. To
think that that will not come back to
haunt you is moronic. As a nation, we
must find a path to understanding the
other side, whatever side you're on, has
value. I need to listen to why these
people believe the things that they
believe. And I need to find a path that
is going to be provably good for both of
us. This is not the way. Full stop. If
so, fact though, I'd love that. All
right. Now, in world affairs news, we
want to go behind the headlines. A lot
of times people say, "Oh, this
happened." For example, a word like
tariff and then we just say 20% tariffs
and we leave it. We don't actually go
one level deeper. So, there's some
things that have been popping off lately
that I want to talk about. We could
react to the clip, but then actually
think about the things underlying just
the clip. So, first off, Senator Schumer
um was on the view yesterday and he was
talking about his take on income
inequality and how he feels that the
rich and the billionaire class respond
when the government wants to intervene.
And you know what their attitude is? I
made my money all by myself. How dare
your government take my money from me. I
don't want to pay taxes. Or I built my
company with my bare hands. How dare
your government tell me how I should
treat my customers, my um the land and
order water that I own uh or my
employees. They hate government.
Government's a barrier to people. The a
barrier to stop them from doing things.
They want to destroy it. We are not
letting them do it. And we're united.
Some people need to be chased by a lion.
The the reality is when you are living
in a world where your survival depends
on getting the best and the brightest to
do uh an incredible thing will
short-handed to innovate. When you need
your best and the brightest to innovate
or you die, there is a lot of clarity
about what you need to do with the best
and the brightest among you. And one of
those things is you need to reward them
in whatever way your society rewards
people. It tends to be status and
whatever the money is of that day. We
are in a world now though where things
are going so well that people are
confused about how we're at the point
where some people can coast. And so if
you think of the right analogy as being
a bike on flat land where people pedal
like absolute maniacs to build all of
this momentum to work really hard to
build a societal structure. I'm I am not
denying this is within a framework of we
have built a societal structure. We have
a country that is stable, that has rule
of law, that has private ownership. And
the reason we have private ownership is
so that the best and the brightest can
be rewarded for pedaling that bike like
crazy. Now, not everybody in the country
can pedal the bike at the same rate. Not
everybody has as long of legs. Not
everybody has as strong of legs. But
also, not everybody is recognizing that
if you pedal and pedal hard that your
legs will get stronger over time and you
will get better at this. All we see is,
oh, the bike is moving really fast. And
so, not everybody needs to pedal, so
let's feel bad for the people with short
legs, weak legs, and just say, hey guys,
it's cool. You can pick your legs up.
And how dare those people with the long,
strong legs who are able to innovate and
create all of this momentum? How dare
they clap back and say that you uh have
taken your feet off the pedal? How dare
they demand that you pedal as hard as
they pedal, not realizing that you will,
because you're on flat land, you are
going to run out of that momentum and
the bike will die. And at that point,
now everybody is left fighting for table
scraps. But because people pedal so hard
and got the bike moving, they are now
confused about the reality. And there is
a a quote, I don't know who said it.
I've looked this up, six ways of Sunday.
I cannot figure out who said this, but
Marxists believe that redistribution of
wealth is the miracle. Failing to
understand the real miracle is
production. The real miracle in the
analogy of the bike is the people who
can pedal better, faster, stronger than
the next person. Not the redistribution
of the fact that now some people can
coast. And once you disincentivize the
people who can pedal well, your society
will fall. I understand that people who
can pedal faster should be rewarded than
the people who chose not to pedal for
whatever reason they may be that they
can't pedal as fast as others. But what
do you say to the people that do think
that if since you're so good at pedaling
and your feet are so strong, it should
be okay that you know one or two people
lift it up. You know, if the if the rich
people just gave a little bit more in
taxes, that's going to help everybody
out. What do you say to the people that
think that just a little bit of
socialism or or or striving away from
capitalism would be the solution and
that's the secret, the silver bullet
that we're avoiding? Those people are
right. A little bit of regulation goes a
long way. Creating a society where we
want to look out for the weak among us
goes a long way. I do not want to go
back to Sparta where babies that are
born infirm are put up on a hilltop and
left to be eaten by animals. I don't
want that. What I'm saying is you have
to understand what the miracle is. The
miracle is that people can pedal hard
enough that they can get an entire
society moving on flat land to the point
where there is momentum. That's the
miracle. And as long as we all go, okay,
I want there to be people who are
looking out for the people that can't
pedal. I want there to be a sense of uh
we're not just going to throw anybody
who can't pedal as well as the next
person off the bike and [ __ ] them.
Whatever happens happens. I don't want
to live in that world. It is the
delusion becomes dismantling of the
entire society. When you think that the
ability to take from the people that can
do well and spread it across everybody,
no matter how much it disincentivizes
those people, when you think that is the
moral high ground, when you think that
is the miracle, you will break society.
Now, I'm always curious with people who
take that stance that say they fight for
um social democracy, which I think if
you understand it as socialized
democracy, you will probably get closer
to the truth. And they're going to say
something
like you really have to make sure that
you're looking out for the little guy.
You've got to make sure that those
people are taken care of because it is
absolutely immoral to let these people
that are making money outpace people so
tremendously. So, I don't care how much
they whine and complain. This goes back
to Schum uh Schumer's quote. I don't
care. That's grotesque for them to want
to reap the benefits of their um setup.
You've got to be able to spread this
across everybody. They don't understand
that whenever this is tested, you end up
getting on this accelerating slope
because the people who are pedalling are
going to complain. It's the architecture
of the human mind. They're going to say,
"Wait a second, that's not fair. Why are
you taking from me and giving to
everybody else?" Which again, you do
want to do a little bit. You do want to
put a framework in place where the
strong cannot group up and make sure
that all the weak get kicked off the
bike.
However, as you begin going down that
path, they start complaining and you
say, "Drew, listen, we we're gonna have
to kill that one guy. Let's just call
him Elon. He's way too successful. Uh,
he's made way too much money. It's just
too far." And so, given that he's
complaining and he won't be compliant,
let's just kill him. And then you get
somebody like me who goes, "Well, hold
on a second. That's horrible. I hate
that." And so, then people are like,
"Okay, hold on. I don't want to kill any
more people than I have to, Drew. But
now Tom is creating a problem for me and
so I'm going to have to kill him as
well. If you think that I'm being
facicious, that I'm exaggerating, that
this is hyperbole, read about Stalin's
Russia and Ma China. In Ma China, you
had people going, "Hey, wait a second.
Um, since you've socialized everything,"
and they were just saying this out loud.
We're going to first go to socialism.
Socialism will lead to communism.
Communism is a utopia. that that has not
become like um a distortion of what they
said. That's actually what they were
saying. And so people were raising their
hand going, "Uh guys, actually since
you've socialized all this, the crops
are yielding less." And then they beat
those people to death. Not figuratively,
they actually beat them to death. They
killed them. Uh and then the next person
would be like, "Guys, wait, hold on.
People are now starving to death." And
it's like, "Oh god, that's really
inconvenient. So we're going to go need
to kill that guy who's complaining." And
so now all the people that point out you
don't actually want to plant crops like
that. We need to debate how we're going
to do this stuff because this isn't
working. When you kill all of those
people, then everyone else starves to
death. 45 million people in like three
years starve to death in China. from
like 1958 to like 1961,
uh, 45 million people starved to death
because the people who complained for
whatever reason you want to say they
complained, they were too greedy, they
were selfish, whatever. But they pointed
out this doesn't work, they got killed,
and then everybody else starves to
death. Tom, that's just China. Oh, bad
ruler. Okay, how'd it work out in
Stalin's Russia? Exactly the same. This
is where the idea of the Kulocks comes
from. You have these farmers, the Elons
of farming, and they have more cows,
more crops. So, obviously, that's got to
be corruption. That's not fair. And so,
we're going to go take from those guys
and give to everybody else. Now, the
Kulocks are a either chased out or
killed or so terrified that they're
like, I don't want to succeed. Guess
what happens, Drew? Everyone starves to
death. Literally, not figuratively,
literally. Millions of people starve to
death. And if you really want to freak
yourself out, what ends up happening to
a population that's starving? Some
percentage of them eat their own
children. Again, not figuratively,
literally. And so, you've got people
digging up corpses and eating the
corpses. You've got people selling human
flesh. People do not starve to death
quietly. And I I don't know how many
times this has to play out before people
go, "Oh, there's a thing in the
architecture of the human mind. That's
what we're up against." Let me give you
another example. There was a test done
by I believe it was a college professor
who said uh all of your your grades are
going to be socialized. So whatever the
average grade is, that's what everybody
gets. And very rapidly everyone began
getting Fs because the people that were
pulling the upper end were like, "Well,
this is stupid. I'm just going to get
drugged to the middle. There's no way
for me to reap the benefits of my own
fruit and so I'm going to stop pedaling
as hard." And then other people were
like, "Oh, well, I'm just going to take
advantage of the people that are better
at pedaling than me." But those people
are starting to give up. And so now
they're just slide, slide, slide, slide,
slide until it feels completely
hopeless, and everybody's getting
enough. It it you are up against the way
the human mind works. You are never
going to win with socialism. Now,
democratic socialism, if you can get
that just right, maybe. But you need
look no further than Europe to realize
compared to the US, they get their asses
handed to them at the level of
innovation. After they eating babies, I
feel like I don't have a response to
that. So, I'm just going to move on in
that place. All right, we'll get back to
the show in a moment, but first, let's
talk about the impossible choice that
crypto investors are facing every day.
You either keep your crypto in a secure
retirement account with contribution
limits and restrictions, or you trade
freely on exchanges and run some risk
that your assets all vanish. It
Capital's premium custody accounts
finally eliminate this impossible
choice. Premium custody accounts utilize
a closed loop system that prevents
hackers from draining compromised
accounts. Your assets are never
leveraged, never loaned out, and never
mixed with business operations. Unlike
crypto IRA, premium custody accounts
have no annual contribution limits. You
can buy and sell crypto 247 with
complete freedom. Yes, transactions are
taxable, but the unmatched security and
control you get in return is worth it.
Visit
irrustcap.com/impact and use code impact
when you sign up to fund your account to
get a $100 bonus. Again, that's
it.com/impact. And be sure to use code
impact. This is a paid advertisement.
And now back to the show. Let's go to
the next thing that freaks people out.
CBDC's. And uh the European Central Bank
President Christine Lagarde talked about
implementing this as soon as October of
205. this year, this is months with all
the stakeholders meaning European
Parliament, meaning European Council,
meaning European Commission so that we
can eventually, you know, not put to bed
but put uh to reality this digital euro.
The deadline for us is going to be
October of 25 and we are getting ready
for that deadline but we will not be
able to move unless the other parties
the stakeholders as I call them uh
commission council and parliament
actually complete the legislative
process without which we will not be
able to move and I think it is
critically important and it seems to the
agnostic or the skeptics it seems to be
more relevant and more of an imperative
now than ever before both on the
wholesale and on the retail level both
why she never says Hi. Here's what's
hiding in
CBDC's. To anybody that can hear my
voice right now, please understand how
dangerous this
is. A
CBDC gives the government complete
control of your money. Now,
cryptocurrency and CBDC's sound like the
same phenomena. They are exactly
opposite responses to the digitization
of money.
CBDC's give the government an ability to
control every dime. If I go to the bank
right now and I say, "I would like to
withdraw $10,000." They will ask me why,
Drew. That's none of their business. It
is my money. They're getting confused.
They think my money is their money, and
it is not. With a CBDC, you will get
things like what happened in Canada with
the trucker protest on steroids because
now you don't have to debank anybody.
You just freeze their assets. They can't
do anything. Uh let's also say that the
government doesn't like what you're
spending your money on. I don't like
that you're buying Cheetos. Uh and so I
want you to buy healthy food. And so now
I'm going to stop you from being able to
spend money on things that we don't
like. This is the only reason to go to a
CBDC. Otherwise, you would take the
other end of the spectrum, which is
crypto, and saying, "Oh, digital money
is amazing because now it moves around
effortlessly 24/7, 365. You have
complete and total control of your
money. Can't do illegal things. That's
still illegal. We already have laws
against that. Uh just like I can spend
cash on whatever I want, which is why
the government has instituted policies
where they're forcing banks to ask me
what I plan to do with that
money. But the reality is, if you don't
want me to buy drugs, you're going to
have to police it at the level of the
drugs because it's my money. That's not
the attack vector that anybody anywhere
on planet Earth should stand for. The
government works for you. You do not
work for the government. The government
is there to make your life better. And
when you give a small number of people
the ability to say, "I like or don't
like the way you think or act, and I'm
going to respond by controlling your
money," you are now you're letting your
own government practice economic warfare
on you in the way that the US government
does on Russia. Here is what's happening
behind the scenes. The governments go,
"Oo, this economic warfare stuff works
and it works really well. Let's use it
to control our own people." highest
predictive validity for looking at the
government is to understand that they
want to achieve and maintain power.
Period. End of story. That is that thing
as an organism. And when you give them
control of the flow of your money, you
are giving them control over your entire
life. Okay. I I understand. I feel like
you gave me the the book end of it and
you gave me the setup of it.
Is there any nuance in the middle that
would say that a CBDC can potentially
help because the government can do
direct deposit or like auto tax returns?
I'm trying to think of there has to be
some other way of CBDC's being positive.
It's called digital currencies just not
central bank digital currencies. So
right now you have things like Tether uh
there's a bunch of stable coins. Stable
coins. Yay. We want America to create an
environment where there are stable coins
that are backed with oneto one um let's
even say US treasuries so that you say
all right this you gave this um stable
coin $1,000 whatever and you know that
that $1,000 so that you can now send
transactions on Venmo wherever the hell
you want um frictionless. You want to
know that they're never going to do
anything with that money that has any
real risk whatsoever. So, they're going
to hold a one to $1,000 in this case in
US treasuries. And while nothing is
guaranteed because the US could default,
it it is called the risk-free rate of
return to own a treasury for a reason.
So, it's as close to risk- free as
you're going to get. So, there's a
onetoone storage of that which you don't
get in a bank by the way. Yeah. So a in
that sense a stable coin is more
powerful from a risk mitigation
standpoint than a bank. So now you have
a onetoone US treasury for the dollars
that you gave them and now you can send
the stuff all over the place. The reason
the US government doesn't like that is
they can't control it. This this is a
game of power and control. Period. Full
stop. End of story. Otherwise they would
just be like hey the regulation is this.
Your stable coin must be backed by uh US
Treasury. That's fantastic for the US
dollar supremacy. So even if globally
you're like, "We can't give up the power
of the US dollar." Cool. I'm here for
that as an American. I love it. But if
you weren't trying to control me and the
things that I buy, you would just be
like, "Do stable coins with the
regulation that is backed by US
treasuries." But they're not saying
that. This is I mean, this is Europe. In
in America's defense, I don't think
Trump is going to let a CBDC go forward.
But in Europe, they're saying, "Oh my
god, Drew, this is this is so
important." It's absolutely imperative.
I'm not going to give you a reason why,
but this is imperative that we be able
to Everybody's going to be better off.
Uh no, they are not. They will use this
for control. This will be uh
abused. Look at what Canada did to the
truckers. It's it is egregious. They
were freezing the funds of people who
donated to the truckers. They weren't
protesting. They were just donating to
the truckers.
Yeah, that definitely seems like a
slippery slope. Yeah, if they can
already do stuff like that, imagine when
they literally control all the dollars.
That's nuts because the government, to
get back to the very specific question
you asked, the government could use a
stable coin to make a direct deposit
into your account. Easy peasy.
So then it has to be that other layer of
control, just control. Period. Sheesh.
All right, as we continue traveling
around the world, some breakthrough news
in China. A new cancer therapy disguises
tumors as port to trigger immune
attacks. 90% effective. Chinese
researchers turn the immune response to
organ transplant rejection to cure
cancer with a 90% success rate. called a
tumor to pork strategy. A new study
published in cell earlier this year
demonstrates immense success in
engineering a virus that tricked the
human body into believing that cancer
cells were pig tissue, thereby
triggering a hyperacute inflammatory
response. The virus began attacking the
tumor with a staggering 90% success rate
to the point of curing a patient with
advanced cervical
cancer. This is one of the most
thrilling things I've heard in a long
time. There is something about this
moment. I don't know that these guys
have used AI. So I can't even point and
say like oh my god this is an AI
breakthrough. But this is one of the
many many many reasons that I say the
thing you want to focus on is
innovation. Uh I will remind everybody
how did China unlock this big innovation
all of these things is they started
leaning on capitalism. They moved away
from the very thing that's supposed to
usher in utopia.
Uh this is incredible. I I don't know
what's going on right now, but so many
things are converging and making me
extremely excited about what's
happening. Understanding the mechanism
of how this works. So the way that a
tumor cell works is it disguises itself
and says to the immune system,
everything is fine here. There's no
problem. But what's really happening is
this is a cell that is never going to
stop dividing. Normally the immune
system recognizes that and kills it. All
of us have cancer cells floating in our
body. The immune system recognizes them
and stops them. When a cancer cell
becomes problematic is when it can
disguise itself from the immune system
to say, "All good, no worries." And so
they're using this as a method to make
the cell basically scream out and say,
"I'm a foreign invader." And so the pork
thing is a bit of a um red herring. It
doesn't matter that it's pork. It's just
we know a lot about uh pork. It's been
well studied uh in terms of we looked at
using pig tissue for organ transplants
and things like that and we know how the
body responds. So given that we have
studied this a lot, we know how the
immune system responds specifically to
pig tissue. That's why they used it and
the fact that you can mark a tumor cell
to say I'm a foreign invader is
unbelievable.
So the thing that I don't know enough
about and of course all of these things
they're never as good as you want them
to be. So I'm sure over time we will
find that there are real limitation it
limitations to this or there is some
secondary um problem with the
inflammatory response. An obvious one
would be cytoine storms. So the thing
that was actually killing people in
COVID was cytoine storms as the body
tried to respond to the virus. Uh so you
can actually respond so aggressively
that the immune system kills itself,
kills the host, in this case us. So it's
possible that we see uh actually like
once you go wide there's a huge number
of people that have a cytoine storm and
it kills them. So we'll see. There's
there's going to be parameters here
almost certainly. But man, what an
incredible breakthrough to see them be
able to identify that tissue, tag it,
and then the immune system leveraging a
virus in a way that I don't fully
understand because I think it's
technically the virus that's going in
and attacking the cancer cell. It's not
the immune system itself. So, there's
complexities here that I don't fully
have my head wrapped around yet, but
this is incredibly promising. Yeah. and
something that is just done without
Google scientist for example the AI
model that specifically tackles science
problems without things like that being
at 100% you can only imagine yeah put
those two things together adding quantum
computing who knows we can probably have
this thing wrapped up in 10 15 years um
but this specific treatment is entering
phase two and phase three clinical
trials to evaluate potential and safety
risk and things like that so great
initial clinical lab response now we
actually have to actually do the
clinical trials in people yeah this is
one of the things that makes me very sad
that we are in a cold war with China and
that this is only going to accelerate.
Uh when you get global cooperation,
which thankfully the scientific
community tends to really try to find
ways to help each other out regardless.
Um but this is out of China, man. God
bless them. I'm even though I want
America to win, if China's got something
rad like this, I'm here for it. Clap
clap clap. Flowers at your feet. Yeah.
Very exciting. I'm glad you made that
transition because a lot of times when
we see China's rise in the economy,
everybody thinks it's just cheap labor.
Oh, it's just because they got Tim
T-Moon, Alibaba and that's why China is
accelerating. But Balaji put out a very
interesting tweet with Tim Cook and I
wanted to see his he has a very
interesting take of why China is so
exceptional. So really fast before you
play that uh let me give some further
setup. So think about this in the frame
of tariffs. So, Bology is saying, look,
maybe if um China were just cheap labor
that putting these tariffs and making
those goods more expensive, that would
solve the problem. But that isn't the
problem. China has become very
intelligent labor. And that's what Tim
Cook speaks to in this clip.
There's a confusion about China, and let
me at least give you my opinion. The
popular conception is that companies
come to China because of low labor cost.
I'm not sure what part of China they go
to, but the truth is China stopped being
the low labor cost country many years
ago. The reason is because of the skill,
the quantity of skill in one location
and the type of skill it is. Like the
products we do require really advanced
tooling and the the precision that you
have to have in tooling and working with
the materials that we do are
state-of-the-art and the tooling skill
is very deep here. You know in in the US
you could have a meeting of tooling
engineers and I'm not sure we could fill
the room. In China you could fill
multiple football fields. It's that
vocational vocational expertise is very
deep. As somebody who wants to bring
manufacturing back, how do you think we
juxtapose those two things of it's not
just cheap labor, we might have a
education gap or a skill gap as well
that we need to fill. I don't care if
China is the world's smartest people and
America is a nation of dummies. You
cannot go to war with an adversary that
controls your manufacturing. Full stop.
People are not paying attention or
they're not being sincere about where we
are with China. We are in a position
where your modern way of life, AI chip
manufacturing is basically entirely out
of Taiwan. China has made it abundantly
clear that they plan to reunify with
Taiwan at some point. Now you're putting
yourself in the reverse position. Right
now we can choke China off from having
access to advanced chips. You're putting
yourself in a position which you already
saw in COVID where China can choke you
off from a lot of different goods. And
we are saying ah well during globalism
we the period of globalism we made China
more powerful that they became the
skilled labor not because they are
smarter than us they became the skilled
labor because the whole world was
pouring into them from a manufacturing
standpoint. China relaxed their
restrictions on people being able to get
rich. People started innovating as a way
to generate personal wealth. They made
all these incredible innovations,
trained the life out of their people and
now we're saying well we've lost that
race and so we're not even going to
compete. That is the most absurd
reaction to this moment in history I've
ever heard in my life. You've got to
understand you are a competitor with
China. The age of like everybody gets
along. Globalism first of all was always
a myth. China was using it as a way to
get stronger. You have to understand
their whole thing about the hundred
years of humiliation. We're never going
to let it happen again. They see a world
order dominated by China in the future.
God bless them. I see a world in which
America dominates the world order. So I
understand. But you have to be realistic
about the situation that you were in
when you cannot manufacture. Part of the
American ethos of who we are is
predicated on the story that we told
ourselves about World War II that Japan
dropped bombs on Pearl Harbor and then
said, "Uh-oh, I think we may have awoken
a sleeping giant." And then we
outmanufactured everybody. And our
ability to turn on that manufacturing
machine and make it a um military weapon
was absolutely incredible. And obviously
we're not speaking German or Japanese
because of that fact. We are no longer
that America. We no longer have that
ability. And I love Bology to death. Bye
is brilliant. And thank God I'm able to
look at the world through his eyes. But
the reality is Bology doesn't live in
America. And I don't know if he's
intentionally blinding himself to this.
I don't know. But the reality is we must
address the fact that we are in a cold
war with China that is going to
escalate. that there hopefully never
ever ever do we get to a hot war but
it's certainly a possibility and we must
plan for that possibility now. So you
that's why you think Trump's motivation
to bring terrorists bring manufacturing
back it's to build our own to build our
own supply of goods and services so we
don't need to rely on another country or
do you think it's more
military and defense-based? Trump is a
very complicated figure and anytime
anybody asks me to read the mind of
Trump, I'll do it. But okay, Trump is
complicated. Uh I don't know that what
Trump is doing is going to work. Bye may
be right about tariffs that tariffs are
just going to brutalize the economy.
What I'm saying against Bology's take on
the tariffs is that you can't throw your
hands up and say, "Well, China's already
won the race. This is about them being
uh far more advanced in their ability to
manufacture. What I'm saying is whether
tariffs end up being the play or not, we
must find a path to bringing some, not
all, manufacturing back to the US. You
want to friendshore or onshore the
things that are critical and you cannot
unfortunately much to my dismay you
cannot look at China as a friendly uh
place to leave these critical things
long term do you think that this is
something that the tide is going to turn
because I feel like in the 90s everybody
loved globalism so do you think in a
couple years we're going to start to
realize like oh wait back to isolation
like we should be 100 we're already in
an isolationist move Look at business.
Business answers this question.
Everything bundles and unbundles over
and over like an accordion. And what
ends up happening is you realize, oh,
everything's centralized. Let's unbundle
this stuff. Give people more choice.
Build a whole bunch of different
companies. Like, oh my god, like there's
so much choice. Then, and that's better
for the consumer. And then it starts
getting so fractured that the consumer
gets really annoyed. Think about how
many different uh streaming services you
subscribe to. And then people start
going, uh, I would actually rather you
guys start bundling this up. And so then
people start um through acquisition,
through partnerships, they start
rebundling things and then somebody's
going to go, "Oh, this sucks. It's, you
know, bordering on monopolistic." And we
start breaking it apart again. And it
will just accordion like that. If you
look back through history, same thing.
You go globalist then protectionist.
Globalist then protectionist. It all
comes down to the basically just to
oversimplify the GDP growth of your
country. When GDP is growing,
everybody's happy. when GDP is stagnant
or shrinking, people start being
protectionist.
And do you think AI is going to leverage
or break this model or that's why we're
in the race now? How do you think AI and
technology is going to play in this? AI
could conceivably blow all of this apart
and make capitalism completely uh a
nonsecorator, just not matter. Nobody's
talking about it, thinking about it
anymore. I don't know that that's going
to be true. Um I can certainly paint
that picture. I fear that our community
has heard me talk about this ad
nauseium. Uh but the really really small
nutshell for somebody encountering this
for the first time is if there is no
upper bound to intelligence then AI will
become super intelligent. Super
intelligence will for sure allow us to
capture the energy coming from the sun.
The energy coming from the sun is so
abundant that labor cost will go to zero
because labor is about energy. Once you
think about robots as eating sunlight,
then you'll understand why getting
energy cost to zero is such a big deal
because robots are intelligent labor,
super intelligent labor that operates
for free. So, if AI really does bring in
that world, then you're you're in an
abundance post scarcity world. Um, it's
just there are enough question marks
that as an act of faith, I believe it. I
don't know that that's going to be true.
Nice. Okay, we'll get back to the show
in a moment, but first I have good news
for small business owners. Your days of
scattered finances and wasted time are
over. Say hello to Found, the last
business banking platform you're ever
going to need. With Found, you can
effortlessly track expenses, manage
invoices, and even find tax write-offs
all in one place. No more juggling
multiple apps or spreadsheets. Plus,
it's completely free to sign up, and
small business owners absolutely love
it. That's why Found has over
30,000 five-star reviews with users
saying things like, "Found is going to
save me so much headache. It makes
everything so much easier. Expenses,
income, profits, taxes, even invoices."
If you're ready to streamline your
finances and get back to doing what you
love, open a Found account for free at
found.com/impact.
That's
fo n
d.com/impact to get started today. Found
is a financial technology company, not a
bank. Banking services are provided by
Puremont Bank member FDIC. This is a
paid advertisement. And now, let's get
back to the show. Headed over to the
economy now. locally. Um, David Freeberg
brought up an example of how the
government and federal loans has driven
up housing costs and an alternative to
how the middle class and Americans
should think about growing their wealth
over time. Today, just just to give you
guys some other statistics, 60% of a
middle class household's net worth is in
their home. Only 10 10% of their net
worth is in owning the S&P 500 in in
index funds or whatever in their
retirement accounts. And so by creating
this American dream around housing and
allowing the federal government to
provide loans on housing, we've
increased the cost of housing. We've
created a very like destructive housing
bubble in the sense that it is reduced
people's exposure to participation in
productive value creation. And that's
through the ownership of businesses.
Instead, we've stored our net worth in a
house. And in order to keep the economy
and the social structure stable, we've
created policies that allow the
continuation of the growth in the value
of houses. So people feel like their net
worth is incrementing and% right. And
that's unfortunately very restricted
making new housing which makes it worse
with the restrictions. He's right. But
the part that he's not acknowledging is
the brilliance of building the American
dream around housing. What you are up
against is the average person does not
understand assets. They don't understand
the stock market. You can't live in the
stock market. But you can live in a
house. And when you think about men and
women coming together as a unit to build
that American
dream, women have this strong impulse to
nest. And so you have on the one hand,
this is a place I can store my money
that I can actually live inside.
extremely practical. You also have the
woman who's like, I want a nest. I want
a place that's my own. I want a place
that I can raise my children in. Deep
emotional attachment. And so now you're
as a pair trying to make a decision
where it's like, okay, where do we put
our money? Do we put it in this thing
that we can live inside that we can have
a deep emotional attachment to, that our
kids can grow up inside of, or do we put
it into a much higher yielding thing,
but we cannot live inside of it. we're
gonna have to make short-term sacrifices
for the long-term gain. Um, and by the
way, I don't really understand it. I
don't know what it is. I don't know how
it works. I don't want to learn about
it. It's not very interesting to me at
all. And it becomes very easy to see why
when you propagandize people and you
talk about own a home, American dream,
work hard, save up, buy a house, raise a
family, dude, it's it's emotionally
intuitive. it is um functionally
intuitive in terms of I have this place
that I can live and on the other side
Friedberg uses a word that the vast
majority of humanity they just don't
know what it means when he says a
productive asset people don't know what
that means like what are you talking
about house is productive I can live in
it keeps me warm raise my kids uh the
stock market is not productive but once
you understand what he means is GDP
growth innovation which is almost all
that matters from a people feel good.
They feel happy. Money is flowing.
There's velocity of capital. All that
stuff. But the most important part, the
thing that I think people really miss is
the importance of the ability to
aggregate capital. When you take your
company public, what you're doing is
you're aggregating capital. You're
saying to the public, I've got a vision
of what I want to do with this company.
This company is going to become more
valuable over time. You guys, by buying
the stock, you're going to be able to go
on that ride with me. And as I make the
company more valuable, that stock is
going to be more valuable. But the
productive part is that if that person
is right and they're actually able to
build something that innovates because
remember companies build a thing that is
so valuable, you'd rather have that
thing than the money. Think about air
conditioning. Just think about like what
that's done for people's lives. So the
ability to aggregate that capital allows
them to build that incredible innovation
that makes our lives better. Now, if
people understood, oh, wait a second, I
can take this money that I was going to
put into just my house, and I'm going to
put it into the stock market, which is
going to historically yield much bigger
returns than my private home is going to
yield. And uh it's also going to make
the country better because people are
going to make goods and services that
make life better. So now I'm going to
make a lot of money over a long period
of time to make the world better. Yeah,
sign me up. I want to be in that world.
And those companies aggregate that
capital to give me a better future, give
me a better present. So, but that's so
hard to understand. So, there is a
brilliance to own a home that is lacking
in own assets. Yeah, I think it's kind
of the lay man's model of here, just buy
this thing, stay here, live here 30
years, you'll be good. Whereas a
productive asset is a bit more risk, a
bit more brain power that it needs to
take into account. When I hear this
clip, I get triggered because housing
affordability to me is a solvable issue
that's not being solved. And everybody's
arguing about the tea in your analogy
where we're arguing about the problem
versus something that's directly
affecting the price and the supply. But
I'm gonna put that to the side for a
second because I like that what I'm
hearing from Freeberg is that there's an
incentive if we incentivize people to
invest in business or we incentivize
people to be productive to make things
to help build the economy that would be
greater and better for everybody
involved. And I think we need to change
our incentive structure from here buy
your nest egg stay in this thing for 30
years and you will be good. And we need
to figure out a way to incentivize
people to say if you invest in these
companies or if you are able to start a
company or if you do these XYZ things
you'll be able to generate build
something that it now helps more people
and that's a better way for the country
to operate in general. That ends up with
uh people starving to death. That that
is the part of you that is just
screaming there's a better way to do
this and so we just need to force people
just a little bit. uh what you educate
people. We could do a way better job of
educating when I think that um I have
the intellectual capability of
understanding the stock market but
nobody taught me about it. So I didn't
learn about the stock market till I was
in my 40s and I was worried that the
average person was going to get
obliterated by co and so I start
learning about investing because I am
effectively a teacher. I mean that's
what I do in the company out of the
company like that. That is one of my
just personality things.
And as I started realizing how it
actually worked, I was like, whoa. Like
the world does not understand how this
game is actually being played. So I
would love to see people be taught about
this. Teach everybody everywhere about
this as we grow up. So the people that
are going to be able to understand it,
they can and they'll get into the stock
market. But the reality is I'm not
asking anybody not to believe in a
house. But what I want to do is remove
the distortions because the narrative
has been about own a house. The
government steps in and tries to make
sure that a house is a good investment
because they're like, "Well, we kind of
promised you that this was going to
work." If you, and this is why releasing
regulations ends up, it scares people to
death, but it's actually better in the
long-term analysis because if people
were like, "Well, look, a house is
functional. It's awesome. It's just not
a great way to build wealth." Maybe real
estate investing, great way to build
wealth. But owning my home, I shouldn't
look at as an investment. I should look
at as a thing that I'm doing. It is a
way for me to um save money, if you
will, in that the house is valuable and
money that I put into renovate it or
whatever um keeps it safe, keeps us
warm, place to live, and I can sell it
at some point. It's a generational
asset. Love that. Um, but where you
don't want to be in a position where
you're keeping the supply limited
because you promise people that the
house is going to go up in value. And
the only way you can guarantee that is
by crushing the supply artificially. And
so if you just let the market do what
the market's going to do, people are
going to start expanding. They're going
to build houses in other places. Um,
that
will keep the price lower for sure. So
you're not going to see that it's just a
no-brainer to go buy a house. Um, but
you let the market do what the market's
going to do. And I don't see any way to
remove all the downside for people and
not create uh huge bubbles, which is
exactly what we've done. And in the case
of housing, just make it out of reach
for massive swasts of humanity. Yeah, I
I hear that increasing housing supply is
what solves the problem. And on basic
economic terms, I think that that would
matter, but I think that there's a
perversion in the market right now,
especially with the invention of like
Airbnb. We see the same thing in like
the used car market with the invention
of Turo. Whereas it's not a house
problem. It's a people with multiple
houses problem. And I'm not saying
people should only live have one house
or whatever like that. Argue with
yourselves. But there have been
municipalities and places that we have
seen. Austin for example, it was the
housing market went crazy. A bunch of
people bought multiple houses to Airbnb
them. They put legislation in there to
ban all Airbnbs. Atlanta did the same
thing. The housing market then dropped
because I think now the availability of
houses isn't the true actual supply and
availability of houses. People are
buying houses to start a housing
business. Just like people were buying
used cars over the pandemic to start a
used car business. There's a lot in in
Southern California where they have a
hundred of Teslas sitting in a parking
lot so other people can sign for Uber
and Lift and come use these cars and use
it and you pay me like an indentured
servitude type. This is brilliant. I
don't know that I'm going to be able to
navigate us through this well, but let's
try because this is so important. Okay.
So, uh I say, "Drew, this is you want to
deregulate." And you're like, "Hold on a
second. You want to make Airbnbs
illegal. So, you want more regulation."
And it was the more regulation that
caused the drop in the housing prices.
Let me introduce you to China. We just
got to watch China live the accelerated
version of the promise of the American
dream. And so, they said to everybody in
China, just buy property. You guys are
going to be good. Buy property. We're
going to keep building these. Um,
everybody's going to want to try to get
their money into property because
property number always go up. Mhm. And
so people were just like literally as
fast as they could build them, people
were buying into them because that was
the way to get rich. And then they
realized, oh my god, we have a wild
overupp of housing. And now a lot of
people are about to get eaten alive
because the government there has got to
do something. They've either got to
demolish the housing, they've got to let
the prices of the houses absolutely
crash, but that will crash the net worth
of like a ton of people. And so by
promising that this is the play, by
making sure that people could borrow
money and get into the house because
number always going to go up and it does
for a while until it doesn't. If instead
you deregulated it and you said if you
want to build a house, build a house,
but that's on you. If you take out a
loan and you can't get somebody into
that house, you lose. Now all of a
sudden people that are buying up all the
property are going to be like what's the
actual desire for this housing because I
don't want to get out over my skis. And
what'll happen is a builder will get out
over their skis. And if you don't
protect them and you let them fail, then
they fail and they take down some small
um number of people with them, but they
don't take down the whole economy. And
so the reason that governments end up
having to print money is they get
themselves into a situation like that
where they've got to go in and rescue
the entire housing market because it has
become too big to fail. Right? Sound
familiar with banking? So you let banks
end up getting too big to fail. You
can't let them fail. You have to print
money which socializes the losses across
everybody in the country. You prop up
that industry, creates a bubble, wild
distortions. People start doing crazy
[ __ ] that doesn't make any sense because
they know the government's going to step
in and save the industry. And if you
just and it is painful, but if you just
let these things die when they're small
and let people lose money when it's
small, then you start telling people the
mark there's no one to catch you. So
people start being riskaverse for
themselves because they know that the
government isn't going to come in. And
so if you want the housing prices in
Austin to drop rather than regulating
and saying you can't do Airbnb, you say
if you want to build a house, build a
house. And so now people go in and they
and they look at what's available on the
market. Nah, nothing's interesting. I'm
going to go build myself another house.
Now you've got a choice. Whenever the
buyer has a choice, they're in a better
position. When you put them in a place
where it's like you can only buy what's
already there. Gross example from rich
guy. I get it. But my house ended up
being the last what they call McMansion.
So you now cannot make a house bigger
than mine in the Hollywood Hills, which
means I have the biggest house in the
Hollywood Hills. Now, what do I know
that that means about the value of the
house? means that it's always going to
have a certain amount of attractiveness
because you just can't build another
house of this size. That's great for me,
but I would literally in a snap say I
would much rather they reverse that
regulation and let people build a better
house than mine. That's fine. That way
buyers have options. I would rather be
in that position than feel like haha
like I got my thing and now people, you
know, I'm locked in and [ __ ] everybody
else. The it's called nimiism, not in my
backyard. And I'm just saying this is
not an easy game and there's no super
simple answer, but you want to be
lighter touch regulation. Let people
fail. Let let the value of my house go
down. Let the value of my house drop to
zero. If like this just ends up not
being the cool place to live anymore,
whatever that that is what it is. And if
I bought a house that was too expensive
for me, which I did not,
uh then that's bad on me. And if I was
smart, which I was, and bought only
something that I could pay all cash,
great. Then if it goes to zero, I lost
that money and I didn't spend more than
I could afford to lose anyway, this you
have to put people in that position. If
they know that you're going to come and
rescue them, they start making poor
choices that create these insane
bubbles.
Okay.
Um, do you think it's more
important I'm setting you up. I'm sorry.
No. Do you think it's more important?
Cuz if I'm thinking poorly, I want to
know. Yeah. Cuz to me, I think housing
supply is more important than
maintaining wealth within your house. So
to Freeberg's point of I love that you
and I agree. Where do you think I'm
disagreeing with that?
It is only the mechanism by which we
don't let housing and prices
artificially inflate that you and I
disagree about. Yes. I I think houses
are artificially inflated up right now.
Agreed. Me too. Okay. And I think that
the way to fix that is a regulation that
would release additional artificial
supply to be released to the public. For
example, I think it's either Birkshshire
Hathway, Black Rock. There's one of
those both, but Black Rockck owns
basically everything. 30% of single
family homes are owned by people who
don't actually need a single family
home. It's owned by a hedge fund. It's
owned by a collection of of investors.
That shouldn't be the case. I feel like
single family homes should be may owned
by single families. Now, if you want to
own a condo high-rise in Manhattan, oh,
absolutely. God bless you. That's that's
free reign. Yep. So, natural limitations
because Manhattan is only as big as
Manhattan is. What I'm saying is totally
hear you and that is one way to go about
it and it's going to be a balance.
there's going to be some regulation that
you want and maybe we do say hey look
given the situation that we're in for
the next 25 years we've just got to make
it such that you can't have one company
own more than XYZ whatever they will
find ways around it but anyway let's say
that that worked cool and maybe for the
next 25 years we do need to do something
like that I'm just saying as a default
stance it is far wiser because it will
create fewer distortions bubbles it's
far wiser to limit the regulations and
say if somebody wants to build a house,
they can build a house. So if there's
land for sale and somebody wants to buy
that land and build a house, now you get
urban sprawl. But it is what it is. If
people want the their city to just keep
expanding and there's land to expand
into, let them expand into it. Because
what happens to Black Rockck is Black
Rockck goes, "Do I want to buy all these
houses?" Because I know if people don't
like the supply, if the style of the
house goes out of vogue, if the
neighborhood goes out of vogue, if
high-speed rails is brought in, if
everybody's working virtually and then
they can just build a house wherever
they want, this might be a bad
investment. So, I'm going to hedge my
bets. I'm not going to go all in on
accumulating a bunch of single family
properties. Maybe I dabble a little bit
because regionally I feel like on
Manhattan, like there's nowhere to go.
So, real estate Manhattan's great.
there's just nowhere to expand into and
still be in Manhattan and they'll
naturally hedge their bets. But when
you're like, "Oh man, the government's
not going to let them keep building the
houses that they want, the supply is
going to be artificially driven down.
We're super [ __ ] savvy. We know how
to play that game. We're going to go
snatch every everything up because you
guys don't have anywhere to go. And
because you don't have anywhere to go as
a buyer, you can only buy what's
available." And very few people are
going to be able to go out and build
that next home. And so I'm just saying,
hey, far better to put people in a
position where if they're like, "No, I
want to build a house like just down the
street and there aren't going to be a
gazillion zoning requirements. I can
just go build that house and it's not
going to take me five years. It's going
to take me as rapidly as I can build it
because people make this nice and easy
because there aren't stupid regulations.
And then people will build houses either
because they're allowed to or in cases
where they are allowed to, but the
complexities are just absurd that they
just don't because it's too big of a
headache." The reason we bought this
house instead of building a house was I
was like, Jesus, it took me like 5 years
to build this thing. I don't want to be
building a house for 5 years. So, but if
you could build a house in a year, which
trust me is very possible. Uh, it's just
all the regulations that make it too
complicated, then I might have made a
different decision. Mhm. Okay. I think
we're looking at it, but we're looking
at it from different sides because I
think it's the ability the ability to
buy is cool. And I'm like, yes, that
will expand the number, but I think the
total numbers already I think we I don't
want to say I think we have enough
houses, but I think if we cut certain
people out of this market that you're
let me say it this way. I think what
you're saying is my way Tom will be
faster.
And that is probably correct. I would
have to look at the problem more deeply.
But let's assume that that's correct.
That's why I'm saying, look, this is
going to take nuanced people to come in
and really look at the problem. And if
somebody said, look, we think for the
next 25 years we have to do this. All
that [ __ ] is a slippery slope. You and I
have different um default positions. My
default position is light and
regulations. Your default position is I
know what the outcome is and I think by
tightening the screws here and here, we
can get that outcome and it will happen
fast. I get it. I'm just from my base
assumptions that leads you down a slope
of bigger government, more government,
more regulations. And I will assume
every time somebody puts a regulation in
place, they think it's going to yield a
good outcome, but there are always
second and third order consequences that
are deranging. I have to give you that
there are second and third order
consequences with everything. No
solutions, just trade-offs, right? Yeah.
Truth. Shout out to Thomas Soul in
robotics news. All right, I'm going to
start with the foreigners. I'm going
start with the Chinese robotics cuz the
US made something and I'm excited about
it. I get to brag. US got some
innovation for him finally. But this uh
new noex robot from China is three three
feet 7 in tall and it weighs 44 lb. Um
the price starts at
$5,500. To me, this is just a robot dog
with legs. This entire video is him
dancing and jumping up and down with
kids. Yes, this is awesome, dude. I was
literally like, "Okay, how do I convince
Lisa to get me one of these?" Uh yeah,
the only thing that stops me is I know
if I wait two or three months an even
cooler one's going to come out for even
cheaper. But uh this thing is awesome
and it's running. Uh it has it says
scroll up because there's oh the Nvidia
Jetson is installed. So you
theoretically have like fullblown
however many billions of parameters uh
of a brain inside that thing. So what
they're not showing you there is it
should have a personality. I mean,
literally, it should be able to run Chad
GPT. So, whatever personality Chad GPT
can have, that robot can have. So, now
you have an embodied thing walking
around your house talking to you. Dude,
that is dope. If that thing could do the
dishes, I'm not kidding. I would order
it immediately. It just doesn't have
hands. So, that that was a weird thing.
The no got a little ways to go, but
that's how you keep the price point to
5,500. Yeah, very true. Um, and then
domestically, Boston Dynamics, which I
feel like they started this robotics
game because they were one of the first
like robot OGs back when they were doing
the uh, Black Mirror first came out and
all those other things. So, it's it's
it's great to see how far they've come
along. I think the interesting thing
about this is that they're using
reinforcement learning policies using a
motion capture suit. So, it's almost how
machine learning, like the large
language models are scouring the
internet to get smarter. They're just
having a person put the motion capture
suit on and then putting that inside of
the robots. Um, but again, with every
week, we just feel like the robots get
cheaper and smarter. The the gap is
slowly closing. Yes. And look, I people
are going to be weirded out by this, but
this is really incredible, man. Uh, this
is just so cool. So, yeah, you can
replay this clip when the robots take
over the world, uh, as to what a dumbass
I was, but this is awesome. Um, I like
the breakdanc.
So cool.
Awesome. And a Googlebacked weapon to
battle Wi-Fi have made it into orbit. So
what fires, which is Google backed it,
what it does is it goes into orbit and
it circles the globe and it can map the
entire Earth's surface every 20 minutes.
Now that's fully operational. It'll need
more than 50 sites as of 50 satellites.
As of right now, they're just starting
with three and it's going to be
operational in around 2026. Um, and it
was launched into space by SpaceX's
transporter. Okay, let's pair this now
with fleets of 10,000 drones. Satellite
sees the wildfire,
launches small part of the fleet. 3,000
drones each with the ability to, you
know, drop whatever a goodiz water
balloon um onto the fire. 3,000 robots
dropping water or retardant or whatever.
um you can really um 10,000 20,000 it it
the number of drones that you can sync
up so they won't crash into them each
other is as far as I know effectively
unlimited the the upper bound is going
to be extremely high and so the fact
that this can detect the fire and then
in the future we'll be able to deploy a
drone rapidly and you just take your
high-risisk areas near populations and
you put you know whatever your 5,000
10,000 drones and that area and now all
of a sudden things like what just
happened in California are a thing of
the past. Yeah. And I love how you said
they're dropping like retarding because
even if they don't put the fires out at
the very minimum they can turn the
fires. They can say, "Okay, this
wildfire is heading toward this
neighborhood. Let's block it up. You can
at least draw a square and upper bounds
and then get the local fire, the fleet
of robot firefighters who could just
stand in the middle of it because they
have titanium skin or you know or if
they melt, whatever. It is what it is.
Their consciousness is uploaded and
doesn't matter." Yeah. This this is why
I am such a proponent of innovation and
want to see people, countries, everybody
do the things that maximize innovation.
Yeah. This makes everybody's life
better. And an update from the streets.
Uh it's so it's so fun to give you these
updates from the streets, Tom, so you
can see how trash so I can so I can see
see how other for me.
All right, I'm going to give this
caption first. Is it bad for society
that so many averagel-l lookinging women
find a majority of average-looking men
unattractive? If we lined up every woman
on Earth and put her next to her male
equivalent, 90% of them would be
mortified. What do you rate her out of
looks of out of 10? And there's a woman
sitting in the car talking about her
experience with dating. Okay. Yeah, I
want people to to see this, but what do
you rate her out of 10?
I was going to say seven, but I just got
yelled at in the live that seven is not
is average. Is not average. Five is
average. Yeah, five is average. She's a
five. Yeah, exactly. To me, she is a
7.5. Yeah. Like this is um you're about
to see I'm not a fan of the attitude,
but uh in terms of looks, my god, I
would expect anybody to be with her to
tell her routinely, "My dear, you are
beautiful and I could not be happier if
she had a better attitude." Let's hear
the attitude. I have this issue where I
find almost no men attractive. Like it's
really really annoying because I speak
to a lot of men, right? I'm very social.
I love to talk. I find almost no one
attractive. So like there's just like it
just doesn't go anywhere like ever. I
get asked on dates. I'm like, "No,
pass." And then when I do find someone
attractive, I'm like, "I'm obsessed with
you. I need you. If I don't have you,
I'm going to feel unwell." Like I need
them because it's so rare at this point.
Okay.
uh if you were my niece, I'd be like,
"All right, if you would be unwell
without somebody that you need to update
your mental model," which is exactly
what I think is going on, by the way,
with the fact that she doesn't find
anybody attractive is her uh I hope what
she's picking up on is there's a
disconnect from a personality standpoint
with people. Uh and so whatever pool
you're swimming in is problematic. This
is not just going to be the way that
they look on the outside. this is going
to be a thing that you're not attracted
to people on the inside. So being able
to map what is it that I find attractive
and then put yourself in a situation
where you're in danger of meeting that
kind of person uh becomes very
important. If on the other hand this is
like self-absorption
and this is like narcissistic flaring up
and they're just not making her feel the
way she wants to feel and she's
mismapping that as I'm not attracted to
you which honestly my brain says is
precisely what's happening.
um that could be part of the
derangement, but I think that this post,
who's this post coming from? Uh the
whatever podcast. Yeah. So, I think that
that's all part of the problem. Like,
everybody's looking at the other side as
an adversary. Uh flaws, all of that.
It's it is such a weird way to look at
the world. If I were going into the
dating world now, I would start by
saying, okay, what is it that I find
interesting about this person? Because
we live in a world where it's quick
filtration of nos and the perpetual
dopamine hit of the next person might be
better. Not that the next person is
better. The dopamine dopamine is a
seeking molecule. It makes you want to
seek. Uh it isn't the molecule you get
when you win. Dopamine is released the
highest when you get a near miss in uh
gambling.
So, knowing that dopamine is the near
miss chemical that makes you go, "Oh,
the next one's going to be amazing." I'd
be like, "Okay, that's my brain messing
with me. So, I need to be smarter than
that. What are things about this person
I find interesting enough to go a layer
deeper?" Now, as I go to the layer
deeper, if I start hitting kill
switches, then I'll be like, "Okay, that
part of somebody's personality I know
does not play out well for me. Uh, so
I'm going to move on to the next." But
if I found myself saying, "No, no, no,
no, no, no, no, no, no." Then I'd be
like, "Okay, I may need to push this
like deeper and deeper and deeper to
find reasons to like be around
somebody." And so I'd honestly probably
start steering by how many people have I
had meaningful conversations with in the
last week. And if the answer is zero, I
start going, "This might be a selection
criteria problem." Yeah, I I think
that's really what it comes from. I
think it's whether it's a base
assumption, whether it's who she's
talking to, I don't know. Um my
selection process is very different. So,
I don't Attractive to me is a blend of
different things. Like, if you look at
all my exes, they're different shape,
sizes, whatever like that. Like, I don't
have a type. Um, but I am attracted to
certain personality quirks that I'm
like, "Oh, okay. That makes me
interesting in you." Like, and that's
more attractive to me. So, to say that I
don't find men unattractive is like, are
you just looking at him? Are you saying
he's not rich enough? I think there's
something that she's not saying with the
unattractive.
Uh, I would bet money that she doesn't
know what the unsaid thing is.
I find most people have not mapped
themselves at all. So anyway, bless
speculation. Don't know. Uh but boys and
girls, if you are on the dating market,
that that is it is wiring your brain in
a way that is not helpful and I would
find ways around it. Yep. Sure. That's
all I got. All right, everybody. If you
haven't already and you watch us on the
podcast, please head over and leave a
fivestar review. That helps more than
you know. And if you're here on YouTube
and you haven't subscribed yet, please
do. And until next time, my friends, be
legendary. Take care. Peace. If you like
this conversation, check out this
episode to learn more. Trump's goal is
no taxes on anyone making less than
150K. Putin conditionally agrees to a
ceasefire. Zalinsky says it's all BS.
The Heart Association fights for more
heart disease. Consumer sentiment hits a
29month low.