Trump's Real Endgame in Iran Isn't What You Think

Iran being a threat to the Middle East is a good thing for the United States. What? So economically, you want a little bit of uncertainty in the Middle East because it drives the American military-industrial engine because we keep providing weapons to Israel and Saudi and UAE and Qatar and Bahrain and all the other major parties out there that have a problem with their own. Even the Trump administration is having a hard time helping us understand why we're doing it. Instead, they seem to keep target hopping and the current target now is Cuba. How do you begin to predict what the future's going to look like? Trump just said that Iran was totally destroyed. That is a quote. And then they shot down an Apache helicopter. >> Isn't that amazing? Just think about that for a second. >> Yeah. >> Obliterated military, but it still has the ability to shoot down a modern-day Apache. >> Yeah. I feel like maybe I'm being lied to about how far we've gone. So, we just get attacked. We're in the middle of peace talks. There's a smart response that Trump could take and there's a dumb response that Trump could take. What are each? >> So, there's so much here that we're not allowed to know and frankly that people just don't know, right? The Apache helicopter was on a uh a watch type of routine uh mission. It was shot down. It was shot down in a way where both pilots survived. It's kind of difficult to imagine a rocket hitting a helicopter, right? The speed difference between a rocket and a helicopter is significant. And then the helicopter being able to not only identify that the missile was coming, but also successfully eject. There's so many difficult things to put together here to understand how this could have been an intentional >> smell a rat. Like, do you think this is a fake story? >> It doesn't. No, not a fake story. It doesn't smell like an intentional attack. It doesn't sound like Iran was hiding in in the tall grass waiting for an Apache helicopter so it could surprise attack and shoot it down. It sounds like maybe it was a mistake. Maybe they sent warning. Maybe they thought it was an Israeli aircraft. Something like that may have happened. So, the Apache had time to gain distance, take maneuvers, prepare to evacuate, and then they were able to successfully rescue the pilots with unmanned uh drone boats, and then bring them to another place where they could be evacuated by a helicopter that wasn't shot down. So, there's multiple pieces here at play that >> doesn't make it sound like Iran was trying to violate a ceasefire or violate American soldiers in the battlefield, but Trump is certainly taking that approach. it when he says it cannot be unresponded to. It cannot be unanswered to. >> I think as of right now he's already begun the response. At least that's the early words. Um so one is that part of the smart response or the dumb response if you're actually trying to get a peace deal. What's the play here? >> I don't think Trump wants a peace deal. So I think that's really important to understand. >> Of all the people involved, I thought he's the one person actually does want peace. >> So I don't think he wants peace. I think he wants leverage. And that's an important thing when you when you look at the Iran conflict. such a unique conflict compared to the uh naroterrorism war that we were fighting against Maduro and in Mexico. It's very very different than the Ukraine conflict with Russia. It's it's categorically different in so many ways because you've got Iran involved. You've got Lebanon involved. You have the various proxies related to Iran. And then this Iran conflict has been multiple years in the making. If you just look at modern history, it's three years in the making. If you look at longer history, it's, you know, 30 years in the making. So at the end of the day, what we realize is Iran has made a full of the largest economy and the largest military, modern military in the world. We went in to assassinate Ayatollah Kamani and we came out with a new Ayatollah Kamani. >> That's the son of the the hardliner son is now the Ayatollah. So we don't we can't even claim credit in terms of title for actually assassinating their leader, let alone destroying the Islamic revolution. We we just we can't. So what was it all for? In addition to that, the Straits of Hormuz have now become the property essentially of Iran. We don't know whether or not Oman is going to take exercise their right over the other side of the Straits of Hormuz, >> which is putting global oil in a tail spin. And global oil is separate from American oil, but still kind of the same because it's all one global marketplace. So even the efforts that we took to secure oil in Venezuela by capturing Maduro doesn't really quite work in our advantage with what's going on in Iran. And at the end of the day, Iran being a threat to the Middle East is a good thing for the United States. >> What? Because you have all of the other Sunni American allies in the region that like Saudis and UAE that are buying American weapons, invest in American tech, and aren't capable of fully defending themselves. And who are they going to lean on? They're going to lean on the United States to help defend them. So economically, you want a little bit of uncertainty in the Middle East because it drives the American military-industrial engine because we keep providing weapons to Israel and Saudi and UAE and Qatar and Bahrain and all the other major parties out there that have a problem with Iran. Okay. So the last time we talked about this and I said, "What do you think Trump is doing?" You said, "I think he's protecting Trump's legacy. Forget America for a second. Somebody who just wants to project power, look strong." If we take that framing, it's not my framing, but if we take that framing, what why would he read that situation so differently? Like if you're saying that actually is a good thing, why would he target them? Why wouldn't he go I mean, he had just come off such an incredible win in Venezuela, why take the huge gamble in the Middle East? Because I always saw it as Trump is trying to secure the $2 trillion of promised investment. He sees Iran as a destabilizing force. He wants to make sure that, you know, we can get the money into the US basically into AI infrastructure, protect America, which has just become a financialized hub. Um, but if we would have been better off with instability there, why would Trump move in? >> It's not that I think we would have been better off with instability, the the when I >> Is that what you just said or did I >> No, no. What I'm trying to say is the United States when it goes into any area of active conflict, it's weighing against two opposing outcomes. There's one outcome that is your preferred outcome, but then you always go in with a plan B. What happens if my preferred outcome isn't met? >> How do [clears throat] I change the narrative? How do I spin the story? How do I capitalize on the momentum that's going to be gained from what I didn't want to have happen? So we have so if you look at it if you look at it through this lens Donald Trump talks to his panel of adviserss whether his panel panel of advisers pander to Donald Trump or whether they actually give him their honest opinion none of us know but they come off of this Maduro raid with like you said great success. Look at how powerful the United States is. It carries out this almost perfect mission uh capturing a world leader changing the course of of the future for the Western Hemisphere. It's hard not to have bravado coming out of that and say, "You know what? Let's do it again. Let's do it again." Because through Donald Trump's eyes, he could be the president that didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize, the president who was never supposed to be the forever war president, and he could just decisively carry out these limited, what's called limited war actions in different countries. And he could essentially topple the four major thorns in America's side, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Iran eventually. Like he could just topple them all in one presidential streak and that would cement the Trump legacy forever. Whether you like him or not, whether you like the name or not, whether you agree with him or not, >> he did something that decades of other presidents couldn't do in one term, potentially in two years, right? If he's trying to beat it, race it in before the midterm, >> right? So, that's plan A. Plan A is, hey, let's take advantage of this thing and let's let's do what we're going to do. Iran is like foaming at the mouth to to uh destroy the the Islamic Republic or the Islamic Revolution. He's excited to come in and do this. They've got outstanding intelligence. They've been they've been preparing for it their whole existence. They are truly Iran was only ever an existential threat against Israel. Even our own national intelligence. >> So sorry you said Iran wanted to uh overturn. Did you mean Israel or did you mean the people of Iran? >> Israel wanted take you destroy. Yes. Destroy Iran because Iran is an existential threat to Israel even though Isra has been presented to us as an existential threat to the United States. >> Incorrect terminology but they were in fact that kind of that level of a threat to to Israel. So, Israel's close closely supporting us. They have all the intel. They have the weapons, the firepower, everything they need and plans on the shelf for how they would eradicate the Iranian leadership. So, Donald Trump is like, "Yeah, let's let's pull this off. Let's do this." Best case scenario, we completely obliterate Iranian leadership. Iran rises up. They need someone to guide them. It will fall to our Sunni neighbors to help rebuild Iran. everything's in our best interest. What if that doesn't work? Well, if that doesn't work, Iran perseveres and becomes a greater threat in the near term in the region, which then means that our partners in the region need us more than ever because now it goes from being a theoretical threat to a clear and present danger. And even if they're pissed about the fact that they're getting bombed because of us, they will still turn to us to be their ally. This is actually documented in the Department of Wars 2026 strategy doctrine where it's called burden sharing where anything the United States does our allies should understand that they have to share part of the burden whatever that burden is whether it's cost or lives. Okay. So has that actually happened? Because the at least the propaganda that I'm falling for I guess is that uh it hasn't driven them into our arms. It has made them realize that we are not strong enough to protect them. That, as you said, Iran has made a fool of us. And so those guys, they're not looking at us going, "Okay, I'm mad at you that you got us into it, but you're the strong guy, so we're still going to align with you." Feels more like they're kind of pulling back and saying, "Yeah, I'm not sure you're going to be the future solution here." I I agree with you. And I think and you're seeing that especially with the UAE leaving. I think they left OPEC. >> Yep. Um Saudi Arabia is is engaging but not engaging to the extent the United States hoped that they would. Is Israel continues to press on or wants to press on. This whole conflict in Lebanon is kicked off. So what what we're seeing is something that the intelligence world calls overshoot. Overshoot is when you commit more resources than you actually have access to. And we're overshooting on a limited war campaign, which is kind of a double doctrinal violation for us because even I when I went through officer candidate school, you learned very early on you don't engage in limited war because we learned in Vietnam that limited war doesn't work. And yet when we learned again in Afghanistan that limited war doesn't work, but we continue to execute these limited wars and then we overshoot, meaning we commit more resources than we currently have access to to that effort. So now you run the risk of failing to meet your objectives and burning through what resources you need that you don't actually have access to. So Donald Trump is in this sticky position now and the United States because we are following the Trump doctrine. We're all in this sticky situation where we have we have shown that we can't be trusted not only by our allies in the Middle East, but our allies in the Far East and our allies in the Western Hemisphere. Nobody really knows what we're going to do next. And none of our promises are really worth much salt anymore because because the United States could do anything it wants. We unlocked, we opened Pandora's box on the idea of cutting the head off of leadership, assassinations and renditions which we have already deemed to be illegal from our own war on terror. A rendition is what we did of Nicholas Maduro. So we've done two we violated two different forms of international law that we ourselves set in motion. So what does that mean for the future? There's a the instability is greater than it's been in the past and even the Trump administration is having a hard time helping us understand why we're doing it. Instead, they seem to keep target hopping. And the current target now is Cuba. We'll be right back to the show, but now let's talk about what happens when nobody picks up the phone. Every dollar [music] you spend on ads, referrals, and word of mouth has one purpose, to get the customer to reach out. The moment a call rings and goes unanswered, that money's gone. That's why today's episode is brought to you by Quo, which is spelled Quo. They are the business [music] communication system that was built so you never miss a call. Quo is the number one rated business phone system on G2. It's trusted by over 90,000 businesses [music] who rely on it to stay reachable and look professional every day. All your calls, texts, and voicemails live in one place so [music] anyone on your team can pick up a conversation, see the full history, and respond fast. When money is on the line, always say hello with Quo. Try Quo for free, plus get 20% off your first 6 months at quo.com/impact. Again, that's quo.com/impact. Now, let's get back to the show. Coming back to Iran, you've got Trump has basically uh a array of options before him. You just struck us. He's saying we're going to do a proportionate strike back. By the time people hear this, he will have done that. Um is that the smart play? Should he have just gone, listen, wars wild. This is crazy. Like you said, I'm not even sure this was intentional. Uh should he go limited war doesn't work. We're going all the way in. We're blowing everything up. I've told you I was going to do it. You shot down the helicopter. This is the cover story I need. I'm going in. You guys are [ __ ] >> Uh or something else. I think the big question there is what's the outcome that we're looking for? If we believe that the outcome Donald Trump is looking for is to follow through on the objectives that they've stated for Iran, which is to end the role of the Ayatollah and to overthrow the the government of Iran. He has >> well he's banged on recently about nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear >> for sure but nuclear is is a nonsensical argument. It is if anybody still believes that there is a nuclear threat from Iran we have we have completely let go of of actual factual information. >> So that is just pure propaganda. >> That is pure propaganda. The the nuclear threat from Iran is pure propaganda. And you can literally read the public documentation going back multiple years from the DNI, from CIA, from the nuclear watchd dogss themselves talking about how Iran has enriched uranium to 60%. That is true. 60% is not weapons grade uranium. No, but it's on the path like you don't need anything over whatever 16% I forget what the real number is. It's and you said this last time, but my real question is that you you have Iran going down that path clearly trying to do something. And then you've also said Iran is a black box. America doesn't have good intel there. And so I start putting those together and I go, I don't know that. In fact, you started by saying there's a lot of this that we're not even allowed to know. So given that, do you look at the actions of the US? Do you look at the actions of Iran and go, "Yeah, clearly forget the documents because again, blackbox, maybe we just don't know." Do you get the feeling based on the actions that you can see now that the nuclear threat is fake? I get the feeling based on the actions that we see now that the nuclear threat is misunderstood. we eradicated their nuclear program in July of 2025 according to >> certainly we were told to believe so >> according to some people right uh and then we are told now that all they have is nuclear dust but they seem to have more than nuclear dust the the challenge here is also if Iran really wanted access to nuclear weapons their indigenous program is just one of several avenues that they would take especially if they're close allies with both Russia and China, right? And a a nuclear threat, a nuclear weapon threat requires both a bomb and a delivery vehicle. And the science required for both of those is incredibly complicated. It's why North Korea has the explosive bomb, but they fail to have the delivery vehicle even years after they've demonstrated that they can detonate a nuclear device. So, when we're told that there's a nuclear threat from Iran, what does that mean? Does it mean that they're close to having uranium? Does it mean that they're close to having detonatable uranium, aka a nuclear bomb? Or does it mean that they have a detonatable uranium attached to a targetable delivery system that can also reach the United States? Those are three very different storylines, but they're all being wrapped together in a way that is in congruent with the message that we've already been told. because as of July of 2025, it was completely eradicated. If you go to the White House's web page still today, it says even though the program was eradicated in July of 2025, we're still going in to make sure something I don't even know how they're spinning it right now. >> Make sure something something. >> But it's nonsensical. It's nonsensical. And it's to an intelligent American, it's kind of insulting to be told things that are so diametrically opposed. Two things that can't exist at the same time. a program can't be eradicated but also be an imminent threat. It doesn't make sense. If there's an imminent threat, it's not coming from Iran. It's coming through Iran. So, if it's the Chinese that are giving Iran missile technology that's nuclear capable, let's talk about that. Don't just tell us that Iran has a nuclear program that was supposedly obliterated and is apparently still alive. And this is what's the black box. The United States may have little to no intel on Iran, but that doesn't mean that Israel is blind to it. It also doesn't mean that some of Iran's quote unquote allies or even countries like Turkey or Japan don't have intel on it, right? And they could share that intel with the United States. It just means that our own native um original intel is lacking. if we're trying to identify what the outcome is that we want so we can determine what's a smart play, what's a dumb play, you're taking the nuclear thing off the table. So if it's not that, are you do you have any guesses based on the behaviors that you can see or the things that you know from your training that tell you this is the one or two or three most likely outcomes that they're attempting to achieve? Right now, I think the the most likely outcome that that the presidency that the Trump administration is trying to achieve is they're trying to find a way to end active hostilities with Iran because we have overshot. We have broken our own doctrine. We don't have an endgame. We don't have an exit plan. And we failed to meet the majority of our stated objectives. So, how do we end this in a way where essentially the press moves on to something else, the American people move on to something else, the public focuses on something else, and especially they focus on something that's a good news story because the longer we focus on Iran, it's just a confusing bad news story. So, that's what they're looking for. And they know they can't do that as long as there's constant hostilities happening. But at the same time, Donald Trump has this this make America great again uh mantra that he has to feed. And he has this very radicalized base that believe in Donald Trump even more than they believe in the United States, even more than they believe in like democracy and the purpose of the United States. They believe in Donald Trump. So he has to meet their needs, too. And how do you make America great again if you look the other way when there's a battlefield accident? If he were to take that approach, if he were to be able to say that consistently, I think people would follow him. If he were to say right out of the gates, hey, there was a there was a shooting or an aircraft got shot down. We don't know the details yet. We're digging into it, but our American troops are safe. Later on, he might be able to come back and say, you know, it was an accidental shooting. We don't believe that this was intended to be an attack on American troops, you know, and we're telling Iran sternly that we're keeping an eye out for our people. You can do that, but that's not how it starts. Instead, it starts with some radical tweet or some kind of crazy accusation and you can't walk that back. Okay. So, in that scenario, if he So, you've said two sort of motivational things for Trump. So, one is he wants leverage, not necessarily peace, but he wants leverage and he wants an end to the hostilities. So, if those are the sort of merged outcome that we want, an end to hostilities that puts us in a highly leveraged position, um what's the play here? What should he do? There's two ways to gain that leverage, right? One way of gaining that leverage is to create a peace outcome, a ceasefire outcome, an ongoing protective outcome where Iran is dependent on the United States to kind of protect them as they rebuild, protect them from Israel. Right? So that's what you're seeing as he tries to tell Netanyahu to back off even as Turkey and Pakistan and other countries tell Netanyahu, "Hey, don't attack Lebanon. Don't attack. don't attack Iran. Israel doesn't listen to them. But once Donald Trump and the United States step in now Netanyahu temporarily is kind of gagged, right? So that's demonstrating to Iran, hey, you want to negotiate with the United States because we can keep the dog on your doorstep out of your yard. That's one way of gaining leverage through peace. But Donald Trump has demonstrated multiple times that he likes to offer the white flag, but then in reality allow some sort of unannounced or unexpected attack to happen, something some stick that accompanies the carrot, right? Some secondary attack like what we saw with uh with the Maduro takedown. So what that means is that countries never know if they can actually trust the outstretched hand. So Iran has to play the game themselves where they somehow both accept the peace deal, accept the ceasefire, but also have to prepare for when that promise is violated because it's almost certainly guaranteed that it will be violated. We've been watching this with Donald Trump ever since Elon Musk ran the uh ran just I already lost it. The efficiency office Doge, right? Elon Musk and Donald Trump were close partners in the whole gaining efficiency of government employees and Doge cut all sorts of jobs and all sorts of expense out of the government and then if we recall right the two ended up fighting on Twitter publicly debating and arguing about everything and and Elon Musk didn't get the contracts he was probably expecting to get. But you could see Donald Trump doesn't really have loyalties. He has outcomes that he's aiming for that other people seem to not understand. [snorts] Okay. So, is this an eternal quagmire that we are stuck in for the foreseeable future? >> Absolutely. And that's I've been saying that since the beginning of the Iran conflict, there is no graceful exit for the United States from the Iran conflict. we can turn our back on it and we can let it do its own thing, which abandons our allies in the Middle East and gives Iran the credibility of being able to say, "Hey, look, Iranian people, everything we've ever told you about the Western devil is true." And despite their superior technology and outstanding information and their alliance with the great devil, Israel, we are still here. That radicalizes a whole another generation. A whole another generation. And then when you look at that paired with what Israel has done in Gaza, radicalize another generation of Hezbollah. You're talking about all we've done is is gift wrapped a whole another two lifetimes for our children and our children's children fighting this radical Islamic threat because Hezbollah is going to come back and the Iranian the radical Shia Islam is going to come back again and all we've done is cement make real their accusations for the last decades that we really are just out to undermine them, kill them, destroy them, hold them Okay. And also I think they have Israel has managed to radicalize an entire generation of people in the west as well which you see that animosity growing by the day >> uh mixed with a very healthy dose of what I'll consider conspiracy theory. But not everybody will agree that they're overstepping. But that seems uh pretty clear to me. But um when you put all of that together, is this just the obvious and predictable misstep of a declining empire? Like how do we make sense of this moment? And for anybody that's trying to step into the future, um even if just from a purely economic standpoint, how do you begin to predict what the future's going to look like? We live in a difficult time for prediction in large part because we are developing in multiple fronts at a pace and a volume faster than we've ever developed before. >> Develop what? >> Devel. So when we talk about uh one of the things that CIA tries to focus its officers to to understand is is speed and volume. Speed is the is the pace at which something moves forward. Volume is the mass at which something moves forward. In our history, if you go back to World War II, if you go back to the industrial revolution, if you even go back to the 1990s, right, under under President Clinton, pace and volume were slower and smaller. We didn't have tech breakthroughs as large as the tech breakthroughs are we have now, and we didn't develop those breakthroughs at the pace that we develop those breakthroughs now. >> So, the world has always been simpler than it is currently. On top of that lack of simplicity that we used to have that we now have complexity. On top of that, we also have this thing called systemic interdependence. Our systems are no longer able to survive on their own. They're interdependent with other systems. So AI is inherently bound to energy and they are both inherently bound to labor because you need human beings to still code part of AI development and you still need human beings to develop the foundation for the energy sector that's needed for the AI sector. So now in the past if any one of those three sectors failed the other two sectors would be insulated. But we live in a world now where if one of those three sectors fails the other two fail along with it which is why you see so many issues with the hiring freezes in big tech and the development of the advancement of our AI and the advancement of our energy sectors. So because we have this complex system that is systemically interdependent right now, it's very difficult for any of us to know what will happen in the future because we don't know what failure looks like anymore. We don't know what are the telltale signs of collapse right now. So when you look at it through that lens, we look very similar to the Soviet Union in 91 and the Ottoman Empire and the and the fall of Rome because they were all on the precipice of multiple advances in multiple fields before suddenly it all came crashing down. But that doesn't mean that that's what's going to happen to us. If there's anything I would say, I would say that we're living in a world now that that demonstrates that the primary messaging that we're receiving is inaccurate and it's in intentionally inaccurate, which is something that we've never been able to see so clearly in the past in large part because of the pace and volume of development, of technology, of education, of access to information. We're able to see now that we're being lied to within hours, whereas in the past it might have taken weeks. >> Okay. So, um that's terrifying to anybody that's old enough to understand the weight of you saying that we're like the Soviet Empire in ' 91. >> Uh that's pretty wild. That is the precipice of complete and total collapse. Um, I do think from an economic standpoint, we're on a 10-year clock, probably closer to nine years now, in terms of our debt ratcheting up and it just becomes literally fiscally impossible because you will have to inflate the money supply so aggressively to get your 39 trillion down to something manageable. That that alone will be insane. So all of that forces me to ask a question that is is am I looking at the real show when I look at Donald Trump Netanyahu versus the IRGC or is that sort of the puppet layer of the show and there's really a higher level of call it international money and um the globalists who were like all right cool America's had its moment and now we're going to begin essentially migrating our financial assets to whatever the next play is going to be. Whether that's China, whether that's just no longer in any one place. It's going to be, you know, something that's spread out across the globe. I'm going to answer this with a little bit of a like a story, right? Because I I've always thought that I was intelligent. I've never thought that I was the smartest guy in the room. I don't think I'm the most intelligent person, but I've never thought of myself as dumb. And there are these humbling moments, especially in the last three or five years, where I realize how completely ignorant I was about something that's been around for a long time. And most of those lessons surround themselves are are based on the idea of wealth. And I didn't I didn't come from a wealthy family. I'm not a wealthy individual now, but I I am the first millionaire in my family. >> Let's go. >> Which is very exciting. And also shocking if you're a millionaire and don't consider yourself wealthy. That's [laughter] wild. Uh >> okay. >> But uh but the people that the people that I have to surround myself with now financially know so much more than I ever even realized existed, right? how millionaires protect their wealth, how they grow their wealth, how they uh invest in ways that don't hide from taxes, but are incentivized by having reduced taxes. And I didn't know any of this even existed, right? So I say that because what I'm realizing now is that the global monetary market, wealthy people, the wealthier they get, they seem to decouple themselves from things like national identity and uh and ethnic identity and religious zealatry because they realize that if they're going to truly protect the asset that they've built, they have to constantly diversify. and that their diversification is tied to empirical evidence, not ideological promises. So, I say that because I was recently having a conversation with my own investment banker. And my investment banker was saying, "Hey, this is what we're going to do. This is what I recommend we do with your portfolio. We put 30% of it into China." And I was like, "Dude, you realize I was almost a prisoner in China." And he was like, "Yeah, I read your book, but like all the numbers show that the Asian market is is strong, stronger, growing faster than the United States market." And that's what I would recommend we do. We diversify you in that direction. Not too much and not in anything that we can't pull out very quickly. And there's all sorts of other tricks in the financial market about harvesting losses and all this other stuff. And >> and I was just but I was stunned because I couldn't say no to that. I have every ideological reason to say [ __ ] the Chinese. I have every personal patriotic reason to say I'm not going to do anything that's going to boost the Chinese economy. But when it comes to the bottom line of ensuring a legacy for my children, my children's children, and the opportunity that maybe part of that legacy is built on the back of temporary Chinese growth. Like I say all of that because I think we have to we have to separate. I'm learning that we have to separate the puppet show of politics from the financial reality that is d that is based in objective and empirical evidence because the one only sometimes is aligned with the other. And the challenge that politicians have is that they have to find a way to get people to take certain financial actions based off of promises that may or may never be delivered. Meanwhile, the wealthiest people out there at most will only partially invest in the promises to diversify against something else. And that's what I would say in response to what are we actually seeing? What we're seeing is Donald Trump has to radicalize a base of people that are not always super wealthy while recognizing that the superw wealthy supporters he has really only need one thing to happen for them to continue supporting him. They need the stock market to go up and their investments to grow. And in all of this chaos, guess what's happened? Since April, the stock market has grown. With a failed embarrassment in Iran, the stock market has grown. The energy index is healthy and going up. Gold has gone down as a as a reserve currency, but gold as a asset that's being held in international banks has gone up. So wealthy people aren't losing, especially not wealthy people who are properly diversified. So there's two very different. It's like a magic. It's like a magic trick, right? There's a hat. There's a rabbit coming out of the hat, but there isn't actually a rabbit coming out of the hat. There's something happening on the table and behind the curtain that we don't get to see. >> We'll return to the show in a second, but right now I want to talk about the slowest part of running a business. It's not the work itself. It's getting the answers you need to do the work. You message three people, wait on two reports, check four dashboards, and by the time you actually have the clarity you need, you're already behind. Netswuite changes that entirely. You probably already know Netswuite. They're the AI powered business management suite that's trusted by over 43,000 customers. It connects your financials, inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM all into one single source of truth. Netswuite next is the next massive leap for them. [music] AI is now built into everything that you do. Whether your company earns millions or hundreds of millions, this is where your business meets AI. For the first time ever, you can now try [music] Netswuite Next for free. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, go to netswuite.ai theory. It's built for every industry, ready for every boardroom. netswuite.ai/theory. And now, let's get back to the show. >> The bad news is I think a lot of the stuff that people think is behind the curtain is not as behind the curtain as they think. >> Um, do you know who Simon Dixon is? >> I've heard the name, but I don't know why. >> Enjoy that rabbit hole. So, um, he's got a really fascinating hypothesis. Um, I'm not yet sure how much of it's true, but I think it's somebody who can feel, uh, an object inside of a black bag. And so, he's got a pretty good sense of how hard it is, how big it is. Um, and so he talks about this idea of the mick, fick, and tick. Yes, the mick, fick, and tick. So, military-industrial complex, financial industrial complex, and technological industrial complex. and he talks about this being like this sort of supra thing that sits over everything else and they're these are very much my words and so he may not recognize my full um explanation of his own thing so people should definitely go check him out. I did an interview with him which you can see here I'll I'll point up. [laughter] Uh so the idea being that they basically people do not understand how financialized the world is. people really don't understand how financialized London and New York are once you begin to really understand that uh to your point this is global money that's just going to the money is going to go wherever it's going to be treated best >> and they essentially move like a locust from one empire to the next draining you know everything they can of its resources and as a country this really is heavy Simon Dixon here as a country gets to the end of its empire stage, you get into like this hyper kleptocratic just strip everything that you can because you know you're about to move on to the next one. Now, I'm not entirely sure that it that it would be possible to coordinate at that level. There are just too many variables that can go wrong like what's happening in Iran, like even thinking that you can control Trump even if you're one of his mega donors. There's just too many variables, too many things that could go wrong. But you certainly get closer to what's actually happening when you understand how easily a hyper financialized market is to manipulate that you can manipulate the price up or down with a single tweet. Uh that you know I mean if the numbers can be believed Trump has made billions of dollars since he's been in office because he knows >> a little faster than everybody else when something is about to happen. He's just trading like a fiend. And so that kind of stuff really I think begins to reveal the game. And the game is you will not win in this environment if you do not own assets. Now I hear people call it latestage capitalism all the time. That [ __ ] drives me crazy because it it isn't. Capitalism is not your problem. Capitalism is the thing that will save you. We do not have a capitalist system. Capitalism is bad. It does bad things. It's just way better than everything else. Far less murderous. Uh so this is not me saying that capitalism is flawless. It is just by far the best system we've seen for pulling people out of poverty. All right, setting that aside for a second. The system that you actually have is not that. The system that you actually have is a layer of people who are incredibly savvy with all the financial instruments and they understand how to, like you're saying, you go into the different places where there's something happening. A really easy example for people is the yen carry trade. Now, as I have learned more and more about Japan's actual history post World War II, it is utterly fascinating. It is one of manipulating a culture to tremendous economic effect only to have that because it was the US manipulating their culture. They then start taking off economically because we did a little too good of a job of teaching them how to be extraordinary at it. Uh we end up doing the same thing with China, which we'll get to in a second. But so you teach Japan all these incredible tricks to help them grow back out of World War II because you need them as a bull work against what was at the time Mao controlled China. So they're as red as you can get, as communist as you can get, as aligned with Russia, which was our big threat as you can get. So it's like, cool, we need these guys to be capitalists. We need them to be democratic. More or less took to the democratic part, but definitely took to the capitalist part. They go shooting off like a rocket. In the 80s, we realize, uh oh, like at one point they had something like half the world's wealth. It's it's a figure so staggering that every time I encounter it, I'm like, I must be misremembering this. It's just absolutely insane. And so we go, well, we can't have that anymore. We start doing protectionist stuff and we sort of backwater them. But they end up the Bank of Japan through the very unique culture that they have, they end up being this place that literally after the bubble bursts in '89, they can't can't get inflation to start. So like no matter how much cheap money they try to flood the market with, people just won't spend it. >> They're so traumatized by the bubble bursting that they just save save save. And they have this like we're all in it together mentality. And so they just start making money as cheap as you can. So the rest of the world goes, "Oh, I get what we do here." They go to Japan, start borrowing money like crazy because they can get it effectively at zero interest. Buy into the US stock market. The US stock market is everything for the reasons that you just laid out. All the big donors and all of them need the stock market to keep going. It also fuels our economy. So even the average worker who's not invested in the stock market needs the stock market to keep going. And so taking money from the Bank of Japan at effectively zero interest rates, pouring it into the US stock market largely into the tax sector, it just goes absolutely parabolic and you realize, oh cool, if you don't understand something like the yen carry trade, like if right now you are thinking about clicking off of this video because you're everything I'm saying is like some big mystery to you, then that's why you're going to get gobbled up by the current system. It is latestage something, latestage financialization, latestage mathematical abstraction, latestage gambling, like all of those would make sense to me. Latestage capitalism does not make sense. It it is the layer of people betting on those things of using financial instruments. Like most people don't even understand uh how a central bank works or why it is the single most evil thing on planet earth. All of that to them is just completely confusing. And that is now we've sort of long ago I think Simon Dixon would agree with most of the things I just said, but we're now deeply in my worldview of that is the game. That's the game of manipulation. So when I'm watching Trump and Iran, I'm like, "Okay, how does this make sense at the level of the people who understand the financial world, what are they thinking?" Now, the really bad news is I think they think he's a buffoon. >> And I think they go, >> "Nice try. Shame about the execution." And I think this was all about getting the dollars that the GCC had done the most phenomenal job of transitioning off of oil into investments largely into technology. >> And now all of a sudden Trump in maybe trying to secure that money has just completely [ __ ] it up. >> Uh I am so aware that the words I'm about to say are never going to come out the way that I think they will. So, I know that. So, people don't need to waste time clipping this in six months and saying, "See, I told you so." I will simply update my thinking. But as of right now, today, the way that this looks like it's going to play out is you've got Iran going, "Okay, cool. Uh, these dumb asses have had to learn yet again, if you're not willing to do total war, then the little guy can [ __ ] you up forever. >> We're now going to charge a toll on the straight of Hormuz. We'll push all the way to Oman. They might end up having beef with Oman who wants to like control their half, but maybe they work something out, but they're going to clamp down on that waterway. The Houthis have already said they're going to clamp down on the Red Sea. And so now you've got two waterways that are being clamped down on. I don't think people go quietly into that good night. I think the global uh community goes hold the [ __ ] phone. The one thing you can't do is something that messes with energy. to your earlier point about we're all tied to energy. And so it it creates this level of destabilization that is this insane knock-on from what is almost certainly latestage financialization debt problems on behalf of the US that created populism that created a demon summoning circle which we we will pull forth a right-leaning demon in the form of Trump but we'll also pull forth a leftleing leaning demon in the form of Bernie or mom Donnie. And so it's like pick your flavor of demon. But they're both results of what I'm for at least this interview calling latestage financialization. And so you've got that madness which is sort of being controlled by the public strings, but >> only in as much as you have hyper sophisticated people like Larry Frink at Black Rockck or the guys that run Jane Street who know how to [ __ ] manipulate these markets and make unimaginable amounts of money off of this stuff. And I think that Trump just somehow became the fly in the ointment. I mean, we'll see. I'm sure they also have their plans where it's like, "All right, if we get Trump into office and he does something dumb, what how do we make uh lemonade out of those lemons?" But oo buddy, like none of this feels like anybody could possibly be going, "Yeah, this is exactly what I hoped would happen." >> I agree with that. I agree. and and I that was such a strong and extended case, but one that was relevant and powerful for where we stand today. Because essentially what we're saying is there there is a reality that has been there that is coming to four that people are starting to realize and it's not an encouraging reality. Whether it's the reality that the American president that was reelected by the by the American people is a buffoon. whether that's the reality that's coming to for a reality that many people thought to be true other people thought couldn't possibly be true and I believe that what we will see in November is a huge what I call a blue slap where people will vote blue not because they believe in blue but just because they want to put a cap on what the president can do by controlling both the Senate and the House >> because they've come to the conclusion that the president isn't working in the best interest of the United maybe doesn't know how to run a country and maybe is in fact out for his own legacy more so than the American dream, the American promise, the American ideals, if there are still Americans who even believe in those ideas. There are so many Americans right now that are just trying to survive. And when you're when you're up against not being able to feed your kids versus pariting the American promise, the American dream, you're going to default to feeding your own kids, even if it means stealing bread from your neighbor, right? So, we're in a very real place right now. It's fascinating to me that earlier in the conversation, you said that you're anticipating I'm I'm gonna I'm not going to use the correct words, but 10 years before we kind of unfuck this mess. >> No, no, no. before we implode. >> Before we implode, >> the debt will blow up. >> So, you've given us this 10-year timeline, and what I find fascinating is completely separate from this conversation, I've been talking about the United States going through 10 very difficult years. And I've been talking about it for maybe two years now, because of our ideological kind of fits right now, our ideological convulsions right now. we >> between the left and the right, >> between ourselves, between what we all believe to be true about America, separate of politics, but what we believe to be true about justice and checks and balances and democracy and freedom of you name it, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, uh the right to bear arms, uh trial in front of a panel of your peers. Everything we've ever believed about America has essentially been challenged and proven that there's a way around it in just the last two to four years. And the rise of the populist politician isn't something that we have to attribute to Donald Trump. It goes all the way back to Barack Obama. So, we have these just like you were saying, we've spawned a demon of the left and we've spawned a demon of the right. And the question is, how do we get back to a a world where we aren't spawning demons? We don't have to spawn angels, but how do we get to a place where we're not pulling forth the most aggressive damnation, you know, uh conflict oriented, manipulative forces? How do we find a way back to checks and balances? How do we find a way back to inviting cordial conversation with different points of view? not just in front of a camera like this, but in front of or like actually at the congressional floor. How do we get back to that? How do we stop encouraging extreme activity? because we have spent we spent 20 years fighting extremists only to now essentially be radicalizing ourselves and and that's not in our best interest if we plan on maintaining our position as the world's wealthiest country and kind of the global leader. If we plan on giving up that role, we can do whatever the [ __ ] we want. But if you want to keep that role, we have to make some very rapid corrections. Because to my earlier point about money goes where money goes, wealthy people follow their money. And where they diversify their wealth, they also start to diversify their own security and their own safety. And one of the things that makes America so powerful is not just our wealthy indigenous Americans. It's all the wealth around the world that chooses to come here and invest in this economy and invest in this place, this property, this system. And if if I'm a wealthy Malaysian, I'm looking at some other options right now besides just the United States to put my wealthy money. Okay, you've asked the right question. Now, no vagaries. How do we get back into that place? I don't know that America really wants to be back in that place. I am a little I'm frankly concerned that the vast majority of Americans have become so complacent and ignorant that they won't take the responsibility for the actions that they have to take. They won't seek peace with their neighbors. They won't let go of their political leanings. They won't take the time to research who's on the v on the ballot before they vote. They won't change what they watch, whether it's Fox News or CNN. They are so ingrained in their behaviors that they're not going to change, which leaves all the change that we need to the younger generations. And younger generations historically lean very progressive. They lean to the left. They have big dreams and big ideologies and they haven't had enough life experience to understand real risk. So what that what that means is that we will not have the grassroots change that we need and what grassroots change does happen will be very progressive very left-leaning because it will be led by people who don't have a financial stake in the future of their own country and then that's just going to spawn another counter effort to to counter the left and then we're right back in the same cycle where we are now. I would love to have an optimistic idea of the future of the United States. I just don't have it. I think the United States is going to go through a full generation of confusion and disarray and it will a solution will either present itself that I can't imagine right now or no solution will present itself and we will we will decline as our competitors continue to grow. That's very clear. Now, step into the theoretical for me for a second and assume that people will do the things, but they just need you to tell them what things to do. >> Okay? >> How would we with a willing populace, how would we get ourselves out of this mess? So, there's a midterm election coming up that we would need to see record level voting on, especially because there's been so much political gerrymandering. >> But what would you point them at? What should they vote for? >> They should vote for the the candidate that represents what they want for the future of the United States. But you already laid out the world's most compelling argument for what I'll say is populism. >> People are thinking emotionally. They're on a team. So if we send them in to vote and just say vote your conscience as of right now today even if they're willing >> if they're pointed at just vote for what you think is right they'll just be split right >> so that's and that's why I'm not saying vote your conscience okay I'm saying vote for the vision of the future that you want to see and I say that because what >> how's that different >> because the only certain politicians >> talk about a vision for the future most of them talk about what they're dissatisfied with right Now, even if you look at hate ads or or attack ads, right? Attack ads are very focused on right now, look what's happened. This person isn't doing what you prom isn't doing what they promised and and doesn't believe in, you know, freedom or democracy or whatever else. They're anti-immigration. They're pro whatever else. Like the the list goes on and on about the the here and the now. It's very rare that you come across somebody who is vision casting. Here's where I want us to go. I want us to find a way to work across the aisle. I want us to find a way to re reinstate checks and balances. I want to find a way to make the Fed independent again. You don't hear people talk about that. If you find someone who is talking about that, it's almost guaranteed that they're not backed by big money because the big money essentially forces them to back a certain horse or tow a certain party line. They're trying to pander to the the religious voter. They're trying to pander to the social security voter. trying to pander to the healthcare voter. They're trying to pander to the LGBTQ voter. And it's it's very focused on emotion, not focused on issue and vision. So, if you just focus on vision casting, 80% of the politicians that are out there are not going to be viable because they're not casting a vision. They're just backing a horse. But you have to actually research before you do that. You have to >> can can I name a candidate that I think I hear you describing and you tell me if I'm on >> if I know them please. >> Are we talking about JFK? >> Somebody who's like we're going to go to the moon not because it is easy but because it is hard and that's not what your country can do for you but what you could do. Are you talking about that kind of thing? >> So I don't disagree with that. I think what we're seeing with those kinds of vision casting are he was already the president and he was getting public support for where he wanted us to go in terms of our public spending. Um I don't I I don't have a good politician that comes to mind that casts a vision right now and I haven't seen one for a very long time at any level of government. But since we're going into a theoretical conversation, that's where I would say we would have to start. And if we're going if you're talking about people truly doing their civic duty, then when they don't find a candidate that speaks to the vision that needs to be cast, then they write to the candidate and they ask the candidate what their vision is. It used to be a very common thing for people to write their congressmen, write their senators, write their their people who were running. They would go to town halls. They would ask questions of the incumbent that were meaningful and important to them. That time has changed. Now, town halls are more of a political rally than anything else, but we have a chance to go back to that if we're willing to. Democracy was always meant to happen slowly. The fact that we've been able to take such rapid action like capturing Maduro in January and then uh killing narotists in in Mexico in February and then of attacking Iran in March. The reason we can move so fast is because we've shortcut a lot of those democratic processes and we have to find our way back to moving slow if we're going to trust democracy. If you don't want to trust democracy, that's fine. Don't trust it. But don't try to say that you trust it or that you believe in it if you're willing to let it be bypassed. Okay. So, um, we've got vision casting. So, somebody that has a clear vision for the future and can tell us how that we're going to get there. Is there any other sort of major tentpole of how we get out of this? >> What a good question. I'm sure that there have got to be >> there is >> a small handful. I just don't know what they are. >> Weep. >> I don't know that many people will say the only answer that I think is actually true. And that's you have to fix the economy. >> And [clears throat] so I just wrote a deep dive on this. Populism is by my definition and I I don't think anybody will give me a better one but populism is when people begin reasoning via emotion which is what humans do anyway [clears throat] >> um but it ratchets up so the economy breaks people become fearful in the extreme they're worried about where their next meal comes from uh and that forces them to seek safety safety and numbers so they join a team then they summon forth the strong man who tells them everything is going to be Okay? Gives them an enemy to focus on. And that sense of safety makes people do murderous things. >> And the utterly fascinating thing about the most famous rise of that kind is of course Hitler. >> And Hitler when he came to power he ironically I used to think that he came to power because of the Treaty of Versailles and the loss of World War I. He actually didn't. So he started gaining in popularity during the whatever 1923 hyperinflation. And so he got up to like six% or six and a half% of the vote, but he was still like a super fringe character. It wasn't until the Great Depression. So he actually goes up to like 6% 6 and a half% popularity, then falls back down in 1928 to 2 and a.5%. So it's like, oh, he's kind of this washed up guy, right? And then the Great Depression hits and he goes from two and a half% popularity to like 37% in five years because [snorts] like what 50% of youth was unemployed, one in three Germans were unemployed full stop. I mean it was just like complete pandemonium. And so then when you've got a guy who's like not only do I know how to fix this, I know who the problem is. >> And so that's populism. So, we're in a populist moment and everybody's being very clear. If you're on the left, the right is the problem. If you're on the right, the left is the problem. Right now, 40% of Americans believe that uh the other side is morally bad. More than 50% of Americans think that their other fellow Americans are a threat to democracy or to the nation itself. I mean, it's like the stats are insane. And so we're in this populous moment, but everybody wants to treat the symptoms and not the cause. And the cause is the economic uncertainty. And even if you go back and look at Mao, same thing. Mao, economic uncertainty. Japan goes in and just completely [ __ ] up China. Uh Mao rises to power by winning the civil war. Everybody's economically uncertain. He's like, "Don't worry, I got you." Proceeds to kill 45 million of them. Uh but they keep following him partly just because of the sheer tyranny. Um but he comes to power as a strong man. Um same thing with Lenin. Same thing with um what's his face that followed Lenin? I cannot believe I'm blanking on his name. One of the most evil people to ever walk the earth. Uh so Stalin. >> Stalin. Thank you. So it's the first of all they come in left and right flavors. And so everybody is going to bang the drum about Trump and that's understandable because he's in power now. But if what we do is reject Trump and go to a Bernie figure, Manny AOC, >> it's one my particular bent is that that is economically even worse. You've got sort of kleptocrats over here, but at least they create an opportunity for you to get rich while they steal from you. You won't take advantage of the opportunity, but it's there. The other side just steals from you. You don't have an opportunity to get ahead. You get breadlines. Um, so look, they're both bad. I just think one is slightly worse than the other. But you definitely, if you cannot solve the economic problem, you will simply in a ever escalating drama swing from left to right and back again. >> But I would argue that the average person can't fix the economic issues. >> No, the average person can't fix the economic issues at all. So then yeah, how do the how does that how does the average person then participate in >> you electing Margaret Thatcher? >> So the >> so we're both going back to the root of of participating intelligently in the electoral process. >> Correct. The the only thing you can do is get the obvious thing that people should be banging pots and pans about is Thomas Massie, the only guy wearing a debt clock pin uh just got outed by Apac, >> which kids, your reputation is so bad. you are getting savaged. Yeah. >> Uh it's not like a small handful of people have turned against you. An entire generation or more has turned against you and you go and do that [ __ ] insanity. But anyway, they did it. Uh and so we have to get candidates who are economically literate and then elect them and then we have to deal with the fact that we're going to go through what Britain went through when Margaret Thatcher came into office. Uh but she ended up pulling them through getting to the other side and getting things back on track. Going from we're the wealthiest nation in the world to begging the IMF for a bailout only to actually rebuild and reestablish their wealth is I mean it's an incredible journey. Now they're not obviously what they used to be but they got on the other side at least briefly uh with Margaret Thatcher. So we would have to go through something like that so that we can start making the economy work for the average person again. But the thing that drives me mad mad is that the very thing that people vote for, which is more free stuff or bigger military or whatever it is that they're voting for that causes deficit spending, >> it will be stolen from you in the form of inflation >> and the fact that people just it it's just a bridge too far. You're never going to get people to understand that. I worry. I really hope I can, but um I certainly worry that that's just people are too busy trying to stay afloat. >> I hesitate to bring this up >> in large part because there's cameras on us, right? But also because it's just fraught with people misinterpreting it, right? But I have very seriously considered whether or not it's better to just give up on all the people who have already kind of given up on self-improvement, give up on people who have given up on learning, give up on people who it's a bridge too far to understand the impact of inflation. >> How do you give up? What does it look like? you just stop trying to educate them and instead you focus on the much smaller population which according to the 8020 rule is 20% of the population that actually has the capacity the interest the the ability to change their ways. Because if you give up on the 80% and you focus on the 20%, you're essentially accepting that the process of democracy, the majority rules idea, is no longer relevant. And instead, you kind of lean into the reality of the fact that a small group of people carry an outsized impact to the economy and to the world. And I say that because like even if you just look at one of the this is a me problem, not a not a you problem. Maybe it is a U problem that we've never talked about before, but I would love to educate spy skills that break barriers. The 22year-old who didn't go to college who's, you know, trying to figure out how to make life work in the same hometown where he went to high school. Just as much as I would like to educate the 35year-old who's already moved twice and who has an advanced degree and who's rising in his company, I would love to help them both. But the problem is they have very different lifestyles. They have very different challenges. They have very different priorities. Right? The 22-year-old probably doesn't have kids, isn't married, you know, still living in his hometown, doesn't have a perspective even outside of his state, where the 35-year-old who's moved multiple times, might be married, might have their first child already, and certainly knows what it's like to kind of suck eggs a little bit to succeed in a career. This person I can exponentially help in a just a short period of time, where this person takes convincing before I can ever actually help them. So when I choose how to spend my three hours of recording content today, isn't it more efficient for me to focus on this person who I can change more in a shorter period of time rather than spend part of my creat my my education and training time on this other person? And I say that in a in a true place of of difficulty because I've always been a public servant. when I was in the military, when I was at CIA, our our job is to protect even the least of us. But now that I've learned a little bit about how the economy actually works and I've been able to break through a financial barrier of my own that nobody in my family could ever break through, I have certainly seen the financial benefit of not focusing on a losing horse, but betting on a winning horse. And if we all did that though, we'd be taken for a ride, right? like we would essentially be reinforcing the system that already exists. It it may just be as simple as the civil servant thing, but I thought there was going to be something lurking in there that was bad. So, anything that all the things that you just said do not seem strange to me at all. Now, it may be because uh people think my lens on the world is so bizarre that I can't see anything, but yeah, that just makes sense. Um now like you I went on a journey. I used to get made fun of uh for trying to help everybody and uh people were like you do realize that some people are never going to change. There's nothing you could do. And I really thought I could get good enough that I could string together a magic sequence of words >> that would somehow reach inside people's soul and get them to change course. And part of the reason I stopped doing mindset content was because I realized 2% of people do something with it. M >> 98% don't. And the 2% will self- select. And so I guess in that sense I think I'm only ever speaking to the people that are going to make change. However, and maybe this helps you in some way. I think that ultimately all of us have an obligation to build a world that's awesome for the people that are either too busy. Um, they are the backbone of our current society, just [ __ ] hands dirty, putting things together, making it work. Um, I think people at least trying to capture some of the even if it's the mythological energy and it wasn't real, but the the story we were told about the founding fathers trying to build something that would last well beyond them that would be good for the masses that had this um foundation that over time I mean for a long time was really just curing the ills of society finally end slavery and all that. I mean just like a really incredible foundation that we built on for the last 250 years. And so there is a sense of like no I have an obligation to do something that um might not be optimized for me but is going to be good for the masses. And this is why I say my northstar is a thriving middle class as an orienting mechanism to just be like it's the the bulk of the bell curve. And so, um, I think you don't get there by spending all of your time on the person that is just not going to change. But I think that it, with my worldview, you have a moral obligation to think of them, not exclusively, but to put them in in the like pole position of like who are we trying to optimize for? Um, now having said all of that, as I really think through the problem of what we have done, this is a uniquely sort of American thing because of the debt, but we have to get to the point where the people that vote are voting for something that is in the middle class's best interest. And right now, at least on the left, the trend is towards voting for more free [ __ ] which just means stealing from you in another way. And obviously the right is doing kleptocratic [ __ ] right now. So that isn't helping for sure. Um, so if we're going to put something in place that will actually get people to vote for their best interest, you somehow have to align their interests either by reducing make everything means tested so nothing is handed out to people. Um, unless it's like for real, for real, like this person cannot work. They are not able-bodied. Um, up the age of retirement, I know people are going to hate that, but it's like well if we have an aging population, we don't have enough people to take care of them. You can't just deficit spend because you're stealing from everybody, especially the young. Uh, and so when you start looking at those solutions, that's where it gets hard. That's where it's like, I'm aware that there are cameras on me and what solutions am I really prepared to put forward? Um, but we have to find a way to get people to vote in a way that is mechanistically not intentional. Like, I don't care about your intentions. I'm sure a lot of people that vote for communism have good intentions. Mechanistically, it's evil. And so, it's one of those it's documentably evil. Like, you need to show people this is how it works out every time. And you can show them the mechanism as to why it's going to work out like that every time you try it. No matter what, it's a mechanism. >> Uh, so how we get there, the only thing I can think is you have to align the voters selfish interests with what is actually good for the economy. And that is not going to be easy. >> So, we've got 10 years before we implode. >> Unfortunately, nine at this point, I think roughly. >> Is there a way to avoid it? >> Yes. Uh, dude, you could avoid it. Uh, what is it? Rand Paul has the dumbest, easiest, most straightforward. He calls it like the six cent rule or something. It's like you reduce the budget by 6% every year for five years. And that's literally all it takes. And you do it across everything. So so that nobody can say anybody's pay playing political favorites, you literally just the entire budget equally is reduced by 6%. So I it sounds like there's a mechanism that could work. >> Don't deficit spend. >> But the the only group of people that can execute that are not everyday people. They're at the top of the food chain. >> Yes. And then there's a there's a time constraint because to get the person that's going to make that decision into office is going to take time. >> Is >> I can taste the black on the capsule of this pill that you're going to ask me to embibe. [laughter] Thank you. Do we have the time to find our Margaret Thatcher? Do we have the time to get that person in there so that they can implement the mechanism so that we can turn it around? >> It's just will we is the exact question. Now the great news is when I say that we have nine years that assumes nothing changes. The good or bad news is Scott Besson understands this so well he is going to weaken the dollar. Uh, I have to imagine they got Kevin W in there because behind the scenes, and I don't know, so I'm not trying to defame him, but I imagine behind the scenes there's no universe in which they put him in because Besson is so sharp. There's no way they put him in position if he wasn't like, "Yeah, I get it. I I [clears throat] know what the deal is, and I'm going to try to reduce the Fed's balance sheet. Um, but boy oh boy, do I understand that if we have to inflate so that the debt is easier to pay back, then that's what we're going to do. So they will they actually let us implode? Probably not. But if they don't let us implode, it will hasten the Kshape. It will make violent revolution that much more likely. And so they'll have to walk a really fine line. Um, do I think they can pull it off? Maybe. We'll see. There there are other options, I guess, is the punch line there. They're not good and I wish we wouldn't do them. But it isn't a binary choice between elect Thomas Massie as president or we end up in revolution or defaulting on our debt. We're not going to default on our debt. The certainly right now the people in power are so [ __ ] savvy financially. Um it's just a really shitty solution. your shitty solution is still somehow comforting to what I generally think about because I really very much I have become hyperfocused on just kind of creating the best future for my own kids >> and when you talk about man it was inspiring if anybody anybody who heard what you had to say and wasn't inspired is coming from a different planet than I come from right but when you talk about protecting the that working class that makes it all happen. The person with the with the dirt on their arms. There's construction going on in the road in front of my house. When when my wife and I moved, we moved last fee or this February. And the only complaint that she had about the neighborhood that we were moving into was the road. >> The road to the neighborhood and then the road through our neighborhood right by our house was horrible. Like not like abandoned third world kind of roads, right? But like modern day American roads, this was horrible by all definitions. It had the big like waves in it where you could very clearly see like here's a sewage drain because the road goes up and then you pass the sewage drain and the road dips again and there's huge potholes and cracks and overgrowing on the sides and just a Colorado road in disarray. So maybe four weeks ago, three weeks ago, um Colorado Springs comes in and starts tearing up the road and they're relaying the entire road. They're trying to hit 200 feet a day, >> but the road itself is probably 3/4 of a mile long, right? So, every day from 7 o'clock in the morning till 7 o'clock at night, I see the same 12ish construction workers out there driving heavy machinery, breaking through asphalt, laying and pushing dirt every day. And I never thought about the life of a construction worker until the [ __ ] were in front of my house every single day sweating their tails off. >> Filthy. Like that's backbreaking work. >> They might be driving a giant bulldozer, but that's a giant multi-tonon vehicle and they're one small turn away from tearing up a a sidewalk or, you know, destroying a car or hurting a person, right? Meanwhile, the whole neighborhood still lives in the neighborhood. So, there's people walking dogs, kids playing with each other, bicycles going on. People are trying to be respectful of the workers. But I have never put myself in their shoes like I did until I started seeing them every day. >> And about five or seven days into it, I was like, I feel compelled to bring them pizza for dinner. Like just go buy seven large pizzas and bring because I know they're going to wrap up at 7 p.m. >> Yeah. >> Right. But until you stop to realize how fundamentally important that working person really is and the fact that they're like not a single one of them is over the age of 50 >> because that's backbreaking work, right? >> But my point with all of that is just when you talked about how there's a moral obligation that we all have to support that fundamental workforce and you weren't talking about construction workers only. There's there's accountants and there's uh teachers and there's a whole slew of trades that are required to build the country. I mean that was a is a damned good point that makes me feel like I need to rethink the idea of I just I need to protect my children by protecting my children >> to I need to protect my children by protecting the middle class that makes the future for my children possible. >> Yeah, that's a dope way to say it. And I mean, you can also just step into being a selfish capitalist and saying, "I need a thriving country that has disposable income, that's optimistic and hopeful about their future, that has kids. Uh, I need people to have kids because I'm trying to make children's entertainment. [laughter] So it's like I I need healthy, happy kids with loving families to um you know to create things for that gives me meaning and purpose. Um, and then also just once you understand the raw mechanisms of the economy, you're like, "Oh, wow. It's interesting that the economic forces have this constant impulse to um create these financialized games so that they can win at the extreme and at some point they start losing touch with the Warren Buffett of it all where it's like value investing. What are the good companies? What are the people that are really making core products that make this country what it is or whatever, fill in the country, Peru, China, Japan, whatever. But the people in this country that are trying to build something, that are trying to innovate, that are trying to make their lives better and their kids' lives better. That impulse is awesome and we want to fuel that with investing. I've said many, many, many times, the stock market is a modern miracle. But you also get into this version where you have these people that are so good at the gambling portion of it. People hate it when I call it that, but I'll stand 10 toes down on that. And so you get that at the extremes, it makes it complicated enough that people get fearful to get in. We don't teach people about how to invest for the long term. Um, and so once you understand the mechanisms of that whole machinery, you're like, "Oh, got it." Like things have to you you need real companies selling to real people, innovating for real people. You need the masses to have disposable income. You need velocity of money. Like there are all these things that are mechanistic and they require a giant middle class. And when you have that giant middle class and they're healthy and they're optimistic and they're growing and they've got the ability to go up or down, that's important because right now you can go up, you can go down and then you're stuck. And so it's like you don't want people to be able to be rich forever unless they're just that good. Hey, if they're that good and they're winning all the time, fantastic. >> Um but you want mobility. And mobility means that you can't do the um socialism for the wealthy. So if a bank goes under, a bank goes under. It is what it is. >> Uh if a company goes under, it goes under. It is what it is, man. Like you've got to let those companies die. Uh so if if you like it's almost no matter what angle you come at it, I have a moral responsibility to do it. It's a beautiful thing to protect the people who are going to build the world for my kids. Um as a capitalist, uh just filthy capitalist, I need people that are happy and optimistic to sell to. Um, so almost no, no matter what angle you come at it from, unless you are in a purely extractive, short-term mindset, you realize, all right, yeah, yeah, yeah, we we can't eat the seeds that we're going to plant next year. We got to [ __ ] wait. We got to plant the crops. We've got to let them grow. >> And somewhere we lost that on the right and the left. And so that's why like when I say I'm enraged when I see Mom Donnie and AOC and Bernie just doing their best to break the economy. Um yeah, don't love it. And then when I see the wealthy like when I hear Donald Trump banging on about, bro, but the the uh the stock market's great. What are you guys complaining about, [ __ ] 10% of Americans own 93% of the assets. That's what the [ __ ] I'm complaining about. So it's wild. It's wild. It's a leadership problem which is both a good and bad discovery because that's a slow problem. That's a slow boat to shift. And we live in a country where the populace the popul the the populace not the populist but the populace determines the leadership. >> And now it goes back to what my concern was is that the vast majority of people are just too ignorant and complacent to change. And now you're combining a a time constraint, right? Nine years before implosion, a time constraint with a baseline starting place. And let's just say that my baseline starting place of the majority of Americans are too ignorant and complacent. Let's just say that that's an overstretch. Let's just say I'm only 50% correct. The baseline is still only 50% better. M like to hear us kind of both agree that there's so little that the average person can do that triggers survival instinct in people and they have to they have to decide if I'm going to put my resources into something am I going to put my resources into the public good or the individual good am I going to help the country survive I'm going to help the family survive Am I going to take care of my neighbor? Am I going to take care of myself? And once you put people into that position, the paleo the the paleomian brain of all of us is like maybe I'll do both, but I'm I'm more invested in the self than the group. >> In American culture, it's the opposite in Japanese culture like you were talking about, right? That collective culture believes that you sacrifice always. But that's not how Americans think. That's not how we think anymore for sure. So, I love hearing what you have to say. It makes me feel like there is a path forward, but there's these if then statements before the actual path forward is achievable. And I really hope that we can figure out those if then statements. Yeah, history says that we will have to suffer a tremendous amount before we do. I take some solace in the fact that Margaret Thatcher comes rapidly to power as they um really hit a financial snag >> and I think something similar will happen in the US. I just really hope it does not follow the following trend. >> Didn't you also say Hitler had a rapid rise to power because of a financial issue too. Mhm. It populist leaders, that's exactly how they are born, is you have some sort of tremendous economic disruption that causes people to essentially panic >> and then they just like a dazed fighter in the middle of the ring, they grab at the legs of the strong man and just say, "Keep me safe." >> So it Yeah, it gets wild really fast. The the weird position that we're in is half the country hates the other half of the country. >> And so we have to find some way back to the middle. Um, AI could be that if you want another white pill. Um, AI really is poised to it will disrupt a lot of jobs. There's no doubt. But the more time I spend with it, the more what it looks like is it's going to follow the trend of every technological revolution that came before it, which follows a pretty fascinating path. So, anybody investing, pay attention. Uh, so what ends up happening is you bring on this new technology. It has an insane amount of hype around it. It requires a massive economic buildout for the infrastructure. You get a wave of investors that go in on the first bit of infrastructure and then they basically all go broke because the delay between when you have to spend the money usually on debt to build out the infrastructure and when the revenue actually starts coming in, the gap is just too long. And so that first group gets wiped out. And so we're seeing now businesses pull away from AI. Anybody who reads that as AI was just all hype, it's nothing. Just follow the trend. This is what happens every time. And then over time, people get better at using the technology and all that. And then it ends up paying off. But it can take, you know, say 5 10 years longer than the debt was going to last before that blew up in people's faces. So that first wave is likely to get in trouble. Now we're doing the SpaceX IPO. I worry [snorts] that the normal market is just exit liquidity for that first wave of investors. So, we're going to have like a slightly different thing where the the like 1.5 wave of investors gets mowed over. There's a lot of stuff there that I don't like about how that's playing out, but it is what it is. It's people's own money. If they choose to invest without paying attention, that's on them. >> Uh, but so that's going to happen most likely. But the technology will become >> what people expect it to become. I mean, I'm seeing it already in my own business. It's extraordinary. It's completely transformational. It's amazing. Um, and so that is going to drive cost down. And while it will disrupt a bunch of jobs, it will create more jobs than it destroys. They're just jobs we can't predict right now. >> Um, the fact that you've become a millionaire off of a job description that didn't exist 20 years ago is already wild. >> And so that kind of thing is really fascinating. So AI is going to do similar things like that. It'll be things that we can't anticipate. Um but it's likely to create more opportunity than it erases until at which point you get artificial super intelligence. It's better than us at everything. But at that point you're probably looking at an age of abundance. >> And so now it's what Elon calls universal high income. Now I don't think that will change life very much in terms of the things that stress humans out. We will still play status games. we will still want more than the next person. We will want to be the ones that live uh on the hill overlooking the ocean. It's like it's just that's what humans want and there's always going to be a limited amount of that. And so people will come up with some new currency like thing that it's like I have more >> Pokemon cards, whatever. And so I get to buy the house in the hill overlooking the ocean, whatever. But it will um it has a shot of getting you there. And once you going back to the mechanisms of the economy, the way the economy works is that you can truly grow your way out of the debt problem. But to do that, you need more efficiencies. And this is why innovation is so important and why anybody that shits on innovation is just going to be number one on my hit list. You want people to innovate so that you can grow past some of this debts. But right now, for every dollar, new dollar that we raise in taxes, we spend an additional $1.58. M >> so as long as that ratio stays true, you'll never be able to grow out of the problem. And so we have a weird mental setup that people now expect to be taken care of by the state and that's suicide. [snorts] >> If we implode in nine years, what are you going to do? >> Sips tea. [laughter] Uh I if it really gets dire, I will leave. my number one objective is to protect my wife. Um so while I really hope it doesn't come to that and I really hope that um I can be some small voice among a hopefully growing cadre of voices that are trying to make the machinery of economics >> um something people can make contact with and do something about. But if I can't pull that off or be useful in that way, uh then yeah, I'm thankfully wealthy and so I will pack up and catch that private flight out of Hanoi and be off somewhere nice where no mosquitoes at. And it makes me feel better. Wow, that's a second thing that makes me feel better about I have a very similar plan like bail and bail to a place with no mosquitoes. That's awesome. It's just uh it's it's encouraging to hear you say that because it's it's where I spend probably 30% of my thoughts right now. >> Yeah. >> Is in this whole do I stay, do I? Well, not do I stay, do I go? How and when >> Yeah. >> do I go? That's where my brain lives. And in a in a like shocking twist, the capture of Maduro changed the Venezuelan national relationship with the United States, which creates multiple opportunities in my universe that I never thought would have existed, right? So it it almost accelerates the whole plan about how to leave. But then as I look at leaving the United States, especially leaving the United States now that I have more wealth than my family had before me, it becomes a very difficult proposition because there are very real financial implications whether you find efficient ways to protect your wealth or not. So, it's just it sounds ludicrous to have wealthy people problems and so few people understand wealthy people problems and to even talk about wealthy people problems becomes like a you sound like an [ __ ] doing it, right? >> But the reality is the only way to really assure your own future is to become a person who can build wealth. And then the depressing fact is even when you build the wealth, you just open up a whole new set of problems. >> Yeah. >> And it's something I remember reading about when I was trying to build a business and now I'm there and it's still just as real as when I read about it. >> Yeah. Yeah. The thing that I'm really trying to get people to understand is the game of wealth is available to everybody. >> And I get that it's a scary game. There's a way to play it that's sort of the basic [ __ ] way. And if you just get in the market for 20, 30, 40 years, you're going to do very well. Caleb Hammer, who's a fascinating voice, if you don't know him yet, definitely look him up. Um, he was on Rogan and he was talking about how if you had invested in like 1990, um, so the average salary was like 20 grand. If you had invested, I forget what percentage, like 10% or something of your salary every time, um, you would now have like $2 and half million dollars or something. And so it's like, I get it, that's slow, you know, that's whatever 35, 36 years, but it's like you'd be a multi-millionaire. So, um, and you're only shaving off 10% of your income. So, people just have this like mental block. I did for years. My only retirement strategy was to get rich. >> Yeah, that was my retirement strategy, too. >> People used to make fun of me all the time, and I was like, "Bro, I do not understand the investing stuff. I don't want to think about the stock market. I don't >> I may not live that long. too slow. I had all those above. Yeah. [laughter] >> So, it was just like, well, I'm just going to get rich and that'll be that. And um >> now that I see, again, just going back to the mechanisms of how this stuff works, it's like I didn't realize that I was being inflated away. I thought inflation was a law of nature. I didn't realize that it was a thing that doesn't have to happen, that it's completely man-made. >> Um, so getting people to understand that, join the game of wealth now. Like if you hear us talking and we sound just like absolute douchebags, come join the douchery. It's much nicer on this side of the fence. >> You have more options. You have problems, but they're different problems. They're somehow more expensive problems, but they're fewer in number. >> Yeah. Also, once money isn't the driving like paranoia in your life, >> it it just there's a level of anxiety that falls away. And for if anybody is listening to this and you're meeting me for the first time, uh I have spent much more of my life not wealthy than I've spent wealthy. So I know what it's like intimately on the other side of the fence having to juggle different bills, pay some some month, some another month. Uh I know that all too well. So it is fascinating because that is 100% a mantra that I am trying to communicate with everyone is is you can become wealthy. It doesn't it's not rocket science. It is one of the few things that you can literally start doing today. You don't have to wait until the gym opens tomorrow. You don't have to wait until the paycheck comes in. Like, you can really start taking steps to to transform your wealth future immediately. And I don't see any way that you can build a more secure future for yourself than if you do it yourself. Because waiting for a future government leader is going to take a while. and waiting for a community of people that believe in the middle class is going to take a while. And you're gambling. You're you're risking your own future on other people's decisions and other people's actions if you do anything other than start building your wealth right now. >> Start learning. Start practicing. Start spend $113 and get an LLC in Florida. spend I think it's $85 to get an LLC in Florida. I don't know. Like there's so many steps that you can take that will literally start building revenue income for you now that you control. And once you know how to turn that dial, you just turn the dial up. And that's something you'll your employer will never let you do. >> Your employer never wants to turn your dial up. They want >> I want to turn your dial up. Everybody [laughter] Everybody that's here that can hear my voice. >> No, I know what you mean. >> You're a better boss than me. >> You're hilarious, [laughter] >> dude. This has been uh a shocking conversation. I did not expect it to take these twists and turns, which is unusual for me. Uh but where can people follow along with you? You are a fascinating voice. I appreciate you, brother. You can find me online uh anywhere on social media, EverydaySpy. I have a growing YouTube channel I'm very proud of, Andrew Bamonte. And if you go to everydayspy.com, you'll land on my homepage. And and that's the gateway to my whole universe. >> I love it. All right, guys. If you have not already, be sure to subscribe. And until next time, my friends, be legendary. Take care. Peace. If you like this conversation, check out this episode to learn more. Iranians have said that their goal is to spike the price of oil to $200 a barrel. If Trump were to leave the Middle East, basically the American empire would collapse. It's very risky to use military force to resolve an economic issue. It isn't enough.