Trump Kills Housing Bill To Stop "Commies" & The Supreme Court's 4 MASSIVE Judgments

Good morning everybody. Welcome to another episode of the Tom Bilyeu show live. I am so glad you guys are joining us. Uh, this is going to be a wild one as you would expect in the world the way that it is. We're all trying to make things more affordable and yet Trump refuses to sign the wildly bipartisan affordable housing bill as a way to get the Save America Act passed. Drew and I are definitely going to be fighting about that. It'll be an interesting time. The Supreme Court gives two big immigration-related wins to the Trump administration. Uh, this is an important thing. It's going to be one of the biggest debates of the next 10 years for sure. A Singapore ship was struck by what's rumored to be a drone while attempting to transit the Strait of Hormuz and that is not closed the strait, but it certainly diminished traffic greatly. Thomas Massie calls out Trump for communism and I'm going to say he's got a point. I have a feeling you guys are going to hate my take on that one, but it's going to be important to talk about. Regulatory capture games are being played right now in AI, all of course under the guise of safety. Brace yourselves for that. New York City rent freezes get passed. Man, did I not want to see New York go down like this. Uh, it'll supercharge the New York City affordability crisis and most likely justify the seizure of properties. We'll get into the details. Inflation numbers are out man. Yikes. We have hit 4.1%. That is double the Fed's mandate and up from May. Not good news. But speaking of actual good news, GTA 6 has made a rumored, it's rumored, but a rumored $3 billion in pre-sales nearly 5 months ahead of their release. So, man, if you build it, they will come. It'll be very, very interesting to see what actually ends up coming to that. All right, shout out to today's sponsor Humble House. QR code is on your screen. You guys you can get 15% off these incredible hot sauces if you use the code Tom at humblehousefoods.com. Shout out to Luis Morales. He's long time fan, super appreciative of him being around since the early mindset days and for making a product with his wife by the way, which you know that I love. Uh trying to make something that has clean ingredients, things you can eat, not be traumatized about what you're putting in your body and these things are legitimately delicious. We actually had to bring out These ones are life fire being eaten by the team here uh because they are in-house favorites. So, love those guys bunches, super appreciate them uh not only being a supporter of the show, but some of the stuff that they do with the way that they are dealing with farmers and getting their ingredients and making sure that this stuff is really clean. So, check them out if you haven't already. All right. Boys and girls, the biggest housing affordability in decades, bill that is, actually cleared Congress and not just cleared Congress, but it has massive bipartisan support. That is going to be a very important part of this story. This is beloved by people on both sides of the aisle. These are warring factions. That is the right way to think about what Congress and quite frankly the Senate look like and everybody, not everybody, but the vast majority of people on both sides of the aisle are supporting this thing and Trump is refusing to sign it. Now, before I tell you why he's refusing to sign it, I want you to understand what it actually is. So, first of all, the private equity cap is like the big part of this. So, the bill bars large institutional investors from owning more than 350 single-family homes. Now, that might still seem a little bit traumatic, uh but at least it's the first federal limit. So, previously, the PE firms could just go crazy. They could gobble everything up, make things far less affordable. Now, the reality is that they don't actually own a lot of American single-family homes like something like 0.34% but they're purchased in really strategic areas and therefore they can in a given place make that make the prices there go up. Also, I just think it's a terrible precedent in a time where we are struggling so desperately with affordability when it comes to homes. Now, the thing that I love about what's happening here is that there's actually a lot of incentives to get people buying. And so, you can get carve-outs for new builds. So, if you're doing a new build, which is one of the things I think the bill is going to be most effective at spurring, um is okay, if I'm a PE guy and I want to put my money to work in real estate and I can't do it with homes that already exist, cool. Then, if I want to gobble up more, I'm going to have to build more. Now, still may not be ideal, but boy oh boy, is this a step in the right direction, which is precisely why you're getting this bipartisan support. So, if you can trigger private equity's greed, and I know everybody hates that this is how the human animal actually works, and I know everybody is spiraling right now thinking that we've somehow got to legislate our way around greed. It won't work. What you end up with is resentment versus greed. This is a terrible battle to play out. We're going to talk more about that later today. We've got something special for you guys at the end of the show for people that want to stay late with us today. We're actually going to uh bleed into a third hour. I'm going to be doing a full-blown reacts to the DSA sweep, uh Chevalier, who I think is really representative of that, but that stick with us in the uh in the extra hours, if you will, uh if you want to be a part of that. But if you really want to make things more affordable, you've got to build more. And so, anything that's focused on putting regulation in place that's going to inspire people to build, I'm here for it. Now, is it triggering a um desire to be greedy and go in and make money? Yes. Is that how humans work? Yes. So, is that how we drive costs down? Yes. Is that how we innovate? Yes. Is that how we actually solve the affordability problem? Yes. So, getting more people building new things has to be the end goal and that's what this bill's about. Okay, so there it is, it's sitting out there. This is a thing. It's certainly not perfect, but there's a reason that it has this kind of unprecedented, at least in today's environment, bipartisan support is precisely because people can actually see from a cause and effect perspective how this is actually going to be good for people who are struggling with affordable housing. With that looming in the air, you've got Trump saying, "I'm not going to sign this." And so, the question becomes, why on Earth is he not going to sign this? This is where I hope we can all share in an absolute hatred for politics. But, step down from the emotional reasoning of I just hate politics. This is something I find people have a hard time tracking with me. I will often say things in a very passionate way, a very big way, a very animated way, a very emotional way, but the actual words coming out of my mouth are chains of logic. And so, I want people to separate emotional reasoning from an emotional presentation of logical steps that you can follow from cause and effect. Okay. So, when you look at the way the politics actually work, part of what makes this so grotesque is it is a game of convincing people to take the electoral action that they want them to take. So, they've got to convince voters to actually vote for them. And then, within the structure of the actual rules of the way that Congress and the Senate work, and all of the procedural things, that there are ways that they all go about bullying each other. And so, all of that is hideous, all of that is grotesque. I don't know a way around it. This is from time immemorial. This is just how this stuff works. So, we're now in the belly of the beast. This is exactly how the sausage is made. Trump is saying, "I need to get the Save America Act passed." Now, I think what you're going to see, at least between Drew and I, I don't know actually, we'll see, but um I think we see that part of it very differently. So, I'm like, the affordability housing bill needs to get passed. It must get passed. I think it will get passed because there is so much bipartisan support. But, in a very temporary fashion, I think Trump is using it to get the Save America Act passed. So, now you can obviously begin to tease all these different things out. Should um legislation work this way? Okay, I would say no, but the reality is it just interfaces with the human mind and this is how you leverage to get things that you want done. This is done on both sides of the aisle, again, for all of human history, at least as long as this kind of government has existed. So, I don't think we're going to back our way out of that one with any realistic thing. So, now it becomes, okay, should Save America, the act as it stands, be a thing that we're fighting for? That's a very different question, and we will certainly talk about that as well. And then, what should we uh how should we react when a politician is holding something that has this kind of popular support, when they're holding it hostage, how should we react? And I think most people are going to say, "Well, if I want that thing to get passed, I'm going to be really annoyed about it. If I don't want it passed, then I'm going to care a lot less because, yeah, [ __ ] it." So, right now, to at least give the cause and effect, know what goal you have. So, rather than walking through what my take is, know what goal you have, and then figure out which path is going to get you there. So, if you're looking at the end state of immigration, and you're saying we absolutely must put constraints on um immigration because you get this tearing apart of the social fabric of your country because people are not assimilating and you have a side that is running an immigration strategy to get what and this is my presentation to get illegal voters in the country to increase your body count which helps you on the census which then drives your power in Congress but also they're clearly certainly in California pushing for um expansion of voter rights to extend into people that are um currently have a legal status and are not able to vote. Now, I think that's also being run at a federal level. So, that's why I'm gung-ho to see Save America get passed. I want to see people have to prove that they're a citizen before they vote. Okay, but you have to fill in what's your end goal there, right? So, that's mine but what's yours? Now, what are the actions that need to be taken in order to get across the finish line there? And so, that's where all of this is now going to play out within the body politic where they're going to try to take that thing, hey, I know everybody wants this. Cool, you want this? I'll give it to you but you've got to give me this thing. And so, that is politics. Now, I don't think there's any way that Trump is going to be able to stop this from going through. I think that it would be too politically damaging but I think that he can leverage it to at a minimum force the Save Act to a vote. And so, that is um the way that everybody has to think about this. Right now, it isn't that Trump is saying that he doesn't want that bill to get passed. He's saying I see how popular this is and I'm going to use it as leverage. And so, that's the moment that we're stuck in. All right. Drew. >> I feel like you've been teasing me up like me and Drew are going to clash about this. >> it's interesting. I When when you and I talked about it at the surface level, I thought that um you This is where we have to look at what of the three things are we talking about. >> Mhm. >> So, if anybody said I don't like that this is being used as leverage, I'm going to be Yeah, me either. So, that one's easy. I wish that we didn't live in that political reality. I wish that humans weren't like that. I find politics disgusting. This is one of the many, many reasons I will never be a politician. There's nothing about this that I like. >> Mhm. >> Uh it's all posing, posturing, bullying, all that [ __ ] I just despise it. So, that one's like an easy give. But, when you get to Okay, should we be trying to push forward the Save America Act, which is what this is about to me. This to me isn't about the housing affordability. The housing affordability, I think is a yes on virtually everybody, including Trump. So, it's like that is going to go through. It just becomes a question of do we use it in this moment? I've already addressed my thoughts on that. So, now we get to is Save America a thing that we actually want to see pushed through? Now, >> Go ahead. >> I was going to say, can we throw this up on the screen? These are the >> three paths that can happen with the bill. So, Trump had the first option. He can sign the bill into law and make it law. The second thing, he could veto the bill back and send it back to Congress. He could do number three, take no action. This is the thing that people are getting wrong. While as he's taking no action, there's a 10-day clock. 10 days from now, if Congress is in session, the bill will become law without Trump's signature. But, if Congress is adjourned, I don't know, for maybe a holiday recess that's happening next week for somebody's 250th birthday, >> Let's go. >> then the bill will then be sent will be pocket vetoed and sent back to Congress and they have to start all over again. So, while yes, Trump can take use this housing bill to take hostage, I'm just going to point out that we all slapped our Democrats around and called them told them that they don't care about country or America when they were trying to stall um the budget bill because they wanted to defund ICE after ICE got the raise in in funding. So, it's one of those things where I'm going to be mad when you do the tactic and then I'm going to do the tactic and now everybody's mad at me. It's that's completely fine. If we're now we're realizing that we're going to take for tat. So, to your point, if we're going to talk about that, we both agree tit for tat is wack. That's a bad way to run the government. Cool, we can put that to the side. Save America Act. We talk about the Save America Act in nauseam to me. I think that this is something that we want to be correct, so we're finding evidence and things that we're putting in there to try to justify it. But there has been federal lawsuits. Dominion Voting has got paid out by two different people, Fox News and the MyPillow guy. Um >> No, they dropped the lawsuit against MyPillow. >> It was settled. It wasn't a drop, it was settled. >> Interesting. How much did they pay him? >> It's undisclosed amount. >> Ah. >> You love when it's undisclosed amount. And then MyPillow guy is now talking about I'm I'm running out of money going for bankruptcy. He was trying to clear out that pipeline cuz he's running for governor. So it's one of these things where when we're fighting it in the court of public opinion on X, everybody sees thousands of voter fraud everywhere. When it's time to get it to the court from the Georgia mail drop where Tulsi Gabbard Tulsi Gabbard was in the I was about to say DNI. Tulsi Gabbard, she was in the back of the SUV with all the boxes and they stole them at the middle of the night and the governor um the overseer of the voters in Gov in Georgia was all mad like, "Hey guys, I want my votes back." And they had them and it's been 6 months and nothing happened from that. So again, I want this to be a fair and safe election. I want everybody to have a good election. I think gerrymandering is a way bigger problem than a voter fraud cuz we're actually seeing the results of that. We're actually seeing people lose their seats. We're actually seeing people lose primaries. We're actually seeing the fabric of the Senate and the House being changed based off gerrymandering laws. Whereas with voter fraud, as much as we want this to be a thing, all it's been so far is vibes and emotion. >> Okay, so just to make sure that we're tying it back to the Save America Act. >> Mhm. >> Um are you saying, "Hey, one, I hate that we're using this political process, this gamesmanship of leveraging again something that basically everybody wants. We're holding that hostage. I hate that. And the very thing that they're holding a hostage for, I think is garbage anyway and we shouldn't be doing it. The thing that we think we're solving, the commie takeover, >> Mhm. >> would be directly like extinguished if more people can afford housing. The reason there's so many socialists going on right now >> on cuz you're fractaling. So, we and >> That's a very valid point. We'll get to that. >> Copy. >> But I want to walk people through if anybody's trying to figure out how they think through this. This is and this is something I find that people do a lot is um they won't resolve one issue before they move on to the next. >> Okay. >> So, we we have like real agreement on the political process sucks, but we're we're trapped, and so here we are. Then we've got Save America Act, yes or no, because that to me, this whole thing is about Save America. >> Mhm. >> Now, you have another very valid point, which is gerrymandering is a bigger problem, but this battle isn't about gerrymandering. >> Even if you address specifically, Save America specifically. >> Even in the Save America Act, we have wins in men and women's sports, we have transgender mutilization. So, if a very smart Democratic person can take that and say, is transgender mutil- mutilization, child surgeries more important and a bigger issue than the housing uh unaffordability crisis? I can name 10, five people of major cases that are children who are being um affected by this. I can name 5 million people who can't afford housing. So, again, Save America, if we want to just say the act versus the housing affordability, I think the housing affordability is more important than the Save America Act, yes. I think if we go through the Save America Act itself, I like that you need to be a citizen to vote, absolutely. And I'm just I have morals and I have principles that I am not illegal, I vote. I don't know any illegals that vote. If I see an illegal voting, I would say something. I don't see it, I don't experience it, I don't know. But to just act like the Save America Act is only about election when it's already a pork bill with other things that aren't necessarily important, I think Trump is using this as a talking point, and I think the Save America Act is similar to the Iran War. He's about to start a He's creating a problem, and then he's going to try to fix a problem that wasn't really a problem in the first place. >> Okay, so just to summarize, obviously a lot of very valid points in terms of the way that people shove things into random ass bills, that I'll put back in the bucket of the political process itself is deeply flawed. I don't see a way to fix it personally, and maybe we can have that debate another day. Uh but setting that part aside, now looking at just Save America, you're saying I have a priority, and my priority goes like this. Uh housing affordability is so much more important than the Save America Act. I literally don't give a [ __ ] I'm not even going to think about Save America. I don't see this as a problem, so [ __ ] it. I'm not going to think through it. It's just not a big enough problem. So, [ __ ] you, Trump. Put this thing through. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, uh that's very clear. My take on this is very different. So, um housing affordability is critical. It's one of the single most important problems that we have to solve as a nation, but one of the things that I found certainly in the realm of business is if you get the prioritization wrong, then you're really in trouble. And one of the things every entrepreneur has to get good at, and I think of legislators largely as a board of a company, and that company is United States of America, and basically the policy that they're trying to put in place, they've got the prioritization wrong. So, if you essentially keep marching towards either something that is directly um socialist, which is what I believe will happen if you don't make sure that the only people that are voting are citizens of the country for incentive structure reasons that we can talk about, but I'll say let's set aside for a second. Um if you keep going down that road, I think that is far more foundational and will have much bigger impacts even on housing affordability. So, you can just look at what's happening in New York. So, for me, without trying to convince you guys to adopt my way of thinking, I'm trying to show you how I think through the problem. Subtle difference, but it's very meaningful. So, um when I think about this, I'm trying to think, okay, what's the right priority for these to fall into? Which one is more foundational? Who votes in your elections is more foundational than housing. Housing is actually going to be downstream of that. So, the people that are voting are going to set the policies, the policies are going to set whether or not housing ends up becoming affordable or not. And so, that for me is why you've got to solve that problem first. Now, yep. >> People voting in our elections are a bigger problem than people affording houses. Accurate representation of what you just said? >> No. >> Pe- pe- uh verifying that citizens are the only people voting in your elections are more important than housing affordability. >> No. >> Okay. >> So, >> I thought this is what you just said. I'm going to say >> No. So, I'll I'll say it um with no words around it. Starting now. Who votes in your elections controls housing affordability. Therefore, you must address voting first, or it will be fruitless what you decide on affordability today, cuz it will get wiped out. >> Okay. >> Period. >> Okay. Um people voting in your election. Let's double click onto that, cuz I can I have data that shows who needs a house. I have data that how this housing bill can help people get a house. I have data even that when more people own houses, they become less socialist. But I don't have data on illegals voting in the election. So, how do we do that part? >> I do have some data, and this isn't necessarily on illegals, but this is on people who are typically lumped into the illegals group voting in favor of Trump, primarily. I do have those if y'all want those numbers. >> Sure. >> So, um this is specifically border towns. So, Starr County, Maverick County, Webb County, and Zapata County, which all covers Rio Grande City, Eagle Pass, Laredo, and Zapata, all ranging from 95% to 100% Hispanic. Let's just say for the sake of the argument that illegals are voting in this. Uh predominantly, Trump won by a large margin in all of those counties, but they're all border towns. So even then, if illegals are voting, they're predominantly voting Republican. >> Okay, this is so fascinating. So I think the your read, your analysis on the data doesn't make sense. And so the to me the data is going to look something more like this. In border towns, those are people that are going to feel most strongly that you need to close the border. So the great irony is that in those towns, especially the people that they're likely to be able to pull to get these numbers or in the actual elections, are going to be predominantly the people that can vote because I agree with Drew. I don't think that right now we have like some insane massive amount of voter fraud. What I see is terraforming to make sure that we can actually do some sort of amnesty program. So the people that have come across the border for reasons that we'll get into in a minute that really inform my decision-making, so that they will be able to vote. Now I think what's happening in California is ballot harvesting and things that ought to be illegal but actually aren't illegal. So let's tease that out. But what I see us doing is moving ever more towards the first of all, illegal aliens count in the census, so that is going to change the power dynamic already. Nobody debates that. Nobody argues whether illegal aliens count towards the census or not. So full stop. The fact that a border town is going to be more likely to feel the effects of illegal immigration is well documented. So you're going to get some of your biggest pushback there. So it doesn't surprise me that border towns are voting for Trump because he was the guy saying, "I'm going to stop people from coming in." It also does not surprise >> Hispanic, though? >> Yes. Hispanics are like the most hold the [ __ ] on. Like I came here legally, you got to like chill this out. >> Well, but for the the sake of the argument with illegals and I mean these are border towns, right? So if if there are illegal immigrants in these border towns, most of those people probably have birthright citizenship if we're going the Hispanics legally voting, right? >> Well, so hold on. Now you're talking about legal voters because right now if you have a baby in the United States, they are immediately a citizen. So if you're talking about somebody that's, you know, whatever 18 years down the road, they're not illegal. So this is where we really have to get specific about what exactly we're saying. But when you start looking at the data, and I don't want this to be the the full derail cuz I think we can address this at the level of thought experiment rather than getting lost in the weeds, but just to close the loop, when you start looking at the data there, that the people who come here legally resent the people that are coming illegally. And so the border towns are often wildly Hispanic in population, but they're wildly Hispanic, they've come, they've integrated to some extent. Uh if they're the ones picking up the phone and actually answering the poll questions, they are likely to be legal at that point, have legal status of some kind. Otherwise, they're dodging those [ __ ] calls. They don't even want you to know that they exist. And so the fact that that creates this appearance that, "Oh, immigrants lean Trump." is going to give you a very different picture than people that came over the border over the last four years because they see that we have good services that in places like California apply even to illegal immigrants. And the governor of California is making mouth noises as aggressively as he can to say, "Not only like we're going to fight for your rights, we're going to make sure that you get what you need." You've got the same thing coming out of the DSA in New York. to fight for illegals, whether you're temporary protected status or not. We're going to make sure that we protect you from the recent immigration um Supreme Court decisions like the So there's a complex issue at play. Now, pull back out to the just what are the likely um motivational factors. Like show me the incentives, I'll show you the outcome. So, if you have a country that has incredible services for people and you just need to qualify for those services, of course, if somebody says, "Hey, the wealthiest nation on planet Earth has open borders, come on in." You're going to get a lot of people coming in. We know that millions of people crossed the border in the last 4 years alone. And then you >> What is it? Closed for the last 2 years? >> The border's been closed for the last 18 months, I'll grant you that. I certainly won't give you the last 2 years. >> it's been closed >> hold on, hold on, hold on. Ask yourself, "What?" >> I It's not It hasn't been closed since the 2000. That's the wildest thing I've ever heard. That's crazy. >> [laughter] >> Wait, it hasn't been closed since 2000? under Biden. That is true. But acting as though they completely stopped is a little It was a little like misleading. >> I just want everybody to know I just want Hold on. I want everybody to know we got here because I asked Tom, "What data do we have on voter fraud?" >> Yeah. >> No, we didn't. That's not why we're here. What's happening right now? >> That That was the last thing I said. I said, "We have data on how many people can afford housing. We don't have data on how many illegals are voting." >> Yes. And the thing that I'm trying to make abundantly clear for everybody is you have to tease all of these into separate things you can talk about. And I said, "I don't think that we have a major illegal voter problem. That's not what I'm worried about. What I'm worried about is the incentive structure, which is what I'm walking people through now." So, this is we have to take these things one at a time. >> Let's take them one at a time. >> And what ends up happening in all of these debates is people start conflating everything. They get lost in the [ __ ] weeds and they debate [ __ ] rather than pulling up and going, "What is the incentive structure? What's the principle at play here?" And what I'm saying is, from an incentive structure, and I'm going to say this as a fact, I'm not looking for feedback. As a statement of fact, at least in my universe, if you give services away for free and you tell people who live in countries that cannot get access to services like that, that live in a country that is falling apart, that has been torn apart by uh drug lords or by socialism itself. I mean, think about people that have fled here from countries that legitimately their currency is collapsing, things like that, okay? They're coming in and it is a legitimately better life. Now, the problem is that when you do that, you have this thing called the census. The census drives your representation in Congress and that census does not ask whether you are here on vacation, whether you're here legally, whether you're here illegally. Just says how many bodies are in the state. That determines that state's representation at the national level. So, now you have an incentive structure for people to come here to get the free things and they are going to vote for whoever it is that's going to give them the free things that they came for and you have one party that is beating the drum that, "Hey, we're going to give you that." So, we've seen this play out in California. You can look at the litany of credible scholars that say the big mistake in California in terms of it becoming a one-party state was when Reagan gave amnesty to all of the immigrants that had come before. And so, they all started voting blue because those were the policies that made the government bigger, made social services bigger, and got them a lot of free stuff. So, now it's like not only do we have historical evidence that that's exactly how people end up voting, but we can follow that chain of logic. And so, what I'm saying is as you look at the beats of that chain of logic, you've created an incentive structure where California grows more powerful at the national level the more people that they can get into the state. And that the people that get into the state to grant them that power are incentivized to continue to vote for them because of the policies that they're running, which is more tax dollars, more free things regardless of status. And so, if you have any concern at all about this country becoming a one-party state, which I would have tremendous fears left or right. I do not want a one-party state country. That is exactly how you devolve into madness. So, we have a grease shoot pipeline that we watched over the last 4 years pre-Trump. So, it's not exactly the last 4 years, whatever, going back a year and a half, the 4 years before. So, during that period, we had I don't think anybody's contesting this, millions of people except for maybe Ryan, millions of people came across the border with that incentive structure. So, now I'm just saying, "Hey, given that we know that you have places like California that are saying, "We want to get these people legal so that they can vote." We have places like Minnesota saying the same thing. You've got a national opportunity to say only citizens can vote. That's how it already is. Let's just formalize that. Let's make people prove that they're actually a citizen. And that to me is exactly what you need in order to avoid becoming a one-party country, which would be, in my opinion, an absolute catastrophic disaster. Okay. That is the cause and effect sequence of like logic. Now, if there's a beat of that logic, not that there's something more important or whatever, which we can absolutely talk about after that, but if there is a beat in that logic where it's like, "No, that is a fundamentally wrong assumption." Hit me. >> A fundamentally wrong assumption. TPS status was just ended from the Supreme Court. Birthright citizen is is going to be ended under Trump. Um the border >> But I didn't talk about any of that. So, what do you mean? >> You're just saying that a million 2 million people came over the border illegally. They're going to get amnesty from like a Reagan legislation, and that's going to turn them into citizens. What I'm saying is that people the >> Not citizens, but >> People who can vote. >> Yes. >> The people who are now here, who would be eligible for that? TPS, the TPS temporary protected status. >> Some. That's like the people that are on the radar officially. >> a fraction of those people. Yes. Those people are not able to get those get amnesties. Birthright citizenship. The second wave of people who are illegals who come over the border who have babies and they're now those kids are citizens. They can then vote 18 years from now. Even though the housing bill would help people today, um we're talking about 18-year problem. I just want everybody to know that. Um so that the birthright citizen thing, that's going to get overturned by Trump as well. >> Maybe. We'll see. That hasn't happened yet. >> He's four for four on the immigration with the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court is mostly conservative. It's a conservative take. >> Okay, so wait. Let me What I hear you saying, correct me if I'm headed in the wrong direction, is that hey, what's really going on here is we're solving the problem by other means. So why put >> the the amnesty issue fear that you have, that rate that was true in the '80s under Reagan or '70s, um is not true currently because the Supreme Court leans right and the right policy that is leading that Supreme Court >> Was my summation incorrect in some way? >> Yes, because your fear of the his of the his history repeating is not repeating cuz we're breaking those things that would allow >> That's what I just said. So here's what I hear you saying. >> Okay. >> That Tommy, you don't need to worry about this because the problem is being solved by another method. >> Yeah, and I was listing those methods, yeah. >> Yeah, yeah, but I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with what I hear you saying, correct? That is what you're saying. So I don't believe in any way, shape or form that that is going to clean up everything. And I don't see why we wouldn't just say, hey, given that you it's already the law that only citizens can vote, why would we not want people to prove that they are in fact a citizen? >> This is now we're moving to a second point cuz we finished our first point. >> That That's That's my whole point. >> Your initial fear was that the illegals that crossed the border will get amnesty and then they will do that. >> Yeah, that is that is >> So we just solved that that's not going to happen. >> that we're trying No, no, we didn't. What I'm saying is I hear you saying that and I'm saying it won't be effective. So let's say that that mops up some percentage. It's unknown. I could give you an answer, but it would be completely made up. But, it seems like the um in your mind, the base assumption that you're running is that these new Supreme Court decisions clean up 100% of that problem. And my belief is not only is that not true, that I don't even think that the government has any sense of exactly how many people have come in. So, people that have a formal status like temporary protective services, um yeah, those are status. Those people are recognized. And if you were saying, "Man, I really hate that the people who did the right thing by actually coming in and saying, 'Oh, you have this TPS thing. I would like to take advantage of that.'" Um and those are the ones that we're booting out first, I get why that would rub you the wrong way. >> But, for the Supreme Court, they also got asylum seekers, people who came in through the border, who came over the border, who then said, "Now, we just came in over border. Now, we're seeking asylum. We're in these attention centers." Those also high profile >> So, but for you, what percentage of all the people that have come across the border uh for decades, what percentage do you think get cleaned up by that? >> It's the same answer that you just said. I can't give you an answer cuz it'll be arbitrary. >> Sure, but if if at least we understand that you think that percentage, the way you're looking at me is as if you think that percentage is like dangerously close to 100%. >> Cuz I'm looking at you because you said you your biggest fear at the start of this conversation, part the part three of the conversation, was that amnesty for asylum seekers that then converted into voting members of the populace. That was your biggest fear. And I'm saying there are Supreme Court decisions that are happening now >> Mhm. >> that are making sure asylum seekers are sent back. >> we got to that part. So, where where you and I are disconnecting is on our base assumption about what percentage of the problem that cleans up. I'm getting to that. >> you're only saying 10% of that cleans up. There's still 90% of people that to be >> Yeah, that's ballpark. I don't have the data, but >> So then those 90 people are now coming in illegally. They didn't get any government services cuz if you got to government services, you'll be on one of these logs. >> They do get government services depending on what state they're >> But they'll they'll have to be on those logs though. So that's what I'm saying. So you >> What do you mean? >> On one hand, you can't say that they're getting government services, but the government doesn't know who they are. If they're getting government services, they have to register as illegal. And then if they're registering as an illegal, then they are then being identified >> we've just encountered another base assumption. So one, I think there's going to be plenty of identity theft that exists in that. Uh where people are using social security numbers that don't belong to them. And then two, you've got um people that like in a in California or Minnesota or increasingly New York where they are actively trying to make services available to people that don't have any kind of documentation at all. So now uh we run the risk of now fractaling over into another problem which is are illegal immigrants actually contributing more than they take and all that stuff which we can't talk about. I've done a whole video on, but is all of that stuff we don't need to litigate each one of those points when the reality is we can find the terminal thing that we disagree on which is you think either the problem isn't a big deal or maybe it's even just that people should be able to come here. Um or the problem is already cleaned up by these Supreme Court decisions. And so if our terminal collision where we go, "Okay, cool. I understand your position. I disagree which is perfectly fine. I'm actually not trying to convince you. I'm just trying to tell you what my position is." So if you're like, "I think this cleans up the vast majority of something that already isn't really a big problem." That's what I hear you saying. And so that to me, if I'm doing theory of mind, I'm like, "Oh, I understand why you think what you think." Because I think your argument goes like this. They're holding up affordability, housing affordability which is a far more important issue, and it's immediate because you were like, this other thing is like an 18-year project. Like, what the [ __ ] are we even talking about? So, you've got this immediate thing that could alleviate a real pain point. And so, I don't even know why Tom is making me [ __ ] talk about this. This is ridiculous. And so, it's a non-problem to start, and it's already being cleaned up by this other thing. And so, that's like, cool. I can lay out your string of logic. It has internal consistency. I just disagree with multiple base assumptions that you have. >> That it will get cleaned up. That the Supreme Court is going to do his job. That the >> I don't think those things will have the impact that you think they will have. And so, if you were to map me, just as I can't point at you and go, "Oh, that's an inconsistent string of logic." You, I don't think, can point at me and go, "That's inconsistent." I'm not being inconsistent. You just don't agree with the base assumptions that my argument rides on top of. >> Got it. Okay, that's fair. >> And so, at that point, we go, "Cool. We understand each other, and we don't agree." And that's perfectly fine. To me, that's what people should be trying to do is say, "What does that person actually think?" And this will be for people that stay with us into the extra innings today, one of the things I'm going to be talking about with Chevalier is that she will not tell you her actual string of logic. She's a brilliant politician. Holy Jesus. But, she's not going to actually tell you the string of logic. And so, you're going to have a very hard time following her on purpose so that she can keep you in the realm of emotional reasoning rather than go, "Wait a second. Now that I know what your base assumption is, I can say I disagree with that wholeheartedly." So, when you understand somebody, and you can identify like what the base assumption is that you disagree on, then you can like drill into that, and then you can have a debate. So, what I hope we have effectively done here is lay out why we each think the other person is crazy, but I don't think that you're inconsistent. Your argument has internal logic. I can follow it. You were able to articulate it. I can say it back to you in a way that you recognize. And so it's like, yeah, cool. I We just disagree. That's where now the debate could live somewhere fruitful. I think it would be bad TV, and I'm sure we'll do it another day, but it's like now you can get into, okay, cool. That's what we have to argue. We have to get into what is the Supreme Court decision actually going to do? How many people are actually here? Are they getting access to these things at home worries about or not? Will they actually be able to vote or is this [ __ ] >> No, I'm not I'm not disputing that they're getting access to, so I'm not I think >> I'm just saying, now we know where the point of real conflict is and we can go ham on that stuff because now we're down into values, we're into cause and effect. Once you're at values and cause and effect, great. Part of what I think is valuable about this show is that you and I we overlap on values enough that um and I'll only speak for myself, I have tremendous respect for you. So, I like hearing the things that you think I'm wrong about. It helps me sharpen my own thinking. I'm never trying to convert you over to my value system because I think that you're an intelligent, well-intentioned person who's close enough to the middle that I'm like, yeah, if we had to hand over the country to you, you would 10 years from now, I would still recognize the country, still be stoked to live here. So, like that's the perfect kind of person that I want to debate with. Uh so, if as a if as a show we can bring that to people and show people, look, find out their base assumptions, figure out what they are. Do they have internal logic that coheres or not? If not, then you can say you're not making any sense. If yes, then it's like pull forward the base assumption where you collide and say, is this values or is this cause and effect? If it's cause and effect, then we can do a historical essay essentially and look backwards and go, okay, what would a historical audit of that belief tell us, right? Which is exactly what I'll do when we talk about Chevalier and Hassan. It's like, I'm just going to run a historical audit of their belief system and go, "Well, how does this [ __ ] play out?" And so, that's super fruitful. Everybody can make progress. You can find your way forward. So, from that perspective, this to me is a great example of you set out the base assumptions, and now you can go deep into those. With how long we've already talked about this, we won't be doing that today, but that I think is very >> thing I'm contractually obligated to say. Martin Luther King wasn't killed because he set black people free or gave them voting rights. Martin Luther King was killed because he started to talk about poor white people, poor gays, poor black people, and how we're all fighting the same thing. >> That's right. >> Right now, we are talking about illegals that are quite possibly here. We don't have a number, we don't have a percent, we don't have data, we don't have anything to actually show it. All we have is Elon Musk retweets, we have boxes in the back of a van, and we have California and we have Spencer Pratt bitching on Twitter. >> So, here's >> actual people who can't afford houses. We have actual people who are on the streets. We have actual people who are working middle class. You work You have You and your girl both working, you got two kids, but you're stuck in an apartment. This bill will get you into a house. But no, because we have to stop this thing that we can't quantify, point out, talk about, or present. So, as much as I I am with everybody, I want everybody to thrive, I want everybody to have a good life, but please don't sacrifice your opportunity and your good life for the boogeyman that somebody else is telling you is coming and it's on its way and it's coming to take your stuff. Cuz you don't have stuff now. So, don't fall for the fact that they're coming to take your stuff. You don't have the stuff now. >> Okay. I'm contractually obligated to say the following. Please understand that your ability to accumulate wealth is on the other side of making sure that only citizens vote. And if you make the mistake of following allowing people that have an incentive structure to pillage your economy, you will find yourself being unable to afford anything. And so, if you want to see it all go to hell in a handbasket, then feel that because the economy is broken for a reason that has nothing to do with what we're talking about right now, uh that you're going to vote to let more people in, not understanding exactly how this going to play out from a cause and effect. Now, everything that you want, including affordable housing, is downstream of who you let vote and what their incentive uh for what they vote for, uh all of that is going to be determined by who ends up being able to cast a ballot. Okay. Uh with that, now to talk directly about affordable housing, I will say this, you have to fix affordable housing. If you don't, you're dead in the water. And so, if Trump is dumb enough to actually let this bill die, uh yeah, he's There's no universe in which he or anybody that's ever known him uh is going to get reelected. So, you have one of the biggest problems that you have right now is you have through banking and politicians deficit spending, you know the drill, you have made houses unaffordable because houses are an asset and they inflate like mad as you run the inflationary uh regime that we are running right now. But, that is a banker-politician problem. So, bankers-politicians have created a wealth siphon through which they steal wealth from everybody, the rich, the poor alike, but they only give back in a way that benefits people who understand assets. So, those people just get richer and richer. Okay. So, given that, what do you have to do to solve the housing affordability problem? Is it that you freeze rents like they have done in New York? And I will say, if that's your hypothesis, every hypothesis makes a prediction. So, if you think freezing rents is actually going to make rents cheaper, then I would say, do a historical survey and see if that ended up being true. Where rents were frozen, did rents get cheaper or did they go up? And the answer is, this experiment was actually run in New York in the '60s and '70s. And what ended up happening was the Bronx turned into a third world country where the building owners burned the buildings down because it was easier to get the insurance money than to try to upkeep the building because buildings are a business. And once you try to control prices, remember the president of Cuba just admitted trying to control prices from the top doesn't work. It's ends up creating shortages, okay? Somehow people think because housing is a {quote} {unquote} right right, which is already absurd, but they think that it's not a business somehow. It is a business. And so it requires all kinds of upkeep, which costs all kinds of money because nobody works for free and you're just as impacted by inflation and things like that as anybody else. So as you're running your business of owning a building, you've got to be able to do what you think is right to keep that business afloat. And if you're not good at the business of running the building, then you will go broke, you will lose the building, and somebody else will get it. So when we ran this experiment in the very city that's trying to run it now, the the result was so catastrophic that whatever 20 years later, they unwound virtually all of it. So we see this play out time and time again. Freezing rents is stupid. It is exactly the same as trying to control the prices at the grocery store or as Trump is trying to do now at the gas pump. It's completely asinine. It doesn't work. History is abundantly clear on this. What you do need to do is build. Now, that's why I'm excited about the very imperfect bill that's being put forward that is far far far better than what we have now. So if you really want to help people and you really want to make housing affordable, the only question you have to ask is do you let landlords charge whatever they think is right so that we're not freezing rents and making things worse. And do you let people build build build build build because what you need is more inventory. Once you have more inventory, then all of the sudden the prices come down. It really is, I know that this is one of those things that's so simple that people lose sight of it. It is just supply and demand. And so, if you artificially limit supply, which you do through rent freezes, rent controls, et cetera, et cetera, the prices don't go down, they go up. Fewer people can actually cuz you can just keep the price. Let's say you just keep the price. Cool. Then you create a black market, and so people will start subletting and things like that to try to turn a profit. They're not supposed to, it's illegal, but they'll do it anyway, which we see over and over and over, because that property becomes so much more valuable because the supply is artificially constrained because the business owners can't make money and or they're not even allowed to build. And so, now you're in a position where you've disincentivized investment because they know that you'll put them in a trap where they can't afford to run that business of owning the building. And you put them in a position where uh they don't want to build because they don't want to end up in that state. If they do end up in that state, they can't take care of the building anyway. And in New York right now, they're threatening to confiscate the buildings if people can't uh upkeep them to the level that they decide. So, it's complete and utter madness. And that's why I'm saying all of this stuff is downstream of what you vote for. So, be very careful what you vote for. >> Can I also clarify so my chat my ass doesn't get eaten up in the comments, my stance? I was including title 42 expulsions, chat. >> [laughter] >> In in my argument. If we're just talking pure deportation with actual legal crime, like yes, that Biden era is lower. But I included title 42 because Trump enacted it and Biden carried it on until he had to rerun and wanted to look better for the left. That was my claim. But just to clarify for the chat. Are we hitting the Supreme Court or is that getting cut for time and we can move on? >> Nah, let's go. >> Okay. >> [laughter] >> Uh all right. >> No, do you You to do super chats first or what? >> Um I'll come back to super chat. Super chats, I love you guys. We'll be here for a third hour. Hang out. >> [laughter] >> Uh, okay, there has been um, four Supreme Court decisions that have been passed down. Um, this is from The Midas Touch. They just listed them all out one by one. Um, number one, Monsanto versus Donnell. The court ruled that Monsanto was shielded from cancer victims suing over Roundup. Federal pesticide laws block states from requiring cancer warnings on label. Uh, number two, Wilford versus Lopez. The court struck down Hawaii's law requiring permission to bring guns into private property that is open to the public like stores, restaurants, and hotels. Number three, Mullen versus Al Otro Lado. Asylum seekers stopped at the border are turned back in Mexico. The court says you haven't arrived in America yet, so no right to apply for asylum. This was the thing I was talking about earlier. And number four, Mullen versus Doe. The conservative majority ruled that the Trump administration can end temporary protected statuses for migrants fleeing violence and natural disasters in Haiti and Syria. These were the people that had that downloaded the app that wanted to come over. >> And you're saying they it's unfair that they get grabbed when they did things the right way. >> I did I did not say that. No. >> No, no. So, what do you mean by these are the guys that downloaded the app? >> The TPS status is connected to the app when they were >> Then why bring up the app? There's a reason you made those sounds. >> The app is to people that to deduce between who's an illegal alien who crossed the border and what this temporary protected status means. Cuz for temporary protected status, you have to apply, you download the app. Those are the people that came over. No, it all is >> I'm just uh, uh, my base assumption is that you brought that up for a specific reason to make a point that these guys are in a different class. If it was purely meant as >> Um, trust me, Brian. I'm not trying to get you. >> No, no. I don't think that's any of me at all. >> yeah. I wasn't trying to yeah. >> So, it I I have a base assumption. People make sounds with their mouth specifically to communicate something. I find that they sometimes don't know why they're making those sounds to communicate it. Um, it's entirely possible that I'm reading you wrong, but here's um doesn't matter. Cool. Misunderstood. Here here is um what I will say about temporary protected status is obviously it is inherently temporary. So, if it was meant to be a this is temporary because we expect 100% of you to be migrated over to full-time status, then I would get why people feel betrayed. I don't know enough about the actual definition of what TPS is designed for, um but clearly it is not meant to be a permanent status. So, if this is the Supreme Court ruling that hey, regardless of what you originally wanted TPS to be, this is something that should be given back to the executive branch. It is meant to be temporary and so anybody that comes in on TPS, they're going to be eventually handed to the executive branch for them to make a decision about. Cool. That is exactly what we put the uh Supreme Court in place to do. Um so, that one I have no beef with. Now, the Monsanto one is horrifying. And so, I yeah, I think this is bad. And what's crazy is I think the Trump administration uh under uh Kennedy would be the first to admit that you want vaccine makers to be able to be sued for creating health problems. So, why the actual [ __ ] would you not be consistent and say, "Yeah, you can't have people using chemicals that knowingly cause cancer." And if you're saying like let's be the most charitable that we can be. I do not think this is true, but just being psychotically charitable. If you're like, "We won't be able to produce enough food to have caloric security for our population unless we use this thing that is a slow, long-term carcinogenic." Uh so, yeah, we just can't have people suing because this is the only way to support this population. That would be like the only plausible argument. But even then, I think you have a moral obligation to say, "Hey, we're going to use it, but the cancer uh warning is like the biggest thing on the bag." Much like with smoking, where you can't look at a [ __ ] pack of smokes without seeing like a black lung, right? So, yes, because I don't want somebody who's working on a farm to not realize that this thing is cancer-causing. I want them to be able to take all kinds of precautions, up to and including going to their employer and saying, "If you don't give me one of those radioactive jump suits every time I'm out in the field, you can [ __ ] right off." Yeah, I'd be all for that. Dope, love it. So, um on this, I think it's crazy. You should be able to sue, because again, that was me being obscenely charitable. I think the reality is this is just the uh big ag or whatever we're going to call Monsanto having the political capital and dollars to be able to get people to go, "Yeah, no, that makes sense. Cool. Don't tell anybody that this is uh a carcinogen. Just keep putting it on everything." Uh I think it's a terrible [ __ ] idea. And it's stuff like this. I I just There's no way that Kennedy uh is on board with this. So, I'd be very curious to hear the internal uh machinations of like what that's like. But anyway, that one seems stupid. I don't know what the um the actual angle. I'd have to read the Supreme Court decision to see what they're queuing off of. Uh but yeah, on that one, I think people should be able to sue. >> This is from Thomas Massie. Uh this is correct. I attended the Supreme Court arguments. Trump's DOJ argued alongside Bayer and Monsanto that because the EPA has already blessed gl- gl- glyphosate glyphosate, no state government could require labels disclosing cancer risk. The EPA and DOJ in this instance was only there to protect Bayer. And they He retweeted somebody that was MW4 Liberty. "Today's ruling in favor of Monsanto proves that I what I've said for a long time. Government agencies don't protect citizens from large corporations, rather they protect large corporations from citizens. Our government is illegitimate, and no, your side is not going to fix it. >> I definitely agree with their lessons. So, here here is the bad news. Government itself is I mean this as an analogy that by its truth will be an indictment, but the out of context phrase I'm about to say is going to seem like I'm trying to be provocative. I'm not trying to be provocative with what I'm about to say. I'm trying to draw parallel to something else that behaves in a similar fashion. The government is like a cancer. The cancer quickly realizes it needs to pull all resources to itself. This is how cancer actually works. And then it tries to wall itself off through literal molecular signaling to tell the immune system, you dear voters, "I'm not the problem. Ignore me, move on to the next guy." And then it will often like build a capsule around itself so that the immune system can't get in and kill it, which is precisely what it's meant to do. So, the cancer pulls blood vessels to it, encapsulates itself, signals that everything is fine, and tries to grow as big as it can. And the very mechanism that makes it cancer is that the cells no longer have a self-destruct mechanism. So, every cancerous cell should detect, "Oh [ __ ] I'm cancer." and self-destruct, blow apart. That's how it's programmed. This is how you live and, you know, for as many times as your cells divide, most people don't get cancer until they're very, very old. So, it's really the body has extraordinary ways of dealing with this. And one of the scary, but sort of fascinating things about human biology is all of us have a tiny bit of cancer in us all the time. But the immune system tracks it down and kills it. So, when the cancer gets to the point where it no longer has a self-regulating mechanism to stay small, and it hides and obfuscates and lies to the immune system, pulls resources to itself and grows and grows and grows, that's when it becomes a problem. We are officially in that stage where the government is simply trying to get as big as it can for the sake of getting bigger, where you had Biden presenting all the jobs that they had hired people into the government for as if that was somehow a win, even though the government um does not generate revenue, it only spends. But the wild thing is the dumb way that we count GDP, that actually gets counted. not. But nonetheless, so we're that's where we're at. Now, my whole thesis is people are confusing this moment where the government has truly become definitionally cancerous. Again, not trying to be provocative, trying to use an analogy of what it's doing. It has become cancerous where it's grow at all costs, get as big as you can, pull as many resources in as you can. There's never too much tax dollars, just more, more, more. Uh and we're confusing that with free market capitalism is broken. But you've got Trump breaking free market capitalism in his way. Thomas Massie had another banger uh accusing Trump of communism. >> Suited up. >> Very accurate. That's the terrifying part. Uh so, if we cannot recognize that the government behaves in the same way that a cancer behaves, and that's why when people vote for bigger government, more services, I'm going to have a knee-jerk reaction that it's a terrible idea. I don't care if it's coming from the right or from the left. Because the very thing that America is getting sick from is that cancer. So, we're confusing it with something else as people often do. They don't realize that the thing that's making their back hurt is actually lung cancer. Um they're completely confused by it until it's far too late. And so, that's the phase of America that we're in. Now, there are treatments that can cure us from that cancer, but boy, oh boy, people instead want to drink apple juice like my man Steve Jobs and they just [ __ ] die. So, unfortunately, that's the path that we're choosing to take right now. We don't have to and hopefully there's intervention, there's plenty of time and we can all back us off. Uh but currently we're not. So, with that Thomas Massie, take it away. >> Republicans decrying communist involvement in the Democratic Party just look the other way when this administration nationalized ownership of these private companies. Intel 10%, MP Materials 15%, Lithium Americas 5%, Trilogy Metals 10%, and US D.O. {quote} "golden share". >> Yep, this is all obscene. Now, here's where this one gets super [ __ ] weird. So, let me be very clear. This is obscene. Trump should not do this. This is the American economy with Chinese characteristics. And I say that a little tongue-in-cheek, but it's literally the American economy with Chinese characteristics. Uh this is Trump saying, "You know what? The government should really be involved uh with keeping these companies going. And you know, let's make sure that the American people benefit from it." And so we're going to give them a piece. Now, at a high level, that sounds lovely. The American people should benefit from the companies that we're building, uh especially in a time where people are not able to make ends meet because of the hideous banking and politician um cabal that is here to destroy middle America um and anybody that doesn't own assets. So, all of that is just patently ridiculous. We should not want him to do that. We should vote him out of office for doing it. We should not elect people that want to do it. Now, having said all of that, there's a difference between China now and Cuba. And oh god, if we keep going in this direction, the thought that in 2028 we're going to be voting for it, do we want to be more like China or more like Cuba? That is [ __ ] wild. We should want to be more like America. Unfortunately though, there's a really big difference between China and Cuba. And so, this is where I know no one is going to understand my take on this, but it looks like this. This is corrupt. This is horrible. It's not corrupt. He does corrupt things. This just isn't one of them. This is um self-defeating. It robs us even farther of the free market. Um it is just Here's what's running in Trump's mind. I'm mind reading, which means that I'm not going to be 100% correct, but the reason that I say this is the US economy with Chinese characteristics is Xi is he understands because of what China went through that you can't do Cuba. Cuba kills people. So, you've got to do something different. He looked at America and said, "Whatever you guys are doing is working. We want to do some of that." Technically it was Deng Xiaoping. Anyway, Xi's the keeper of the sepulcher now or the scepter now. So, he says, "We're going to keep doing this. We need free market capitalism. We need people to be able to get wealthy." Remember, remember, China has more inequality than America. So, we're going to allow people to get wealthy so that we can pull people out of poverty. And everybody, rightly, says that China has pulled more people out of poverty than any other country in history. It's extraordinary. What China did is patently extraordinary. And the bad news is that they didn't give up the authoritarian rule to do it. So, they've built this way of negotiating against the rest of the world for dominance. And in doing so, they've created basically a new kind of economy that we call communism with Chinese characteristics. Now, it's ironically the reverse of the American economy with Chinese characteristics. So, China is trying to run it like a communist dictatorship, very light on communism, very heavy on dictatorship, uh very pro free markets. The US is the opposite. Our base state is a free market, and now we're layering some of the communism dictatorship on top, where we're saying, "No, we we are going to start from the top down saying what companies live and what companies die." Because make no mistake, if you own 10% of Intel and Intel's in trouble, then you're going to make sure that they get the loans or the bailout or whatever they need. Uh because the American people are tied up in it, and that will be the excuse, and that will be how you get Americans to be like, "Yeah, I own 10% of that." Uh because that's effectively part of our national uh our sovereign wealth fund. So, people will actually now think that they're able to pick winners and losers, and slowly over time you will lose competition, and your once beautiful free market capitalism calcifies into [ __ ] and you just can't understand how you're now uh failing in the world. But that's how it's going to play out. Okay, but we really do have to differentiate between what China learned and how they pulled themselves out of unimaginable grinding poverty, killing 45 million of their own people by starving them to death. That's the Cuba model. And the model where they realize, "Okay, we have to have free market capitalism. We have to let inequality grow because some people are just more talented at making money than other people. Uh but we're going to keep control of it, so that we can get everybody to work in a coordinated fashion, which is why it works so effectively on the world stage. So, it is far better than what the DSA is clamoring for. So, I will continue to draw a line between what the DSA is calling for and the Cuba-style danger that that is because it will break the engine of prosperity for reasons we'll go into later versus this where China's showing you you create a very fragile style of government because once they're wrong, oh [ __ ] all hell can break loose. But you do realize that you have to let people get wealthy, you have to foster innovation, you have to scale your economy, you have to grow your way out of problems. And once they realize that, they became a behemoth. So, now I would much rather see us be American. Lean into the things that make America great. Actual freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom for people to make a decision on what company they want to run. Let people vote with their own dollars and their own feet versus the government trying to create a sovereign wealth fund out of companies. What they should be doing is creating, hey, you're born, awesome. You're now invested in the US stock market as a whole. Like an S&P 500 where you qualify and you're on the list. If you don't qualify, you're off the list and that's just constantly being updated and every American is invested in the American stock market. That would suddenly make people care very much about the whether the US economy is thriving and growing, but they won't care about any one company and that is precisely where you want them to be. >> Um that reminds me of a Peter Thiel three tweet or email that he sent out Mark Zuckerberg into the like Facebook team. >> Years ago. >> Uh Nick, I certainly would not suggest that our policy should be to embrace millennial attitudes unreflectively. I would be the last person to advocate for socialism, but when 70% of millennials say they are pro-socialist, we need to do better than simply dismiss them by saying they are stupid or entitled or brainwashed. We should try and understand why. And from that and from the perspective of a broken generational compact, there seems to be a pretty straightforward answer to me. Namely, that when one has too much student debt or if housing is too unaffordable, then one will have a negative capital for a long time or find it very hard to start accumulating capital in form of in the form of real estate. And if one has no stake in the capitalist system, then one may well turn against it. And I feel like we keep thinking that these commies are coming out of the ground and they're like, "Ooh." Like they're the boogeyman. So, it is all cause and effect. A wise man once told me that. So, if enough people don't get stuck get starved out when too many people get hungry, they start to get a little bit anxious. Um and last thing about that, the American dream was not in the Constitution. Founding fathers didn't say it. It was a mortgage marketing campaign started in the '60s. So, the reason it caught fire was because now you're part of the American dream, you're bought in, you got a piece of America, you are now team America, and that immediately stopped the wave of like communism. It's It's because I when I'm a part of the system, I care about the system. When I'm not a part of the system I don't care about the system. So, I think we need to stop just there's other mechanisms that we can do that I think will directly tie to the result of this. >> Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. So, it's interesting to see somebody who is so hated um say what is one of countless things that he said that are absolutely brilliant. And this is why I'm saying, yeah, this is all cause and effect. We have to be able to map it out. The problem is the energy on the left is the DSA, which is literally a suicide pact economically. Um and if we go in that direction, we will make this worse. Now, this is where I just wish I could get people to read about history. Um read about the French Revolution. It It is the most eye-opening thing in the world. Because guess who doesn't rise up? The working class that is supposedly being the most abused. Guess who does rise up? Overproduction of elites. The people who grew up believing, "I'm going to be part of the elite class. I should be rich. I should be powerful. And I'm not. I'm on the outside of the system. And so I'm going to take it down. Once you realize that, oh, this is the overeducated person that cannot find that power or position that they thought they were going to have because we have so many people falling into that class. And revolutions tend to start not at the moment where things are the worst. They tend to start as things start getting better, but the people still don't feel like we have met their expectations. And when you hear their expectations, which are patently absurd, I'm talking specifically about the DSA, um that's when you realize, oh, yeah, they're going to come for your necks. The problem is, just like in France, they don't end up building something beautiful on the back of that. They end up waging a war all across Europe because they were just killing each other so much that the crazy strong man known as Napoleon comes in and is like, oh, I know what to do with these guys. And he points them at Europe and tries to confiscate all of Europe's land and wealth because once people turn murderous, man, it is hard to turn off. So, because it is born of resentment, it is a such a negative like constructive way of viewing the world. And so it's wild hearing people like Chevalier talk about we need something of hope and promise. It's like, that's not what's on offer. So, we have to be very cognizant of what actually causes people to feel iced out. The baseline answer is they don't own assets. And whenever you're running an inflationary regime, if people do not own assets, they will get poorer. And that is what people are responding to. Now, why houses become a thing is not because they're an asset per se. It's because it is the only asset that when a man and a woman are doing the mating dance, that the woman is going to pressure the man to buy a house and both of them completely understand it as this is a valuable thing and it's a valuable thing that I really want. Now, the great irony is the reason that Pokémon cards have performed so incredibly well as an asset class is it is a thing that people have an emotion pulled towards because of nostalgia and they know that it's valuable and it goes up in value and they can buy it for cheap. If houses were working as they should, Pokémon would cease to exist. That is where people go when they want a thing that they have an emotional response to that they can buy that happens to become an investment. Humans are emotional creatures. You buy a Pokémon card because you have an emotional response to it and it can make you wealthy. You buy a house because you have an emotional response to it and it can make you wealthy or at least allow you to store money. It is the one asset you cannot break. You cannot break houses. Houses cannot become unaffordable. Now, I don't think people understand what happened after World War and so people will often bring it up as like, "Look, we got everything right and now we're a bunch of morons." It is it was a very different time. It is a great way to test to see what would your philosophy have looked like back then and to ask, "Do you have the same setup that we had after World War II?" Uh but people are really going to have to get deft like if we actually want to cause and effect our way out of these problems, you have to understand why things worked so well in the '50s and '60s and why this moment is not like the '50s and '60s. We have a different problem, but we can learn a lot by why things felt so good. Namely, that people were getting in real terms, they were getting wealthier. It is not because we had a 91 percent top tax rate, which is what people will tell you. And I will just remind people on a per taxpayer basis, on a per taxpayer basis, we collect more money now by a lot than we did with the 91% top top tax rate. So, you're going to have to [ __ ] contend with that if you're going to try to say this is a tax problem. This is not a [ __ ] tax problem. This is a spending to revenue problem. It's spending problem. It's spending problem. You've doubled the amount that you spend at the federal level almost like 94% in the last 10 years, and it's not making things better. It's making things worse. So, anyway, uh we can go down why the '50s and '60s were so dope, and they were dope, and we should try to mimic as many of those things as we can, but right now let's just stay focused on the housing. It becomes the American dream not because it has a good marketing campaign. The marketing campaign worked because you have a real thing. You have an emotional pull to buy that asset. I lived through this myself. I did not want to buy an apartment. But, my wife really wanted one, and I wanted to get laid. And so, I ended up putting myself out way over my skis, getting one of those adjustable rate mortgages, all of that [ __ ] dangerous as the day is long, but I did it because I wanted to impress my wife. And so, that dynamic is insanely powerful because it accidentally puts you into assets, and right now that's what we're lacking. >> Cool. Um moving on, the Strait of Hormuz that was wide open, um just shut down a boat. Um the plan to get thousands of stranded sailors out of the Strait of Hormuz Hormuz got frozen after a cargo ship was hit near Oman. The IMO has spent days working on it out a safe corridor along the Omani coast for the hundreds of ships stuck in the Gulf since February. Then the Singapore-flagged Ever Lovely got struck 7.5 nautical miles off of the heat, and the whole thing was paused until further notice. The heat came hours after Tehran told ships to stay off any route it hasn't signed off on. Over 100 days stuck in the Gulf, and the wait out lasted no more than a few. And then these are some of the threats that potential vessels have to worry about. Unmanned aerial vessels, naval mines, shore-based anti-ship missiles, and then unmanned surface vessels. They got drone boats, which is crazy. >> Yeah. Yeah, so here's the bad news. The Strait of Hormuz is going to open and close, open and close for the foreseeable future. Um everything that I see in the MOU, everything that I hear coming directly from the Iranians, tells me we are not going to get to the end of the 60 days and have an agreement, and everything's going to be hunky-dory. I don't even think we're going to get to the end of the 60 days with everything negotiated, not by a long stretch. Again, I think they are just trying to uh defang Trump by getting him to the midterms, making sure that he loses the Senate and or the Senate and Congress, uh and then they'll know that he'll be impeached and that he's just going to have a much harder time getting any legislation done, that Republicans who want to get elected in 2028 are going to start pushing away from him. So, he'll end up being a lame duck for the last 2 years. That's, in my opinion, obviously, the playbook that they're running. Uh they are just blatantly saying Trump is saying things that just simply aren't true. Trump isn't saying, they're saying things that just simply aren't true. But what I see, the evidence is, America is negotiating from a place of weakness. If for no other reason than through asymmetrical warfare, they can shut down the strait at any time, and they now have the um the balls, just the willingness to do it. Historically, there's always been enough international pressure where Iran didn't do it, nobody else was doing it cuz there are several of these straits. And so, now it's like Iran is going, "Hey, Oman, listen, you control your side, we'll control our side. We got this whole thing, we're the most narrow part. Uh and so we'll will able to patrol the entire strait. Oh, and by the way, dear Gulf countries, if you guys want in on this, get in on it. We'll give you a taste. They want to make sure that they control it. Why do they want to control it? They want the US out of the region. So, they want to isolate Israel. They want to become the ones running the area. And guess who, by the way, they put in charge of this growing coalition? The Pakistanis. Why the Pakistanis? They are both Islamic and nuclear-armed. So, now it's like, what do you think the Iranians are going to do if they can actually get the US out? They're going to rebuild their nuclear program. And so, this will all have been for naught. I mean, maybe we pushed back their nuclear ambition by a few years. But, yeah, these guys are going to do their thing. And if the US actually ends up backing out of the region, ooh, buddy. Uh this will obviously have been just an absolutely catastrophic failure of untold proportions. It becomes our Suez Canal moment. We become a regional power in our hemisphere, and that's sort of that. And you're done and dusted. So, that is certainly the track that we're on right now. >> Um resident black pilled er, Pat black pilled er, and friend of the show, Simon Dixon, said the real fight we just was played by the GCC and Iran. They were working toward the same regional end game all along, enabled by the Saudi Iran normalization brokered by China and reinforced by the broader BRICS sent uh transition. The war was the theater. The regional realignment was the strategy. My followers have watched this thesis unfold in 2023. Follow the money. And this is to your point, going back to the Iran and the Gulf states are set to hold talks. Um conspiracy theory, disclaimer, disclaimer, stuff like that. But, I do kind of see think that there is something to Iran saying, "America is on its back foot. We have leverage right now. What if we just cut the middleman out cuz our initial thing was Trump is doing all this for the GCC." And maybe Iran is like, "Hey guys, we don't need it, you know, we don't need America in the middle. Let me just go straight to the source and negotiate a better deal." Like, could we get cut out? Do you see a possibility of that like actually happening or is this just speculation in your opinion? >> Let's use this um let's use game theory as an analogy. So, um John Nash does this really famous breakdown that ends up becoming game theory, which is all right, you're at a bar and you see a bunch of attractive women, which one do you go for? Do you go for the most attractive knowing everybody's going to go after or do you go for one of the other women? And it ends up being wiser for you to go to one of the women who are less attractive that you're more likely to be the only one to go after. The reason that that analogy is so useful here is that you're looking at your options and you're thinking strategically through, okay, what happens if I make this move? What happens if I make that move? If you think of the GCC nations as I'm just trying to get laid and it's like it can be the US, it can be Iran in a regional thing here, doesn't really matter. So, if the US had come in and shot their shot and won, back to Iran down, regime change, take it over, it's the next Venezuela, then the GCC would have been like, "We love America the most. You guys are so dope. Like, this is rad. Normalize relationships with Israel. Cool, we're good. We'll move forward with that." If on the other hand, America comes in, shoots your shot, you [ __ ] up, Iran now takes over, that's why midstream they went from, "Yeah, we can take off whenever we wanted to." No, no, no, you can't take off. Okay, well, yes, you can. Because they're like, "Fuck, who's more likely to win? I don't know." But, they're they're going to have a plan A for America wins, they're going to have a plan B for Iran wins. They just want to make sure that they're on the side of whoever wins. And so, once you understand how utilitarian all of politics is, all of these great wars are, not that this is a great war, but a war. So, it at the end, people are just like, "Okay, this is a new world order. Cool, then I'm going to go do that thing." So, I think ultimately everybody's agnostic. Just like the US has a backup plan. All right, cool. We tried to reestablish ourselves in a much wider part of the world. We tried to isolate China. Didn't work. Uh so, now we're going to go back to being a regional power, but by the way, we're going to be wealthier than we were when we went into this. We're going to scale back our empire, which would be really good from a capital perspective. It'd be [ __ ] incredible. Um I think there are complexities with Israel, but even that like I think it's going to be tough for Israel to hold on to a an America that's pro-Israel for much longer. So, now it's like, "Yeah, [ __ ] them. Like it plays out how it plays out. We keep our whatever $3 billion a year. Not worried about those guys. Not worried about the GCC. We produce more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia combined. Who the [ __ ] cares?" And so, we're just going to double down, do our thing. China's going to be its thing. We'll tell them, "You've got to stay the [ __ ] out of uh the larger North America, which technically goes all the way down South America. But like you're going to stay out of our part of the hemisphere. Uh Europe can do its own thing. We're the [ __ ] out of NATO. But like people are going to be real confused if they don't understand even if America scales back, we are still a gigantic economy. And by the way, and this is something I don't think people understand. China's economy is from a GDP perspective, you could say it might be bigger than the US's. Who the [ __ ] cares? They sell a bunch of stuff. We buy a bunch of stuff. So, everybody's going to dick ride America. That's just how it is because you need our money. And whoever is going to be in charge of America, if they understand that, we're not an empire anymore, we've got our little neighborhood, but holy [ __ ] our neighborhood is the wealthiest neighborhood in the world. Everybody wants to do business with us. And literally, look at the charts of foreign investments pouring into the US, which I have a feeling, this is just a feeling, but I have a feeling you can track the amount of money pouring into the the on a chart with the housing crisis in China that people are like, "Woo, there is nowhere else for me to put my money other than the US." And so you've got what the US is doing in AI, we're currently the leaders though we may try to really [ __ ] that up, but we're currently the leaders in AI which is the hottest technology on planet Earth. Uh everybody is doing uh money printing, so it's like, "Yeah, yeah, [ __ ] I'd still rather be on the US side of this for now." And so uh as Japan destabilizes, China destabilizes, Europe destabilizes, the GCC destabilizes, America will have to retreat back to its own little space, but America retreated back to its own little space will still be ridiculously wealthy. And by the way, if we actually stop being dumbasses that outsource everything to China and we start manufacturing in America, now we can get back to a thriving middle class, that's an oversimplification, but it gets you directionally correct, you can look at the data. What weakened the power of the American worker is largely, it's like 34% just straight-up globalization. >> But there's something to that though, because I think when we look at this chart of uh international investment, we're high-fiving each other like, "Yes, we have a bunch of capital inflows, the stock market's at all-time highs" and things like that. But is this just the same phenomenon, but instead of China taking our jobs, now they're taking our capital? Like, I'm not saying taking our capital, but they're >> It's literally the opposite. >> They're they're icing Americans out of the stock market because it's overpriced? >> It's not how the stock market works. So, the what they're doing is they are funding companies, those companies, if they are smart and we don't do dumb [ __ ] like taking stakes in companies and then telling them what the [ __ ] to do and what company to work. The way that the stock market works is yes, it's a vehicle for everybody to get wealthy, but it's also a way for the smartest people in the [ __ ] world when it comes to being entrepreneurs to aggregate capital and build new [ __ ] So, the only reason that Elon Musk has been able to do what he does is because of his access to capital. Now, we have been going in a private capital direction for way too long. That's terrible. I don't like to see it. I'd much rather see us in the public phase so that broader spectrum America can participate in this more. But just setting that aside, when you're taking in the capital, yes, there's going to be inflation of assets. There's no doubt about that. But if you get new companies being formed all the time because you've got a dynamic ecosystem where some companies go out of business, you're super Hawkeye watching for monopolies that have unjust motes. If you're avoiding regulatory capture like the plague, now you'll have a very dynamic industry. And you want as much money flowing into that as you can possibly get, especially given that we, like our thing, America's thing, is financializing everything. And so the big problem that we have isn't necessarily that we financialize everything, though I desperately want us to get back into manufacturing in a big, big, big, aggressive, huge way. But the big problem we have is we're not teaching people to get into that part of the economy. We love, by we I mean the [ __ ] elites, the politicians who are either too dumb or too sinister to understand what's going on. For sure the bankers know exactly what the [ __ ] is going on. But once we get out of deficit spending and doing the death spiral of money printing and using inflation and siphoning the wealth from everybody and feeding it back only into asset holders, if we either stop doing that or we make everybody asset holders, then you're in a much better position. So much of this problem goes away. Like let me just paint a picture of Japan for you for a second. Okay, everybody? We dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. Okay? 40 years later, they were the richest country on Earth. 40 years later. And that wealth was spread across Japan so widely, they they were just balling, dude. >> Mhm. They were [ __ ] traveling everywhere in the '80s. If people didn't grow up in the '80s, they don't understand. Like, there There is a song God damn it, I forget which song it was. California Girls, I think, by Van Halen. And uh there's a the video opens with a bunch of Japanese tourists taking pictures of everything. That was like memes before there were memes was Japanese tourists just taking pictures of America because we were just like a destination for this country that was just radically outpacing us. Anyway, so that's what it looks like when you really get people involved in the like the boom, if you will. Now, their boom wasn't stock market, but when you get people involved in that boom, which if we're going to financialize everything, you've got to get people involved in that boom. When you spread it around, it's just good times. >> To your point though, the politicians, the elites, and things like that, the people that are shaping policy in the country, are they conflating cuz every time we talk about the stock market, we talk about it as a proxy for the US economy. The US economy's booming, stock market's new high, things have never been as higher. But when foreign investment is 10x, 8x what it was 10, 20 years ago, that inflates those numbers and that shows a success metric that might not actually be there. And then that's where the I'm just saying it like can we be blinded by the fact that stock market's hit a new high that we're not addressing actual things that Americans need because the foreign investment in the stock market pushing those assets higher are being clouded? >> Sort of. So, you're You can feel a thing that you know is a problem, uh and so when you look at that number, you don't get excited. But the problem isn't that the foreign dollars are coming in and inflating the asset prices. The problem is that people don't have access to that because they don't understand it. So, it just drives more wealth inequality. So, if you look at this chart and you go, "Okay, cool. Hey, one side of the [ __ ] equation is working, but the other is the discrepancy between productivity and what the average worker is capturing." So, until I think it was in the '70s or '80s, uh you start getting a break between what the I don't think it maps to '71 like that, but you do start getting this break between the productivity that a company is able to generate and then the average worker, how much of that productivity are they able to capture? And so, you've got to get back to a place and you can't do it from the top down. This is what drives me nuts. People will often get the problem right, but they get the solution wrong. And so, you've got to create an environment where um the workers in a stronger position. The single biggest thing that you can do, it's not unions. You can look at the [ __ ] numbers. It's not unions. The single biggest thing that you can do is to deglobalize so that there is, whether it's tariffs or something far more brilliant, but you've got a reason why the companies need to be here. They need to make [ __ ] here because you want to put workers in a position where they are able to build their skill set up. You can actually track this. Uh industry calls for more talented workers, but at what rate? And so, if you get people getting educated faster than the corporations call for talent, then they find themselves you get an overproduction. So, they become cheap. But if you get the other way, like industry really needs talented people, but they're just not able to get as many as they need. Now, they're all fighting for the ones that are awesome. And so, that's start putting workers in a better position. But we've we've got to get back to a workforce that is more powerful. But all the things that we put forward are born of resentment, and so all those ideas come from the left and they're universally stupid and they will end up breaking the actual engine of prosperity. That's the problem. So, it's like, what are the things that we can do to make sure that the economy's functioning, that new companies are starting all the time, that we have people starting uh small companies that are going to like have access to, you know, that broad spectrum of people. And so, that like that's where we've got to get people focusing. Now, everyone knows my preference. I would rather they just stop stealing from people that save money, but if we could do that plus get people into assets plus make sure that we recognize that workers have to be in a better position or we are [ __ ] >> You started this by saying it's an education problem. If we educated, you said when we were talking about the inflows and the K-shaped economy, people not capturing into the >> They don't know about assets. Yes, education on assets. Correct. >> Uh is this something that if we just started a education tour, we showed people how to invest, we matched them $10 for every $10 they put in. I'm being facetious, but like if we actually educated the masses and more people got into the stock market, do you think that would solve the inequality process? >> Yes. >> It It >> Mechanically, it would solve the problem. >> Copy. >> So, it's the same It's actually better than owning a house because owning a house takes so much upkeep, but if you if if from the second you were born, you were getting money put into the instead of like Social Security, you were getting it put into something like the S&P 500. And that's just compounding in the background. It's growing and growing and growing and growing, and the government in is just pulling something out of your paycheck and putting it right into that like they do with Social Security. And now that it's going to go up and down as stock markets will, but because you're effectively forcing them to save for almost two decades before they're going to touch it, there has never been a 20-year period where somebody wasn't better off than where they started. Net literally, not since the stock market came into existence. >> Agreed. >> So, it's like that is where Oh my god, that would be a win. Like I can imagine parents I mean, think about you with your daughter. Imagine when Trump's like banging on about the stock market is at all-time highs, you know that in 4 years your daughter will be able to start drawing some of that money. You'll be like, "Fuck yeah. Like, keep going. Like, yeah, yeah, yeah. Drive that higher. Go, go, go." Because you're participating in it, your daughter's participating in it. Now it's not a thing that happens to somebody else. It's a thing you directly benefit from. And then I would like to think people would get paranoid about, "Hey, don't as the government, you're [ __ ] dumb, don't as the government decide what companies are going to succeed or fail. I don't care. I'm invested in an index, so I don't care which company is successful. I just need a company to be successful. In fact, I don't want you putting me into individual companies because I don't know if they're going to survive. Because OpenAI, Anthropic, they may legitimately not survive what's happening in AI right now, which is why both of them are going for regulatory capture. Because they're like, "Uh-oh, the government is slowing us down now because our models are getting so powerful that they're actually scary." And so, uh, that's slowing down. And corporations are like, "Hey, this doesn't do all of the things that we needed to do yet or at least the cost structure isn't there." So, now they're pulling back. So, now you've got this insane debt that continues to grow. Plus, you have interest rate payments you have to make. And you're getting a slowing down, a double whammy of government is slowing you down, plus you're getting the slow down of just corporations being like, "Uh, like, we got a little out over our skis here. We're going to back off." Now you're like, "Fuck, I don't know if we're going to survive." And so, even though you may have built all the infrastructure and done all that, it might be the next run of companies that are going to take advantage of that. We want to make sure that kids are in on it and that they don't care if it's them or the next person. If you roll off and the next person comes in, great, so be it. Now listen, trauma like that will take a very long time to recover from. So, people need to be very honest. Getting in the stock market does not mean you don't need a job. And it doesn't mean you should be thinking you're retiring at 18. It should be you continuing to put money away in that. Uh but you have that emergency fund if you need it. Ideally, you let it ride until you retire because by then, god damn. We ran the math. Caleb uh Hammer did something on this where it was like if you had put I forget how much, 10% I think of each of your paychecks based on a real paycheck from like 1990, um in 2025 or 2026 it was worth $2.5 million. So, it's like That's exactly what we're trying to do, invite people into. >> Um cool. Speaking of the AI boom, um Bill Gurley, friend of the show, said this is why Anthropic is causing is aggressively begging for government protection. See below, customers are finding cheaper alternatives, keeping the employees require keeping employees requires continuing ultra-rich secondaries that are dependent on revenue growth. When you can't win on the field, go to DC. And this is after UBS Group found that 60% of companies now are watching their AI budgets and are moving to cheaper models and the open source Chinese models. China strikes again. Seems like we should just stop trading them up and giving them access to our infrastructure and they just keep winning. >> Listen, there there is a lot of truth to that, but we also need to recognize that this is how revolutionary new technologies go. This is why I did a whole deep dive about um every time if you look back in history, go back to the railroads, when a revolutionary technology comes into existence, what ends up happening is usually the first wave of investors get wiped out. There's just too big of a gap between when you have to make the really expensive investments and when the money actually starts flowing in and people usually do it on debt and so the debt comes due before the revenues come in. They get stuck, they get liquidated. That's just a tale as old as time. But the infrastructure's there and so the next company comes along and takes advantage of that. So, Google didn't have to lay the fiber optic cable, the companies that did went out of business, but Google was was to build one of the most um profitable companies the world has ever seen on the back of somebody else's catastrophic failure. So, we want to be in a position where I mean, us as individuals just don't care whether it's Open AI, whether it's Anthropic, whether it's X.ai, I don't care. As long as somebody is able to get this over the finish line and we get access to that incredible technology. So, yeah. This this is exactly what you're up against. Right now, they want to get glued to the government. They want the government to come in and use regulatory capture. So, the government cares very much that they end up making it and will support them and create laws to keep other people out. It is a terrible idea that greatly diminishes people's ability to compete. And then we all lose. >> Um We talked about this a couple shows ago. I feel like AI is going to be go similar in the way that the internet did. When the internet dropped, it was Netscape, it was AOL, it was Net Zero, all these internet providers. These were the These are the internet companies. This is the future dot com bubble. All those companies are gone and instead we have Chrome, we got Gmail, like we have these other entities that are built on the internet that is actually thriving. We have PayPal, we have eBay, all these other companies. And I feel like unfortunately for AI, they have footed the bills for data centers and all these things. And I just think at this point the value that they bring doesn't justify the revenues that they are trading against. Um even Yann LeCun is being highly critical of X.ai and Tesla. And he's saying they're now going to renting out their data spaces because they cannot afford to build internally. They don't have the talent. It's too competitive. The The market's too saturated. There's open source free models competing with models that have a $400 billion uh uh infrastructure cost before they even release it. So, it's like you either getting like it's going to be an uphill battle for them. I thought there would probably like the five will turn into two, so cursor already kind of fizzled away. He's going to get rolled over to XAI. I feel like that consolidation is going to happen again and we'll probably have one or two and then everybody else is going to go out of business. >> Yeah, and then the next wave will come in and they'll innovate and they'll make the things that we all go, "Oh my god, this is amazing." And then as many people have predicted, the the foundational model becomes um a commodity. And it's like, "Yeah, okay, cool. Like that's those are the models. Those guys do their thing, but the real money is the company that builds something that leverages the foundational intelligence to do like the actual like, "Oh, I'm trying to, for instance, somebody please, for the love of God, make a pipeline for games that's just easy peasy, so I'm not having to cobble different things together." Like that would be insanely beneficial. >> uh what is it? Um the engine Unreal Engine released the MCP server or whatever. They like to >> Um yes, true. I'm very impressed. No, I love that. Let's go. >> is like a big deal. That is >> Well, it will be a big deal. It's not quite yet. Um but yes, that that is a sign that they're going in the right direction and that's going to get better and better and it's going to be absolutely incredible. And their big prediction is when we drop six, basically, like it's all just going to be completely integrated. AI will do a ton of the coding for you. Uh but it can theoretically now allow you to update blueprints. It's a little shaky for now, but I expect that to get better over time. And I think ultimately AI will make game development effectively trivial uh from the technical side, which is phenomenal, but we're not there yet. But anyway, it'll be people that do things like that. They build an interface layer where you don't have to even know or think about um what are the control weights and all that kind of [ __ ] It's like they make this kind of thing just like really seamless for the user. You tell it what you want and it gives it to you. And when we do that, which will probably be on the back of a lot of people losing a lot of money because that debt will just go bad, that's where it gets scary because of 2008 practices. I don't want to drag us down that rabbit hole, but just know there's a rabbit hole there. Um but that's where this will all, I think, play out wonderfully, but it's not going to be an only up phenomenon. Like there's going to be brutality between here and there. Which is why don't over index on any one company. Don't over index on any one industry. Like make sure that you are well diversified. I know that's not sexy, but ooh, buddy. Uh getting the timing wrong is the same as being wrong. So, be careful. >> Here's the line uh the Yann LeCun uh quote. >> XAI is kind of a failure. Frankly, because the the founding team has left. Uh or was fired. There's some uncertainty about this. Uh and Elon is not in a position that is very, very difficult for him to kind of find hire top people in AI because um because he's kind of you know, not behaved in sort of very good good ways toward the the current the previous team. Um so, now he's got this huge infrastructure which he rents to other people. Because that's the only way he can uh recoup the the cost. So, >> Now, these two have clashed on cuz if you guys couldn't hear the beginning of that, he was saying XAI is kind of a failure. Um so, these guys have clashed on X before. So, I imagine he's maybe a little too eager to see Elon fail. Uh and maybe um unwise at this stage to bet against Elon. Uh so, I'd be a little bit careful with prognostications that he's not going to be able to do something. Elon approaches things like an engineer um and he'll, I think, be able to attract talent. So, he's that they built the infrastructure the wrong way from the team perspective. Uh so, he didn't get what he thought he needed out of the team. He's shown before, whether it's with X, whether it's with Tesla, both places he did the same thing, and then he rebuilt them better than ever. So, anyway, remember, Elon only gets paid if he pulls off effectively the impossible. Um so, I doubt very much this is a guy that's just going to sit on his laurels, and his track record is quite frankly unparalleled in human history. So, anyway, I'm not one to bet against him yet. >> Um okay, I'm looking to pull the actual footage, but it hasn't been released from the manufacturers of GTA 6. But, um allegedly, GTA 6 has surpassed 39 million copies in pre-order. It comes out in November, 5 months before it drops, and it's generated over 3 billion in revenue. The estimated ticket was 1.5 to 2 billion to cost, so they already made their money back, and it hasn't even dropped. No DLCs, no pay-to-play, nothing. Sheesh. >> Two tack-ons to that. So, the source was a French retailer, which is where that number comes from for context. And the other thing is, it's probably higher than 3 billion, because there was a independent gaming group that a lot of the gaming community follows online, and they did a poll of which version of the game are you buying, cuz there's the $80 version and the $100 version. And overwhelmingly, I think it was like 40,000 people voted, and it was 80% $100. >> Woah. >> Everybody thought it was going to cost $100, so I was like That's the theory right now, is that the $100 version was the original game, but they were worried about the backlash to $100, so they locked some of the content behind a wall, put it in the ultimate edition, and then made the $80 version. So, that's the working theory right now that the community is working off of. >> Did you pre-order? >> Uh so, I'm waiting because it's only digital. So, that's a whole 'nother conversation with it is, I'm just going to buy it the night before. >> They said they are going to do a physical game. It just won't come out, I think, until after release. >> Which they haven't confirmed it, so that physical thing could still just be talking about like physical collector's editions with the code. So, we still don't know, but I'm hoping it is the disc because I'm going to buy it at launch just cuz I don't want to wait. I've waited 13 freaking years. But, um you know, it's just crazy. >> It's very interesting. What's really fascinating is that their stock price dropped. So, on the back of rumored $3 billion already profitable, uh and people are saying that the reason that the stock price dropped was because the they expected the base game to be $100 and they felt like they were leaving a ton of revenue on the [clears throat] table. So, it's very weird to me. You've got a company doing that well. People are that excited about it. It made that much money already 5 months out. It's so crazy. But, nonetheless, people apparently had already priced in that it was going to be a $100 game and when it wasn't they were not happy about it and so the stock dropped. Uh it'll be very interesting to watch to see what happens there. There's so much turmoil in the gaming industry right now because costs are absolutely outrageous. If we have any fellow Destiny uh players in the crowd, uh I played Destiny 1 and Destiny 2, but uh Bungie just basically lost the plot and so they lost all of their player base, but now Destiny announced today that they're doing a bunch of layoffs and there are people behind the scenes saying, uh "Hey, listen, I'm a Sony insider and I'm telling you right now that they are going to make Destiny 3, but they've got to get their cost structure in order and so this is all rumor, all rumor, but supposedly they're going to reduce their costs, build an AI pipeline, and then start down the road of doing the game that theoretically everybody wants them to do, which is Destiny 3. So, it'll be very interesting to see, obviously, what comes of the games industry right now. There are so many people in the industry that are just violently opposed to AI. It's pretty wild. Uh and yet it is so obvious that AI is the future of gaming. I just cannot stress this enough. Somebody was asking me um cuz I So, I did a post and I said, "I've built uh these mega um factories, built them out, and I've also built a video game. And building the video game was harder than building out the manufacturing sites." And so, people are like super weird, like, "What the fuck?" And the reality is um when somebody asked me, "Okay, why is it so hard?" If I just explained to you just the animation, which is like really ultimately a pretty small part of the game, just the animation, you've got uh the concept art, the 3D model of the character, the rigging of the character. By the way, those are all three different people. Um you've got topology, you've got so the total number of polygons, the triangles as people often say. Um you've got like the human artistry side of just making it look interesting. You've got um whatever tech art you're going to do to actually make this thing work on a computer that has limited GPU budgets. You've got timing of the animation. Can the animation be interrupted? The I mean, and many more things. That's just the animation. It is game development is so technical. It is far more technical than most people realize. And so, yes, it is just extremely, extremely difficult. And so, if AI can come in and simplify some of these things, which it already is, and if it can keep doing that, oh my god, the industry will be unrecognizable. So, I'll be very curious to see how quickly the gamers who are staunchly opposed to AI actually end up embracing it. I think it's going to be pretty fast. Now, I don't know how many um super chats have built up, but we should leave ourselves time cuz I want to make sure at the hour we can switch over to the uh reacts. >> I've got quite a bit. We'll start from the top. Quirk says, "What did you think of Mark Carney saying Canada is a mosaic, not a melting pot?" >> Um it's suicidal. That's so stupid. He is somebody that prescribes to the idea that diversity is our strength, which is dumb. Diversity is very much not your strength. You have to find a way to overcome the diversity in order to move forward in any sort of coordinated fashion. I do not know how people get to the level that he's at without a fundamental understanding of the mechanisms that make a country work. Like that is ridiculous. It's ridiculous. So, you want a team of rivals in the Lincoln sense where there are people who think differently than you, but if you do not have shared goals, if you do not have a shared value system, if you don't have a shared sense of identity, you're toast. You're toast, man. So, yeah, I don't get it. Look at India and Pakistan. Look at Israel and Palestine. These are diverse, man. Boy, oh boy. And they kill each other dead. So, I don't know what the [ __ ] people think with stuff like that. It's It's completely asinine. >> J W Mann says, "Love the show and it wouldn't be the same without Drew and Ryan as in parentheses mostly winky face thoughtful foils. Do you think the videos of World Cup fans experience in the US will help some of the DSA folks realize how blessed we are to live in the US at this time?" >> Nope, not even a little bit. Once you understand that um Marxism, Leninism, socialism, communism, whatever word you want to use for it, that is it requires resentment. And so, to push that agenda, no matter what words come out of their face, it it is a an ideology born of resentment. It is about confiscation. It is about breaking. It is about tearing down. Um it they have no love for America. Uh you're going to see that more and more and more. And unfortunately, all the evidence in the world presented to an elite who feels like they have not been given their just desserts, they're not going to have it. And they're going to keep moving in that direction. Um some of them are doing it knowingly, and others of them really are just lost in the emotion of it all. And so they say words make them feel better. They say words that make them feel like they're fighting for the small person. Uh but in reality, it is confiscatory. They always turn on each other. And um yeah, you can look at um whatever flavor you want to look at. You can uh see how when um it was run in the Soviet Union, how all the left-leaning people that brought it into power were then just sum- summarily killed uh because they were no longer useful. They were agitators. [ __ ] those kids. Like, we're in power now. We can't have people um saying anything against the party. You're dead. Um you can see the same thing in Iran, by the way. When they the left ended up helping um Khomeini get into power, and then he killed them all. I mean, it's just like this just happens over and over and over and over. It is an ideology of resentment. It requires total rule. Uh it is not somebody who's trying to interface with the world as it actually is. It is somebody who's hungry for power. Uh and once they get it, they will use it. And they will clamp down on everything. But because um it is not something that acknowledges uh humans are selfish. And we need to create space for them to innovate, for them to succeed, for them to reap the rewards of their success. Um if you can't do that, you end up doing what the Russians did. This is really fun. Uh so, they capture all of that resentment by saying um to Drew's point that this isn't about race. This is about class. And so you need to um really grab your identity as I'm oppressed. However you manage to find your way to that, great. And so, in Russia, um it was if that guy has more cows than you, you're being oppressed by him because that's an unequal outcome. In Cambodia, it was that person has glasses. They're more educated than you. So, Cambodia, we kill people glasses. And in Russia, they literally killed the Kulaks, uh the ones that were better at farming, and then they starved to death. That was the outcome. But, that's what happens when you have that kind of ideology. So, I wish that some reels on Tik Tok or Instagram were going to convince them that no, come on, look how really wonderful and beautiful this place is. Um it's way too late for that. That's not what that ideology is about. >> And Boomba with a $100 super chat. Damn. Thank [cheering] you. >> [applause] >> Hi Tom, the theory of constraints, logical thinking tools are used for building cause-effect logic maps in a way assumptions can be surfaced and challenged. Do it or not, ZTF alumni and founder, community member 18 months. I appreciate you, your team, and community. >> Wow, thank you, man. Thank you for being a part of it. Uh that means a lot to me. You know how fiendish I am about creating an entire generation of founders. Um so, I am always super honored uh that people take that program and give me a chance to help in some small way. Ultimately, obviously, you guys do all the work, uh but I'm very honored. So, thank you. >> Uh Justin Pollan says, "Shout out to my daughter Isabella. We are traveling to San Antonio next week for high school FBLA Nationals. She placed first in Arkansas a few months back. If you could wish her luck next week, that would be amazing. Love you all." >> Oh my god. So, first of all, I think this is the first time that somebody has used uh the live as a way to send a message to uh their kid who presumably is also watching. That's incredible. So, yes, best of luck. Uh very excited for you. That's [cheering] incredible. I hope it goes very, very well. Uh and thank you for being a part of the crew. >> Next up, Luke Adam Miller says, "Tom usually critiques socialist policies in terms of incentives to produce and innovate. Friedrich Hayek's uh, Friedrich Hayek's uh, 1945 essay, The Use of Knowledge in Society, explains markets as necessary systems of epistemic epistemic production. Deep dive?" >> Um, I that deep dive would fail, but that's really interesting to me personally. Drew knows all too well, like I don't know how you package that one up. Uh, but yeah, that's very, very interesting. That it is a factory for truth. That makes sense. I mean, you're making ground truth. That is why top-down price controls don't work because you lose the truth signal from the market that says this is what this is actually worth. Now, what you think it's worth what the market on mass is telling you it's actually worth. Um, yeah, never quite thought of it like that, but that's very interesting. >> Bruce Lugo says, "How exactly does deglobalization, things becoming more expensive, less uh, US companies selling product globally, lower profits, lead to higher wages? How wouldn't that just lead to destruction of the US economy?" >> Okay, so um, one you would never do it like a light switch where uh, we're doing everything globally and now everything is internal. You would create the incentive structure that will get people to invest and bring their companies back here. And so, it will start and we can use tariffs just because we're doing it and we can sort of see, but imagine a world in which the Supreme Court doesn't uh, reject it. You saw companies literally saying, like, "Yeah, we're going to start building a factory in the US because we don't want to pay those fees." So, you have well-established car companies for instance, instead of manufacturing somewhere else, like maybe some of this is being done in Canada or Mexico or whatever, they start bringing it here uh, into the US. Um, if you look at um, the UK, you see BYD everywhere. And so, stopping people from or China very specifically from flooding your market with um, um government-subsidized things so that they can artificially destroy your market so that you can afford to produce it because it's not profitable and so it all goes there. Um you start hollowing out the jobs. So if you reverse that, you keep those out by making them just too expensive for them to bring in, you incentivize companies that already exist to start building here, and then new companies to be like, "Well, I might as well found things here." This is like exactly what we did when I was looking for people to help me build Kaizen. I didn't care if they were in America. I just needed it to be as cheap as humanly possible. And so you want to build an incentive structure where it's people just go, "Oh, cool. Yeah, then I'm going to do it here because it's actually cheaper than if I go somewhere else." Now, if you do it all at once, you could definitely create massive problems. But what you're triggering is the same innovation cycle that ended up making China the best, you're just forcing it to happen on your soil. So it's not an overnight fix by any stretch of the imagination, but you have to start walking that journey at some point. Like if you don't do it now, then you're going to be, you know, a year from now wishing that you would started it. So whatever that phrase is, what's the best time to plant a tree? 40 years ago. What's the second best time? Today. Uh so yes, would have been better if we had started this or just never let it happen in the first place, but we didn't and so here we are. So today becomes the second best time to start. >> And last but not least, lol420 says, "Great discussion as always. Tom, do you practice any martial arts like BJJ? Lots of benefits, but I think the biggest is you get real feedback in the form of someone trying to choke you." >> Yeah, that's really interesting. So um I did a very long time ago, um but it was probably too fake of a martial art for me to have really gotten too much out of it. Um and I did it at a time where one, I did not have all of my mental um aggression, fortitude, etc., etc. in place, and so it was competing with me doing well in college, and I was really trying to get into film school, and it just felt like I had to pick one or the other plus I'd gotten injured and so I was like, "Oh god, getting injured over here. It's pulling me away from what I really want, which is film school." Um so, ended up not doing it. Do though wish in my youth uh that I had. Now, listen, I could make it a focus and do it now and I think it'd be extraordinarily beneficial for the reasons you were saying. Weird thing is I was just thinking about this the other day. Knowing how to fight is like an insurance policy, but the problem is it's an insurance policy. I've spent the vast majority of my adult life not having any physical confrontations whatsoever and so putting time and energy into my mind uh has felt far more useful. And then if I'm honest, uh it has been a much shorter path to getting good with a gun uh than putting all that time into BJJ. But I agree with you, man. It It's one of those where um I really do wish that I had either done it back in the day or that um I wasn't worried about getting injured or just wasn't being lazy cuz ultimately if I made time for it, it could happen and if I was willing to deal with the injuries and all that stuff, uh I would learn something incredibly beneficial. And I don't want to put this person on blast, so I will just say this. Uh a well-known um martial arts a BJJ coach gave me exactly one session. It was extraordinary. He's such a good guy. Now though, I think he is not a very big Tom Bilyeu fan for reasons uh that are outside the scope of this conversation, but um that was cool. I did get injured though in that one session. Uh and so was just like, okay, yeah. I would I would really have to like figure out how to deal with the injuries. Too many words on that answer, so I'll stop there. >> Um you got Dan G 470. He responded in the chat. I have it pulled up. Oh, you have it? Go for it. >> Drew just pointed out um this is from our super chat from earlier. Drew just pointed out why Trump is holding the housing affordability hostage. He's betting on the emotional response from constituents that will drive representatives to get behind the Save America Act. >> Hmm. That was not my read of Drew's uh take on things. My read and obviously you're hearing it's always weird when I'm answering on your behalf, but I'll I'll finish the >> using that as leverage, yes. That's the difference. >> So, um to me it goes something like this. Drew recognizes the housing problem as not a little bigger, not a little more important, a lot more important. And so, holding the far far far far far more important thing hostage for this thing that is largely already solved by something else. It's like, what the [ __ ] are we doing? This is political buffoonery. Given how easy it is to track his logic, if you share his base assumptions, it actually makes a lot of sense. So, it's only when you disagree with his base assumptions that it's like, well, I think there's something to argue about here. So, that's where I go. If somebody like, okay, for instance, Gary's economics. The number of people that come to Gary's aid, I will just never understand. Uh if you have a video that you want to link me to where he actually walks through the logic, I'd love to see it. But what Gary does is in in the majority of his content. Maybe there really is good stuff and I just haven't seen it. I'm super open to that. But in all the stuff that I see, Gary terminates in cuz he'll give you a couple beats, but when you point out, hey, that logic doesn't make sense and it you break cause and effect for this reason, which Daniel Priestley did extraordinarily well when the two of them went head-to-head on Diary of a CEO. This is not me guessing. This is me having watched it play out. And Gary would just hit the eject button every time uh Daniel was like, but it doesn't work like that. And Gary would go, fine. Yeah, man. Sure, sure, sure, bro. Just uh keep doing that and see what happens. And it's like, that is emotion. That's not a sequence of logic. So, what I want to hear from Gary is, hey, he just brought up a point. So, what's your takedown of that point? So, for instance, I couldn't refind it, but um somebody in so we did a reacts video, which is great because it ends up attracting people that aren't already in our audience, but that means that they hate [snorts] everything that I'm saying, which means that when I have time I can go in and like find out, do I actually have a rebuttal for this argument? Some I'm going to, some I won't, which gives me a great jumping off point to go, oh, am I wrong about that? Let me go look it up. Anyway, one of them was about they said, uh, "Tommy, you're never going to address why things were better in the '50s and '60s." Uh, which he was using as like a gotcha. Um, so you're not addressing the real problem. You guys know my arguments. Tommy, you're not addressing the real problem. I know because the top tax rate in the '50s and '60s was 91% and so haha. Uh, you won't address it because you can't. Now, here's the problem. It's very easy to address and I'll address it now, but I want to nest it in This is the what I'm about to do is exactly what I want to see Gary do and I don't see Gary do, which is, okay, cool. You've pointed something out. There was a top tax rate in the '50s and '60s when the economy really was booming and so now the question becomes was that causative? Was the economy booming because we had a 91% top tax rate? And, uh, that can be verified. And so you just go back and look and the reality is top tax rate was 91. Uh, however, we were taking in much, much, much, much less tax per person than we take in now. Now, that's largely a function of the economy growing and not necessarily because you have a 91% tax rate, but the question becomes as you abandon that tax rate, does that free the market up to grow? The obvious answer is yes because we did and the economy these decades later is just boom, boom, booming. Now, what was going on in the '50s and '60s that was extraordinarily powerful? One, we were inflating our debt away, right? Something you would think I would just be radically opposed to, but it's part of a beautiful deleveraging and when you do it well, it works just fine. So, they used yield curve control, known as financial repression, and they actually inflated their way out from that whatever 125% debt to GDP ratio. Now, the reason they could do it now, and the reason we wouldn't be able to do it today, is that the economy was naturally growing. We were just coming out of World War II. We were the only ones that were untouched. The whole world was turning to us to be this manufacturing marvel. We were sort of the China of that day. So, you're financially repressing people, you're inflating the [ __ ] out of them, but the economy is actually growing more than you're stealing in the inflation. So, in real terms, the average workers' wages are going up. So, this is not a because you're taxing at 91% that wasn't the causative reason for the economy to be booming. So, there were other things were happening, and one the one that I just want to see people really pay attention to is the worker was more empowered. They could negotiate better. They could get better pay. And so, we want to look at that. Now, everybody dead ends at the brain dead just get unions back in. Unions are like a government, they'll turn cancerous very quickly. It also doesn't have a very big impact. So, for my money, that's not the place to start, but at least that's an argument that's like, "Okay, we've got to make the worker more empowered so that they can capture more of that increase in productivity." Which is like the other part of the problem that we have to solve for. Okay, so that's the kind of thing that I want to see Gary do. Now, then the next layer might be Gary goes, "Okay, well, wait a second. I don't think that you're clocking the data right on the unions." And I do think it's unions. Okay, Gary, cool. Let's go through it. There's two camps. Camp number one says it has had a bigger impact. Camp number two says it it comes out to about 1 or 2%. Now, you can debate it. You're in the weeds. It's probably not going to be super useful, but like at least we know what we disagree on. And now we're back to, "Hey, we agree about the philosophy of we have to empower the worker. We just disagree about how to get there." You're you're going to end in places like that where people are reading the data in different ways, they have different base assumptions, yada yada. That's perfectly fine. That's super fruitful. Here's the base assumption, you believe this. Here's my base assumption, I believe that. Now the audience gets to make up their own mind. But when somebody taps out and they start appealing to uh it's no longer about cause and effect and it's just an emotional appeal, which again, I will ask you guys all to be clear in your mind, someone can emotionally present cause and effect, that's not the same thing as reasoning from emotion. Okay, what I'm saying is Gary reasons from emotion. This thing is the right thing to do because it feels right. It seems self-evident. This is what people want. I don't give a [ __ ] if it's what they want. What works? I know where they're trying to get to. Is it actually going to take them there? Is it actually going to make their life economically better? Will they feel, not feel, sorry, will they actually be able to afford a home? Will they be making more money in a year than they are now? Will their kids likely make more money than them, you know, 20 years from now? Those are the things that are real, tangible, and measurable. And I'm saying he routinely ejects out of that. And that's where, man, we're going to talk about uh Chevalier and the DSA uh in minutes. So, that's where I'm like, they just [ __ ] tap out. They just say words that are emotional, meaning uh it's about hope. We want to do cool things. We've got to protect the integrity of people. What the [ __ ] What does that mean? What are you going to do as a matter of policy? We're going to freeze rents. Okay, cool. Now you've given me something where I can walk through cause and effect. I can do a historical analysis and say, "Hey, has anybody tried this kind of thing in the past and does it work?" All right. I should probably stop there. >> I got one more super chat. Um Drew, on your end does it show a message because someone replied like there was, but on my end it just says the amount. >> Yeah, yeah. Uh same. This is Caleb T357. Thank you for the $100 super chat on a Friday. Uh >> [applause] >> Any advice on how to help a young teenage daughter navigate the world effectively? Drew, I'm looking at you. Tom, please weigh in as well. I respect and appreciate everything you all do. >> Let's go, Drew. You've got one. >> Uh the best parenting advice I had was that you're not supposed to you're not supposed to tell your daughter or your your child how to walk. You're supposed to walk with them along the path and you're supposed to guide them and give them principles that way they make their best decisions going forward. So, I know when teenage, it the switch flips and it gets a lot worse and it's a lot more um intense in the way of the pushback and the self um the independent philosophy and the argumentative and stuff like that, especially with young uh women. Um but it's still grounded in when she was eight, she was in um martial arts for 2 years, so that's how she learned respect and discipline. So, the things that we did as she was growing up reinforced things. So, now when she's going through her uh independent um spurts, we can kind of use those historical examples to kind of calm her down and walk her against the edge. Um I I will say though, my daughter specifically, she has told me off, not like cursed me out or something like that, but she has forcefully voiced her concerns about something that I have I did. Um she's made jokes about me that made me like open my mouth and the group laugh and the table like riot. Um and she has over performed in everything that she puts her mind to. So, it's one of those things where you can't get mad when she's overly expressive, when she has an attitude, and then not be uh happy that she's also making an off-color joke that nobody prompted her to. So, I allow her to have that space and that playground to play, but at the edges of those fences are those principles and those morals that we built earlier in her life. So, yes, she's going to go to the edge of that gate, and yes, she's going to say something or do something that you might be the butt of the joke, or she might lash out at you, and then you start to go a couple levels deeper and you realize, "Oh, it's not that she's mad at she What she's saying isn't the thing. You have to look at the subcontext." And this is something that I think is applicable to a lot of women just in life is the lash out often times is a sub-context under that of like, "Oh, what I'm really saying is I don't feel safe." Or, "Oh, what I'm really saying is I miss you." Or, "Oh, what I'm really saying is you weren't there for me and I needed you to support me in that thing." So, don't think about the words that are coming out of her mouth. What's the context that comes under it? >> Can I jump in from a recent teen perspective? >> There it is. >> Uh so, you said something 4 weeks ago that stuck with me that my parents also did, which um I don't know your exact phrasing, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it was hear them out even if you disagree and validate that these are the things they're feeling. And I think too many parents don't do that. And like you said you do that, my parents do that to me. It's like that is so helpful as a teenager for developing your worldview is because you're not going to always agree with your parents just like you said now. Um so, I don't know. I just I like when you said >> about that like to other people cuz when me and Lynn get into it, I immediately I have a bunch of female friends. I really call them like, "Am I tripping right now?" Like I don't I don't I want to just make sure I didn't And it every time they have the conversations, they're like, "Oh, the argument is good." Like the fact that she's bringing her feelings to you, you're talking through things, you're working through it. You want that. You don't want her to just be quiet and ice you out. That's a way worse position. Your relationship is strained. At least now she's actively trying asking for more because she there's something there's a deficit there. So, that's where I started to kind of change the perspective on it to Ryan's point of like you feel how you feel. I hear you. Thank you for bringing your emotions. Thank you for being vulnerable with me. I don't see it that way, but thank you for saying it. You hungry? And then we I try to like lead it into something else. >> And that's exactly how my parents were as a teen. [laughter] So, >> For real, thank you for your service, man. >> Yeah. >> Uh that that is banger advice. The only thing that I would add to that is get your child addicted to the only belief that matters, which is that if they put time and energy into getting better, they will get better. AKA give them a growth mindset. Everything after that, you're not going to be able to walk with them forever. Um and they are going to meet the real world and they are going to have to figure out how to navigate it, and the real world is going to break them. It's going to scar them in some way, and if they don't have the emotional resilience to get back up and keep going, then all hope will be lost. Um, so that would be if if I were going to try to impart wisdom onto a kid, it would be that. That's literally what I'm trying to get across, whether it's in a video game or a story, when I'm thinking about kids that I'm right there with that. >> Right. >> That's it. You guys, thank you so much for everybody that stayed with us today. I appreciate you guys so much. Shout out again to Humble House who uh allows us to talk about these crazy subjects. I appreciate those guys so much, and they make an absolutely amazing product. The ingredient label is sales uh marketing enough for me. It's absolutely incredible. They are delicious. You can get 15% off with code Tom. humblehousefoods.com. Make sure that you check them out. Uh and then I'm doing another ITU AI masterclass Thursday, July 9th at 1:00 p.m. Pacific. Make sure you join me. It is free, free, free, and I will show you how to be a part of the solution and build a company using AI. Again, it's completely free Thursday, July 9th at 1:00 p.m. Pacific. The link uh is there. You can click it and sign up. It's in the description. All right, everybody. We will see >> missed any part of the show, make sure to head on over to Tom Bilyeu Clips. I'll also drop that link in the chat. >> Discord clips channel. >> Discord clips channel, AI masterclass. >> There you go. All right, so we do have a clips channel. So, the reacts will almost certainly end up living on the clips channel. So, make sure that you subscribe to Tom Bilyeu Clips. All right, everybody. Have a great weekend. See you Monday. Peace.