The DSA Is More Sinister Than You Think, Caleb Hammer Explains Taxes, & Alex Karp Pops The AI Bubble

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. That's okay. AND NOW this is the moment UFC fans watching around the world have been waiting for. Good morning everybody. Welcome to a very special edition of the Tom Billy Show live. We are here on the eve of America's 250th birthday and I hope that you guys were watching that video. Shout out to my man G for putting it together. God bless AI. Long may it continue.

All right. The DSA admits to a crazy strategy in the buildup to our nation's 250th birthday. We're going to be talking about that today. A retrospective of America's most sincere attempt at socialism uncovers an absolutely shocking truth. Can't wait to show you guys that. Trump makes some unhinged economic claims. I'm sure you guys are surprised to hear that one. China has a surprising lesson for mom Donnie and New Yorker struggling with power needs. Caleb Hammer goes viral simply for breaking down how taxes actually work. Michael Sailor's business model is coming under more pressure as Bitcoin flounders and the narrative is getting shaky. Palunteer CEO Alex Karp crashes out on CNBC in the wor in in the best possible way, excuse me, over the state of AI. But the question is, is he right? Because if he is, boy oh boy, do we need to heed that lesson. And the absolute 1984 style brain rot is on full display in the UK, reminding me why we went to war with them 250 years ago.

All right, you guys can't see it properly, but I am wearing the most USA thing that I have today. Uh, so welcome me if you will in shouting out or join me in shouting out a happy birthday to America. 250 years, man. It is incredible. A much deserved shout out to all of the citizens and the foreignborn Americans as I like to call them who share our values. And as a Statue of Liberty points out, yearn to breathe free. For myself and all freedom seekers worldwide, I want to remind us all of a simple truth. Freedom does not come for free. To that end, first and foremost, really truly with all sincerity in the world, from the bottom of my heart, I want to thank everyone who built this great nation. It came at the cost of much blood and treasure. Obviously, many wars were fought. Many people died, gave their lives so that we could build this country. to all of the pioneers born in the age of tyranny who gave birth to that sign on the Statue of Liberty who risk near certain death to come across large and terrifying seas only to suffer and often die in the harsh winters on the east coast uh but still somehow managed to lay the foundations of America. I'm so grateful to the centuries of freedom-seeking, entrepreneurial-minded, daredevil immigrants who came to this country seeking their shot at greatness long before people believed that the roads were paved with gold. They were not coming for a handout. They were not coming because they thought there was a safety net. They were coming because they wanted a chance. That to me is the spirit that I want to celebrate. the people who wanted a chance to control their own lives. And for that they were willing to leave the safe tyrannies of monarchies and dictatorships for a hardcrable life in a largely undeveloped continent and with their own hands built the most extraordinary society the world has ever seen by betting on one thing, the individual.

As the Declaration of Independence goes, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by certain by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, we have made good on that promise over time, and the reward has been wealth and prosperity. and post World War II, what is possibly the longest period of sustained global prosperity in all of human history. Not just here in the US, by the way, but around the world. For all of America's many faults during her time as he more people have been pulled out of poverty the world over than at any other time in history. It is a pattern of success that's built on a very simple idea that within each of us, you guys hear me talk about this all the time. There is a spark of the divine. Believe in God or not, that idea is incredibly foundational to what America is. We push back on government as an entity that just grows out of control. We believe that government should stay out of your way as much as possible so that people can cook and cook we have.

So on this day of our nation's birth, I just want to say thank you to everybody that has come before for building something truly extraordinary. This is a very flawed nation. There is no question. But it is undoubtedly an incredible one. And I wouldn't want to have grown up anywhere else. I am so grateful to all of the opportunities that have been afforded to me and so many others simply by having the good fortune of being born here. And I look forward to our future and for all of us continuing to strive to prioritize innovation and never-ending self-improvement. May this long remain the land of opportunity where people live and die by their merits. May we far it out corruption wherever it exists and truly strive to create a more perfect union so that young people have the same incredible opportunities as those that came before them. You guys know right now we're not doing the young any favors. We have gotten into a rut economically and I want to see us get out of that and stop being abusive to young people so that they may in fact join in this incredible prosperity. Now to get there, we're going to have to overcome many of the problems that we face. And if together we can set aside childish beliefs and never trade freedom for safety, we can remain a beacon of hope the world over for another 250 years. So much love to all of you guys, everybody that came before us. Shout out. Love it. America, thank you for everything.

>> Well said. Very well said. Happy birthday, America.

>> Happy birthday. And I hope you guys have USA. USA.

>> I like to hear it.

All right. And really, I do believe in the concept of a foreignborn American. If you share the values that I was just talking about, man, do I welcome you with open arms. So, uh, yeah, I don't want that to feel like something that only goes out to the people that are actually here in the US. To me, this is a celebration of values that actually produce incredible results. And right now, we've been basking in these results for an extraordinary length of time. And unfortunately, due to us basking in this extraordinary, literally unprecedented period of prosperity, people are now losing sight of what it actually takes to generate that prosperity. And to that end, we're seeing the rise of socialism here in the US. The main proponents of that, of course, are the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA. Now, the DSA specifically is pushing a strategy that I'm finding very unnerving because it is proving to be very successful. And they're telling their candidates to use what I'll call double speak to get elected. Now, they've actually named this strategy, it's a strategy they call the party surrogate model. It's not a secret. It's the official electoral strategy of the DSA. So socialists essentially are wearing a skin suit of the Democrat party and are running strategically as Democrats using that as a way to co-opt their national infrastructure. The fact that they're on the ballot and they're trying to build on their own infrastructure to operate independently, but for right now they have to do it inside of the Democrat party. But their goal is to build a mass socialist party. Again, they are saying this themselves. So, I'm now going on my who is the DSA really arc. I It's early, so we will see what the final analysis is, but I'm trying to find them in their own words talking and saying their own stuff. And by the way, their website is a treasure trove of just them nakedly saying what their beliefs are. Uh, but here I want to show you guys a clip from Hazel Williams. She is a member of the DSA's national political community. This is the organization's highest governing body. And she's one of the most prominent figures. And she's talking about this idea of having the um candidates say one thing uh because it makes them electable. She doesn't refer to them as candidates. So I think she calls them our electeds or something. Anyway, you'll see what she's about to say. Um, but what I want people to understand is that this is a sanctioned belief that they have and this is exactly how they're going to pull that skin suit of the Democrat party over something that is very much not that. All right, let's take a look at the clip.

I'm pretty disappointed by the arguments against. I guess it does sound a lot like a lot of arguments that we've heard over the years as 2020 has faded into the distance and folks were very happy to kind of move on from the like radical language that they adopted out of convenience because that's the way the wind was moving. I think again like the abolition of the careral element of a capitalist state is a very specific thing, right? That's always what I mean when I mean abolish the police. I don't mean abolish some community force under communism that can sort of hold each other accountable. That is a different thing, right? Um and I I feel like this is worded in such a way that that it refers to what I mean mean it to refer to. I think the other issue here that's like sitting in the background is whether or not we should be tailing electeds. Last convention was pretty clear. We passed a bunch of resolutions committing ourselves to working towards being a party surrogate with real political independence. And that means that we run candidates to help serve the party's long-term strategy. And we're strategic about kind of understanding the different rhetorical lines that our electeds versus DSA can hold. And we're thoughtful about how those interact with each other. But the idea that like we need to align ours with theirs is a huge huge mistake. Right. It's a historic mistake. Um, and we need to really learn from that.

>> All right. So, this is like the most infuriating level of double speak I've ever heard in my life. They the DSA is extraordinarily good and their candidates are really the best of them at talking. The background thing is communism. She literally said that. Oh, I'm open to She doesn't say the word police force, but that's what she's talking about. So, abolish the carceral movement. She's talking about abolishing the police, getting rid of um penitentiies, prisons. So, what she's saying is, "No, no, no. Listen, of course, under communism," and I quote, "Uh, there would be some sort of group that would make sure the people stay in line, but it's got to be done under communism." Then she goes on to say, uh, again, absolutely doing everything that she can to speak almost in code to her own people, but in a way that's like, wait, what is she saying? She's talking about you can't let the candidates lead us with their messaging. We've got to say, okay, this is what the party is about and this is the okay way to talk about that thing. And there's always going to be a gap between what our electeds uh are going to be saying, but it needs to be driven by the actual party platforms. and they're being extremely effective and very strategic at um saying things in a way that will be palatable to a mass audience by using the skin suit of the Democratic party. But make no mistake about what is underlying all of this. And it is wild to hear them use the communism word. This is not me putting it in their mouths like everybody I is trying to make this big distinction between socialism and communism. I'm telling you, these people are not trying to be the Nordic states, which by the way will be a lot of fun to talk about what actually happens in the Nordic states when we get to the Caleb Hammer explaining how taxes actually work part of the evening. But the reality is that they are um if you go interact with them in their own words, you find a message that is far more radical than what their candidates are going to say, but it is very much the DSA leveraging their candidates to keep moving things in the direction of socialism stroke communism. So Williams, who we just saw, is a member of something known as the Red Star Caucus. I wonder why they chose the Red Star as the name of that caucus. Obviously, uh they are a national Marxist Leninist caucus by the way of their own admission. That is they originated out of San Francisco in 2019. Very much Marxist Leninist is another way of saying socialist communist. So Red Star aderes to the party surrogate strategy that we were just talking about using the Democratic party in the short term as a surrogate until a socialist workers party, which by the way is anti-worker in the most aggressive way as possible. That is a drum I'm going to beat until the [ __ ] head of the drum rips off. Uh but they're trying to build that surrogate socialist workers party um to assume state power. And they have said just nakedly, and this is a quote, "We do not believe that capitalism can be reformed into socialism. It must be overthrown and replaced."

So, the DSA calls Democrats, again, this is me on their website pulling quotes. So, the DSA calls Democrats center right uh in the workers deserve more program. So, they put out this program for 2526 called workers deserve more. Again, double speak, Orwellian. Love it. They're saying a thing I agree with. Workers deserve more. Yep. We've got to find a way uh as a society to empower workers to make sure they're in a good place so that when we talk about productivity and pay rises that there isn't this insane decoupling that we're seeing right now. Uh, that puts the middle class in a bad position. Unfortunately, you can't dictate it from the top down. So, this isn't going to be controlled by constantly bumping up the minimum wage, which will just push corporations to um automate anything that they can. Basically, what you have to do is create an environment where the worker is needed and necessary. They're getting the appropriate level of education. Anyway, I'll end up sidetracking us on that. All of that stuff is critically important, but they're using it as double speak that when you look historically everywhere that socialism has tried, it does not benefit the working class. I just can't stress that enough. It doesn't benefit the working class. It breaks the engine of prosperity which is the very thing that A the working class is helping to build and then B they are very much relying on that engine to give them a place to engage with to bring forth their talents and their intelligence and their hard work to actually craft something that looks like America. So, in all of that, we've really like if we're actually going to contend with where the DSA is trying to pull America full stop, but the Democratic party right now, we have to start going and seeing them at their most um mask off. No better way to say it than that. Uh so, I'm going to spend more time really trying to figure out exactly what they say, not what people say about them, what they say. uh and bring that more and more so I can have an accurate mental model of where they're trying to go. Um certainly this is the area that I understand is most emotionally invigorating for me. So I find myself it triggers all of my problems with authority uh and just wanting so you guys know my goal is a thriving middle class. So they are as of right now the biggest enemy to a thriving middle class. Uh so yeah I want to make sure that we're getting as close to ground reality as humanly possible. So, expect a lot more of this.

>> Isn't it like ironic though that she said the Democrats are on the center right? Like, doesn't that just make her She's in a different political spectrum at that point. If the Democrats are center right, then I don't even know what's leftwing in that world. So,

>> to me, that kind of makes me think that there's some holes in that rationale and maybe she's just somebody that's grasping for power.

So, dude, here here is the thing. this the when I first started getting into um looking at socialism and specifically the French Revolution, I came across this idea of the overproduction of elites. I didn't really get what they meant at the beginning of that. The more I go into um what's actually going on in the DSA, okay, so the DSA is something like 85% white. Uh the vast vast vast majority of them are college educated. So like you start looking at the stats, it's like hold on a second. this this isn't a workers movement. Uh, also same thing, working-class people make up less than 10% of the DSA. So, it's like, wait, this is a affluent white like movement, but all of their messaging is about uh workers and uh largely people of color, immigrants. And so, it's like, hold on, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. So, you start going back in history and what you end up seeing is this idea of the overproduction of elites. What do I mean by that? So you end up getting all of this prosperity and you the um elite, it's so weird. This is the iron law of oligarchy. Every country is always going to be run by a small number of people. As that small number of people gets bigger and bigger and bigger, there become less meaningful roles for them because they end up just pulling against each other. And so what happens is you've got too many people that go through the whatever process you use to create the elites. In our case, it's higher education. So, you get all these people going through higher education because of what we've done to um government loans and allowing anybody to put themselves just in an internal amount of debt to get their education. And they come out the other side thinking that, okay, wait, I should be one of the important people in society. My parents told me I needed to go get an education. I was going to get paid more. Everything was going to be better. I was going to be meaningful and important. And they come out and they're not able to get those jobs. They're not making money. They're not doing anything important. But that absolute compulsion meets to do something important which by the way I totally understand why people have that. But that is met with then resentment of I should be in these positions of power. I'm not in these positions of power but my family has created an opportunity for me to be like a mom Donnie in his 30s never having held a real job. and all of a sudden it's like I have the spare time to go and do this stuff, to do the community organizing, to um not be confronted with the realities of my own policies and where all this stuff goes. And so that's where it's like, oh my god, every time you see the rise of socialism, it is not when the economy is at its worst. It is not when the working people are like, oh my god, like this is a terrible time. It's when you have an over production of elites that have the spare bandwidth to go and basically create this mythology via narrative around hey there's this thing called socialism communism it's going to be great and then when people go hold on a second haven't people tried this their punch line is always the same. Yeah well like if you've got dummies doing it it's not going to work but we're not dummies we're the smart people we're going to make this work this time for reals. Uh, and of course it's going to play out exactly the same because the economy works on mechanisms. It has physics to it. And so it will always crash and burn necessarily. And this is where we get into I'm going to plant the seed just so people know that I'm aware of it. I'm not going to take us down this path right now. But where what ends up breaking down is price signals. And oddly enough, price signals are the thing that you need to have a functioning economy. And once that goes away because the government is trying to influence everything, all hell breaks loose. All right, we can go down that road at some point if people really care, but I find that that's where people's eyes start to roll back in their head. Um, so just know that what ends up happening is there there are mechanisms that make money flow wisely around an economy. That wise flow of capital creates opportunity for the working class. Like if we're all going to focus on that and without those opportunities being created, then the government is in a position where everything has to become artificial and the whole system just ends up breaking down because they're constantly panicking, scrambling, trying to decide what should cost what, how much of what should be made, who should be getting paid what. It it just becomes absolutely impossible to do. the only way is to I mean if you have a super intelligent AI maybe one day but there's just no way for humans to see enough of the patterns in real time in order to actually direct this stuff and so you let the market do what the market does um which is rely on the individual going back to that idea of how that has created so much prosperity in America freedom you could say is another word for decentralization so we let everybody just what do you want to do go do that and if the world agrees with you that it's awesome and that's what the world wants, then they'll pay you for it and you'll be able to build your company. And if not, you'll go out of business and you will suffer as you must because you made poor business decisions. But in totality, all of us win because the people that we didn't want to buy from, they go out of business and the people that we do want to buy from, they start making things that we really care about. And that's how the market works. You all get to vote with your dollars. That's it. And it creates jobs and opportunities and innovation and yada yada. But when you break that and you say, "Well, I don't care that you want that. You ought to want this green people. I'm looking at you and what you've done to [ __ ] up energy in the US and Europe because you think you know better than the market, what people actually want." Uh, and so all hell breaks loose every [ __ ] time. And so you've got China with AC on their pigs and you've got Europe uh with pe people dying of heat stroke at a rate like five times the amount of people that die to gun deaths in the US. It's absolutely [ __ ] wild.

>> So with the overproductions of elite, I'm thinking automatically of like an assembly line. There's all these mechanisms that lead to like the overp production. Is there something we can do to kind of stop the dead bodies flowing over the waterfall? Could we go upstream? Is there do we stop student loans? Is there any type of thing mechanistically we can say like, "Hey, we need to stop this up top versus trying to convert a 30-year-old unemployed person to become a capitalist."

>> You literally hit the nail on the head if it wouldn't solve the problem entirely, but it I mean it might reduce by 80%. If you just go uh

>> no loan is going to be backed by the US government. Mhm.

>> So, and by the way, that's not a punishment to the student. That's a punishment to the school.

>> So, the school now has to be like, "Oh [ __ ] we're not going to have just like a wild influx of money because the banks offering these loans are going to be like, well, what degree is this loan for? And by the way, what did this student get? Like, what are the likelihood? What is the likelihood that this student will be able to actually pay the debt back?" And so now you once again decentralize where people go and and they try to figure out, okay, I'm a bank. I want to be able to loan money to people because that's how money's created. So the bank by giving you the loan gets to create money out of thin air literally for nothing. This is central banking for you. So they desperately want to loan money to people. Make no mistake about the bank's incentive. Their incentive is to loan money to people. So if you say, "I'm the federal government. I'll back it." They're like, "All right, [ __ ] I'll do this all day long." because every loan that I create is interest to me for money that I didn't have anyway. So, I get to make it up out of thin air and then collect interest on it. Yay. But if they know, uh-oh, I might lose money on this now. It's like, oh [ __ ] that was all bad. So, they start to get very strict about who they're going to loan money to. Now, that will mean that there are going to be plenty of people that are smart, bright people, but they're trying to pursue something stupid that the economy doesn't want. And so the banker's like, "No, no, no. The the economy has proven over the last 10 years that that kind of degree does not make money and they default on their loans. So we're not going to do that. I'm sorry. You seem like a good bet, but not doing that, it's like right entrepreneur, right? We're all entrepreneurs of our own lives. Right entrepreneur, wrong company." So yeah, if you go do something else, I'll back you. Then there are going to be people where they're just like, "This is not the right entrepreneur. I'm not I'm not going to bet on this person." And so that person is going to have to choose a different path in life. And I get it. That sounds cold. That's just a reality because the second you say, "Oh, we want the government to back all of this." Not only do you get the overproduction of elites that destabilizes the society, but more importantly, everybody has to understand what inflation is. Inflation is theft from the poor and working class. It's technically that from everybody, but I'm going to start I'm going to start just beating the drum. Yeah.

>> Because I hear about what is abusive to the working class

>> because people are beating the drum. They're saying things like socialism is great for the working class. This is about dignity for the working class. Working class, working class. Cool. We're fighting for the same person, but y'all [ __ ] are fighting for something that will hurt them tremendously. So, uh, that we shall not let stand. So if you actually give a [ __ ] about the working class, then you've got to stop stealing from them via inflation. Stop immediately. So that would do a huge job of getting to that just nipping the uh federal loans being backed um the loans being backed by the federal government such that people can pursue any absurd thing that they want that the market has told you I don't give a [ __ ] about that. And so that person ends up not making any money doing that thing and then they go into activism. So the it's the education you think that's causing this because that would that would get them out of college but they'll still be unemployed. They'll still be driving Uber. They'll still be Door Dashing. They'll still have their same grievances and they'll still have some they'll still look to blame somebody. So I feel like that won't necessarily be well-rounded. Is there I'm trying to think cause and effect like what's the mechanism that says I'm not doing well. Let me be DSA. What is that? And how do we break that thing?

>> So all right this is we're we're I love it. We're widening it back out. We're going to have to now start getting into some of the complexities. So what I'm saying with the overproduction of elites is when when you have an elite that is overproduced, it means that they are trained to do an activity

>> that the marketplace has said no, no, no, I don't care about that. That is not financially valuable. So now they can't find a job. They end up as an Uber driver because they pursued something that the market said I don't care about.

>> So if you imagine all of us at 17, it's like, well, I could go be I could go become an AI engineer. I could become somebody who works in a data center, you know, whatever. A thing that the market is screaming and saying, "We value this tremendously." So, I can go down that path or I can do um a degree in the philosophy of um colonialism. And it's like, what the [ __ ] Like, how are you going to monetize that? Where's the end state by which somebody pays for that? And the answer is uh only in academia. Well, now there are just too many people. There's not enough schools for everybody to go teach a degree in that. And so that person then goes, "Well, I can't get paid to do my degree, so I'm going to go do something else." If that same person had gone into something that the market is saying, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, we want that." Now, that industry begins to flourish. And one thing that people are not being honest about, is that if you allow the best and the brightest in America to get trained in something that the marketplace does not care about, they didn't get trained in something that the market does care about. And so then the market goes, I've got to find this somewhere. And so either the industry slows down because you can't find the right person. You can find a person, but uh think about since we're in the World Cup, think about a uh incredible um nation with great soccer lineage, Italy, and they just can't get it happening because they don't have the right players, they don't have the right coaches. At some point, it really does come down to a magical thing that happens on the pitch. Someone actually had to do something so well that other people couldn't stop them from doing it. M and so that's where we run into [ __ ] I just don't have the people to hire and even if I hire somebody if they can't do the thing on the field of battle inside of the company then the company will stall and die. So you need the best and the brightest to be trained in something that the market actually wants which gets one real place that that fight happens is what will get funded by loans to get that person educated. Okay. So that's a big part of it. The other is that right now we use things like the uh H-1B visa program to go and find people that we can bring into the country to do the job. Now there's a huge problem with it being also on discount. So I'm doing it to get this person cheaper. I'm may not even be looking at the US. Um but that's how you end up with this overproduced sense of elites. So it isn't just that I'm not sending them to higher education. I may be sending them to higher education like assume I don't send from a raw number perspective the exact same raw number of people go to higher education but now they're going into industries that the marketplace actually wants.

>> Gotcha.

>> So we can drive that industry forward in a way that the world says yes more of that please which then feeds the growth of the economy which then creates more jobs also creates more tax dollars by the way. So, if you just want more tax dollars for the government to be able to play with, that's the shest fire way to put more real dollars in their hands.

>> And then you don't have to do the deficit spending, which means less inflation, which means less theft from the working class.

All right. Um, let's take a walk down history now because in 1825, a rich Welsh industrialist bought an entire American town to prove that socialism could work. He had the money, the buildings, the theory, and hundreds of eager followers waiting to move in. Two years later, it was over. Robert Owen paid around 150,000 for a town of Hermon, Indiana. He got 20,000 acres, more than 160 buildings, working mills, and farms already producing food. He renamed it New Harmony. Close to a thousand people arrived in the first year. Owen already ran successful test textile mills in New Landark, Scotland, where he was famous for treating workers well and running a profitable business. He believed that he was if you removed private property and paid everyone equally, corporation cooperation would naturally replace competition.

Okay, so pause there. There's more to this story coming, but let's recap where we are so far. You've got a very wealthy guy who becomes incredibly wealthy by running a company what I would say is the right way. He's got something that the world wants. So, he's got a textile mill. He's outputting a product that people want to buy. and he partly outperforms his competition by being the place that all of the workers want to work at. And so he himself starts looking at this going this really works when you really treat people well like this is extraordinary but we can go farther. And so what I want to do is go all the way and I want to show people that the only reason that people feel competitive is because there's scarcity. And so if you remove that, if you make everybody equal owners, you treat everybody equally, then what will naturally come out of the human spirit is cooperation. So imagine that hanging like a thought bubble over his head that once everybody's equal, they will cooperate, cooperate, cooperate. And now the rest of the story unfolds as it has unfolded everywhere this has ever been tried.

In January 1826, William Mccclures sailed a ro river boat full of scientists, teachers, and geologists down the Ohio River to New Harmony. Historians called it a boatload of knowledge. Thomas Se, the father of American etmology was on it. So was Charles Alexander Lassour, one of the most respected naturalists of the era. This was the most educated, best funded, best equipped socialist community ever attempted on American soil. If cooperation could beat markets anywhere, it would have worked here. It should have worked here. It collapsed almost immediately. The hardest workers were feeding, housing, and clothing neighbors who did nothing while receiving the same food, the same shelter, and the same rewards. So, they stopped working, too. Why wouldn't they? Production dropped and food ran short. Buildings decayed because no one owned them, and no one responsible for maintaining them. Endless meetings replaced actual work. Owen wrote seven different constitutions in two years trying to fix it. None of them worked. American inventor Josiah Warren, one of the country's earliest libertarian thinkers, was there. He watched the community fail from the inside and later wrote about why his conclusion. The difference of opinion, taste, and purposes increased just in proportion to the demand for conformity. The more the community demanded unity, the more it fractured.

So we hit it. Yeah, this is um the

>> there is a video

>> that I think people will find very enlightening about what exactly it is that causes all of this to break down. So the thing that I don't think people understand that the economy interacts with is human psychology. So all of this is when I talk about the physics of an economy, one of the most important pieces of that is a very complex box. That is the human mind, the tendencies that we all have, the things that we all want, a sense of fairness for one. And what people aren't being realistic about is that humans have a this is controversial, but I think that it's so instructive in terms of how humans actually behave that even if it ends up being somewhat um more narrative than it is like just absolute ground truth reality. It is a it is a belief that has massive predictive validity in terms of how humans actually behave even if it doesn't end up being the very reason that we do it. But the brain is built in three layers. So we have the and this by the way really is true. The thing that's debated is how much it influences our behavior. So uh you've got what's often referred to as the lizard brain. So the things that keep your heart rate going, the thing that will cause your adrenaline to spike before you even realize what you're looking at. like there's just something buried deep inside of us that's trying to keep us safe, fight, flies, freeze, [ __ ] that whole thing. Like that's the lizard brain. Then you've got the mamalian brain, which is the emotional centers. So that sense of fairness of um caring for the young. So you think about lizards, they uh lay eggs and then they just walk off and leave them. Like if you've ever seen the birth of the turtles, they're all on their own. Like 90% of them get eaten before they get to the water. It's just a, you know, a mass strategy of how many turtles can I um basically how many eggs can I lay such that there's enough overabundance that the predators can't eat them all and some of them are going to make it to the seat, but the parents not there defending them against the predators. Okay? But mammals do. So mammals look after them. So there's all this bonding mechanism, the sense of fairness, cooperation. But then on top of that, we get to the humans and we get the neoortex. Okay, neo literally just meaning new. So it's like all the other animals, they don't have the neoortex yet. Maybe they will, you know, in another million years or whatever, but they don't have it now. And so we are uniquely able to override both the lizard brain and the mamalian brain and say, even though I feel this, I may need to act in a different way to get a better long-term goal. And so the ability to delay gratification becomes this really important thing. But we've got all three of those. So the reason that they say that we're only nine meals away from uh riots in the streets is because of that lizard brain needing to survive like we are going to find that food even if we have to take it from somebody else if we're starving. Then we've got the mamlian brain where people reason by emotion they just do everything that they feel and obviously that's very shortsighted and doesn't always allow you to build towards something bigger. Um, and so how often we're actually able to override things with a neoortex, um, it's shockingly rare. And so I've talked about that before. If you damage the emotional centers of the brain, people become constitutionally incapable of making a decision. They they actually can't do it. Not being stubborn, they literally can't do it because we need a feeling that's going to push us in one way or the other. So that's how grounded in emotion we are. Now, there's this what what I'm going to show you in the monkey video in a second. I want you to plug back into what we're talking about here with socialism and why people end up stopping working. So, we're going to see an example of fairness, unfairness playing out at the level of people doing the same work and getting paid differently. Okay? That's what socialists are going to bang on about. They're going to talk about how the billionaires are not paying their fair share. They're just not um they're getting way too much. They're basically being rewarded even though you'll often hear people say they don't work nearly as hard. I'll push back on that. But even if you accept that framing, we're going to have to talk about the flip side. But first, I want you to see, going back to the mamlian parts of our brain, how we feel when we see somebody else getting treated differently than us unfairly. You're going to want to watch your screen on this one.

>> I'm getting grape and you will see what happens.

>> So to us, that's the task. and we give her a piece of cucumber and she eats it. The other one needs to give a rock to us.

>> So simple task, simple reward,

>> but it's sort of a middle of the road reward. It's just a cucumber for

>> the other one sees that.

>> See, give us now gets again cucumber.

>> Uhoh. So what just happened? If you're not looking at your screen, pause it for a sec. Is uh so they ended up swapping the rewards. So, give me a rock, give you a cucumber. Two monkeys, they both give a rock, they both get a cucumber. Then, give me a rock, get a cucumber. Monkey B, give me a rock, get a grape. And grapes are way more coveted than cucumbers. And so, now go back to the first monkey who's thinking, "Oh, rad. Rocks now equal grapes." Gives over the rock, gets a cucumber, and throws the cucumber back at the uh experimentter and starts shaking the cage. But if you're watching, like, let this play out a little bit more because the monkey starts going apehit. He wants his grape. Give me that grape. Damn it. I gave you the rat. And the person next to him just keeps getting grapes.

>> She tests a rock now against the wall. She needs to give it to us.

>> Like, am I giving you the right rock? Like, what's going on again?

>> I don't want a cucumber.

>> All right. Shaking the cage. getting mad, looking for a way out. How do I bite this [ __ ] Uh, okay. So, this I think everybody gets that. People have seen this clip. I'm sure a lot of you have already seen this. People understand the outrage. I'm sure we've all felt that before. Was like, "Hold on a second." But where people break, where they're not able to project into how humans will react, which is precisely the thing that makes them go, "Well, socialism, communism is going to work." This is the thing that made Owens believe that this was all going to play out wonderfully, that once you um give everybody equality, right? So, everyone's going to get their grapes. Like, I'm literally just going to start you guys all out. Here we go. It's 20,000 acres, 160 buildings, mills. We all own it equally. Even though this guy paid for it, even though he built it all, all that, even though it was already working, he's just like, "We're all now equal. You guys didn't have to do the things to earn the money. You don't have to do the things to build the mill or build the business, but it's now all equal. What happens? The problem is, and this is why I say from an evolutionary standpoint, we need people who lean left and we need people who lean right. Because if you only have people who lean right, you lose compassion and we can't work well as a group. If you only have people who lean left, then you get rid of personal responsibility and the state becomes parasitic because you get what's known as the freeloader problem. Okay. In a monkey society or a tribal society, which makes me laugh because I posted about this and people thought they had some sort of gotcha by saying huntergatherer tribes were communist. It's like, yeah, if you're willing to kill the freeloaders, then yes, you can have a communist society. But if you think that people were laying around uh just being like, "Bring me my shit." And in a hunter gatherer society where life is on the line every day, people are just like, "Oh, yeah, cool, bro." That's not how it played out. So, the way that this ends up going is somebody tries to freeload, which is exactly what um the commune that Owens put together did. uh people start freeloading and then you have the flip of the cucumber for grapes uh monkey freaking out thing and you have well hold on a second I'm working harder than you and I'm getting the same reward and that's when all hell breaks loose and then if you really want to complicate things what happens when you have somebody that's working hard but they're not as effective as the other person and so that other person may be willing to work just as hard but the group says Hey, but you're better at this thing. And so I don't want you wasting your time over here doing the manual labor. I want you doing the intellectual labor because you can solve problems and make things better for everybody just to keep the um World Cup hits coming. If you guys have ever seen Harry Kane, the um alltime goalcorer for England, uh if you've ever watched him play, it's sort of maddening. He just stands around and in a game where they never get him the ball, it's like why the [ __ ] is this guy even on the field? He is not doing

anything. Then you'll see them dish the ball and in a moment of brilliance that other people would not be able to replicate, as evidenced by the numbers. He will score when it seems impossible. And so the team has told him, "I don't need you running around the field. I don't need you to work as hard as us. I need you to score when I get you the ball."

Okay. Now it's like, "Okay, how do we end up compensating these people? Do you compensate the guy that is a part of the practice squad? And he, hey, very valuable role to the team, but should he get paid as much as Harry Kane?" And so that becomes all of the calculus that humans are running in their brain in terms of real fairness. And so it devolves into utter madness when you try to just say, "Hey, we're all equal." Because the people who realize, "Wait, I'm outworking you." That one's nice and easy. So, they're just going to be like, "Well, [ __ ] it. I'm going to chill." Then you've got the people who are like, "Well, okay, I'm doing this more complicated thing over here and I'm having to do all this research or, you know, put all of this intellectual energy into solving this problem and I'm getting paid the same as the freeloader guy or I'm getting paid as much as the guy that carries bags from here to there. Like, hold the [ __ ] on. Like, I could go somewhere else where what I'm doing is actually going to be more respected." And it all breaks down. It all breaks down because you're never going to be able to get fairness in a world where people are doing different things and they have different talents and that the things that need to get done are of different like actual value to the outcome of the thing.

So there's a great Elon Musk quote where he said, "People are paid in direct proportion to the difficulty of the problem that they solve." And so now when you try to equalize everything and people aren't solving equally difficult problems, you're going to have an issue. And so that's why this stuff breaks down. It it is purely mechanistic around what do humans think is worthy compensation for what they're doing and their assessment of how other people are contributing to the group. And so what ends up happening is either in an example like the Owens commune, they just leave, they tap out, they let things fall into disrepair and they freeloader as long as they can to extract the resources and then they bounce. Or they become violent. And what Russia learned, what China learned, what Venezuela learned, what Cuba learned is that through violence you can get people to submit to the will of the state. And so you end up seeing things, and I see early signs of this with Manny and him asking people to put the AC to 78 degrees. You see the same thing across Europe. It's, "I, as the state, am going to take control of this scarce thing and I'm going to punish people that I don't like by withholding said scarce thing from them and giving it to other people." Or it can go all the way to just outright murder, as we saw in the um killing of the Kulocks in Russia after the revolution where it's like, "Well, the fact that they have more cows is evidence of them doing something um immoral or illegal and so we're going to kill them. We're going to take their resources." Now, of course, the reality is that more often than not, the reason they had more cows is they're better at farming. And so once you kill them, and this is exactly what happened. Once you kill them, the knowledge that they were carrying with them goes away. And so now people starve to death en masse. And the only way to get people to stay in line is to be violent and point a gun at them and say, "If you don't adhere to the system, you die." And because the system has such good propaganda, you've got people that are sucked into the propaganda of it all saying, "Yeah, it should work this way. You should want to conform." And so I want a gun pointed in your face because you're just being an [ __ ]. Uh, and then obviously you have people that conform just completely out of fear because they've seen so many people get disappeared. They themselves may have been beaten or abused. Again, read the Gulag Archipelago. I know I've said this a million times, but like when you read that book and you understand the um the kinds of essentially concentration camps that spin up as a way to abuse uh people, to break their spirit, to force them to conform. It's insane because all of this just runs contrary to the way that the human mind works. And so once you understand that the machinery of an economy, the physics of how economies actually work flow through the human mind, you understand why it will never work. It it mechanistically can't work. And so it's one of those where it's just like, no matter how many times people try this, it it can't function. Not until the human mind is updated. The only possible way, like if uh the DSA were the most pro-AI group on the planet, I'd at least be like, "Okay, I get what their endgame is. They want an overlord that is so smart that it can see all the things that we can't and it can make sure that everybody really does have everything that they need and essentially everybody can be a freeloader." And then it's like, "Cool. Yeah, go do whatever you want. Freeload as much as you want because you're not taking anything away from anybody." That's the only way you're ever going to get to that society.

>> Let's jump over to Caleb Hammer who had to educate one of his guests on American tax policy.

>> Question. What percent does the top 1% pay in federal income taxes?

>> None.

>> Damn. That pause. Pause. This this is a level of maddening to me that I cannot convey. This is propaganda at work. This is what ends up happening. People legitimately just don't know how things work. Because they don't know how things work, they end up believing like sincerely, absolutely stupid [ __ ]. And when they believe things that are just patently dumb, that are never going to take any of us anywhere useful, um, they feel righteous in their positions. But again, they haven't taken the time to map out how does this really work? And then worst of all, they are so doubled down on my identity is tied to the things that I've said that um they're backed into a corner and the psychological immune system is not going to let them go. To feel good about themselves, they must be right. And I forget who said this, but this is really distressing. I think the vast majority of humans, it it may be true that from an evolutionary perspective, the human mind is optimized to be right, uh not optimized to find the right answer, which is distressing, which would explain why it took us so long to get to the enlightenment where we finally said, "Uh, while I do have the absolute unending desire to be right, it's far higher utility to identify the right answer." And we had to go through this big like movement in society over an extended period of time while the church was like killing people to shut them up, that we finally get on to the scientific method of like, "I'm probably wrong about something and so I just need a method that allows me to get to the end result I'm looking for, even if I have to admit that I'm wrong." Um, so if all of that is true, you understand how when you mix education, massive amounts of propaganda with the human just unending desire to be right at all costs, you get that kind of just full [ __ ] statement.

>> I think it's about 40 to 50%. It's a little high on that, but

>> No, I believe it's about 35%. Then the top 10% pays

>> 50 to 60%. Top 50% pays 99%. The bottom 50% of earners only pay 1%. Did you know we actually have the most progressive income tax system in the entire Western world? Did you know that?

>> I did not.

>> Oh, we do. Of course you didn't know that. Why know anything before having an opinion? What the [ __ ] is wrong with you? Pause. Why do people go on the show? I'll never understand it. I love it. It's super [ __ ] entertaining. But uh, yeah, I don't know why people go on the show. Does he pay them?

>> Um

>> He must.

>> He must. This is wild. But anyway, people go.

>> People like attention.

>> You're probably a raise taxes person, aren't you?

>> But you didn't even know that we have the most progressive income tax in the entire Western world.

>> You think that you think the top 1% pays 0%.

>> Okay, but that's actually just not true according to IRS data. They I mean comparatively

>> No, compar that is the percentages compared to what? Compared to the bottom 50%? No, compared to the bottom 50%? Bottom 50% only pays 1%.

>> It's a lot more than uh what

>> Than they should.

>> Yes.

>> The the bottom 50% shouldn't pay 1%.

>> It's something like

>> That's interesting you say that because you know the social programs that you love and you beg for that the entire European Union does, you know how they pay for it? They pay for it with a VAT tax. You know what a VAT tax is?

>> What's a VAT? Oh wow. So you don't even know how they pay for the social programs that you're begging for.

>> Well, taxes,

>> But what's a VAT tax?

>> Another type of tax.

>> This is pathetic. It's a national sales tax. So overall, that is a less progressive tax than we have anywhere here. So the poorest people over in Europe have to pay a flat sales tax to pay for the social programs that they benefit. They pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes as a national base to get those percentages. It also, it's not only that, it is they have a much broader just normal everyday tax base as well. So you don't have um I I don't know what the exact percentages are, but I will tell you that it isn't uh if my memory is correct that the top 50% of taxpayers in the US pay 97% of all taxes. Not quite 99. I don't believe that's accurate, but obviously close enough. Uh, so in the Nordic countries, that's far more spread out. Basically, everybody's going to be paying taxes. And occasionally, you may go into a year where you don't pay any taxes because you're in need and the social programs are there to catch you and take care of you. But part of the reason that the Nordic countries now are going against immigrants, they realize, holy [ __ ], this is not scale. We cannot have a massive influx of people that don't end up contributing to the tax base. And so now we're gonna have to do something to get back to where we were before where it's like the social safety nets there to catch you when you're not able to work. But we're expecting everybody to work and pay taxes.

>> And you have a VAT tax. Say the bottom 50% shouldn't even pay 1%. No. If we were going to mimic their systems over there, they would be paying much larger than 1%. You don't know what the you're talking about. Pathetic.

>> What am I talking about?

>> You just said the bottom 50% should pay less than 1%. I said that they are that the

>> What

>> I said that the billionaires are not paying their fair share.

>> How do you define fair share?

>> It should be relative to what they make.

>> Trust me, on what they make income-wise, they are paying their 40%.

>> Well, but if they're saying that they only made 70,000 that year, not understand the difference between wealth and income. This is a never-ending thing that we have to deal with. Uh, so he was careful to distinguish it there. But people that don't understand the difference probably don't even understand what he just said. He's saying on their income, they are. And I feel like every time we bring this up, we have to talk about the loophole. Ah, close the loophole that allows people to borrow against um their assets, even though I don't think it is in reality actually a big thing because debt is so dangerous. People that don't understand debt are going to bang that drum and say, "No, no, no, these people carry debt forever." I doubt that that is true. I looked into this briefly. do need to um come with more receipts. But I did look into this briefly at one point and it echoed exactly what I thought, which is that no, no, no, for the most part, these guys do end up paying off their loans. They may then do more loans again in the future, but they are looking for moments where their stock is up. They'll sell that stock and pay down their debt since their debt is being deflated anyway. Now, they can just um it's being inflated away, but the the debt itself feels like less because of inflation. So they're paying off their debt with inflated dollars by selling their what they will almost certainly wait for a moment where the stock price is high. So they sell when it's high, they pay off the debt. And then in other times where the stock price isn't favorable to them, that's when they're going to take out the debt. And so um, yeah, I very much doubt that you're just going to see, oh, these guys stack on a never-ending bit of debt. They will take out the um actual money, pay their 40% on the um income, or it's probably going to be less because if they're selling shares, it'll be cap gains, but they're going to pay their taxes on their cap gains. They'll pay whatever regular income. A lot of them will take little to no money in regular income, but if they did, they would pay that at 40%. So, it's Yeah, this is where this gets maddening.

>> That's not what they make, that's their business, and that's relatively fair. if they're employing investing a lot in R&D and new technology, you know, we have that tax structure for a reason. So people are investing in the United States economy, so they're building more products, so they're employing more people, which actually contributes more to the tax base overall in the end because when they employ more people, that creates payroll taxes on both ends and it actually creates more income tax on the people making over six figures. Correct.

>> It actually provides more money overall.

>> Truth. It's so wild that like people just really really they get very emotionally effectively don't understand.

>> And this is how we end up with propaganda ends up running away with people and the bad news is the more you try to go into explaining, "No, no, like let me walk you through how this actually works," they just glaze over and it's like, "Give me the thing that I can repeat." And the thing that's easy to repeat is that billionaires aren't paying their fair share.

>> And so now it becomes, "Well, I know something is wrong. You just gave me an explanation for it and you've wrapped it in words that feel so right. All of these guys that have gotten wealthy have gotten wealthy off your back. Wage theft, um, crimes, they're in bed with politicians, all of that. These guys are manipulating and abusing you." Okay. Now, instead of getting to the real truth of what's actually going on so that we could actually fix it, because by the way, the reason that I'm so hellbent to get people to understand what's actually going on is then you can solve the problem. But if you don't understand that we are where we are because politicians are in bed with bankers and we are in a position where we have allowed ourselves to believe a lie about the way that money works. We've allowed ourselves to believe propaganda about how money works. And so people are in a situation where they think that they can just uh make as much money as they want. It's never going to be a problem. It doesn't hurt anybody. Um, and that allows bankers and politicians to knowingly steal from the working class and create an upward funnel to the wealthy. It's [ __ ] crazy. And by the way, the only thing that a wealthy person could do to avoid being uh benefited by that is to structurally put themselves in a stupid position. So it's wild. It's wild. So no one's going to do that. If you understand money, you're going to say, "Well, I know what you guys are going to do. You're going to rob for me over here on the cash that I hold. And so I'm just not going to hold cash. I'm going to hold the things that go up as you inflate the money supply." And so the average worker gets absolutely decimated, stolen from again by politicians and bankers. And people vote for it like [ __ ] crazy because they want free [ __ ]. And so they'll vote for, "Yes, please, bigger government, more subsidies, more free things. Give me, give me more." And not realizing that they're just giving you back the money that they stole from you. And they don't have a way to get it from the wealthy who understand the game. And so, yeah, you can take their tax. Yes, you can inflate their money, but the very like cause and effect reality of their assets is that they'll just keep going up. Yeah, it's wild and very frustrating.

>> All right, we got some super chats. Let's jump into some of those. Um, friend of the show and mod, Marushia Dark,

>> Marushia,

>> just made my final car payment this week. was forced to finance it at 200% at 26%. But took a 5-year loan and paid it off in just 4 months, avoided interest.

>> Let's go.

>> Now that's more I can put towards investment. Happy Independence Day. And my credit score jumped up 200 points. Shout out to Maria.

>> That's dope, man.

>> Uh, well played.

>> Second thing. And yeah, once you get that get away from that car note, it's hard to go back, man. I've been car-free for a minute. It's it's very hard to go back.

>> Yeah.

>> Um

>> Very smart.

>> We need to mandate that all schools bring back classes for civics, finance, shop, and home. Uh, teach kids basic economics, finance, self-sufficiency, survival skills, get them young, and get them off the factory worker pipeline.

>> I love that idea. Um, I'll care a lot about who's teaching because a lot of the times the classes are being taught by people that don't understand it themselves. Uh, a lot of what's going on in our schools right now is just naked propaganda. Uh, and so I think we have the the thing that I admire about the DSA is that they understand the political system. They understand how to think in like sort of Chinese uh lengths of time. So it's not like a news cycle. They're thinking in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years uh and more. And you get the same thing. I forget um when the socialist communist movement just decided, "Uh, we're going to start the long march through the institutions," but that's like if you look at we used to have more representation between the different personality types. We had people who leaned left, people who leaned right, and then slowly over time, it's just become higher education is almost entire. It's like 85% or more. It's higher in certain um degrees where it's all left-leaning personalities. And so that's like being raised in a household with just a mom. Doesn't mean that moms aren't the dopest thing ever, but it does mean if you want to raise a kid, well, you need a balance between traditional masculine and feminine energy. Of course, there are going to be times where, hey, it's like a household and things just played out in an unusual fashion, but hopefully the kid got both energies, but you need that balancing out um to get somebody who is well-grounded. You need them to understand that they are loved and that they feel safe and secure and at the same time that they're being pushed to get better, to understand what boundaries are, that there are some behaviors that just are not going to be tolerated. Uh, you need both of those things. It can't just be here. Here is the great irony. If you get a kid everything, give a kid everything, you break them. You break them. And that's what we're trying to do as a government. They don't become resilient. They become completely entitled. They expect things to be handed to them and they just don't have the internal mental map of how to fight and get something done. If you guys have ever driven to a location a thousand times in the passenger seat or worse yet in the back seat, you're playing on your phone and then somebody goes, "Hey, drive us to that place you've been to a hundred times without GPS." and you're just like, "Fuck, I don't know how to do it." Or even just you've driven, you've literally been behind the wheel, but GPS has been telling you what to do every time you've done it, and then you have to do it once without GPS. You can't do it. It's literally that. Like, as you actually have to solve a puzzle in real life, your brain is like solving different things and realizing, okay, wait, that works like this. Now, I've got a mental model for that. I need to go over here. This has a weird weakness, so I can't rely on that other than for part A, but for part B, I have to move on. It's like the the person actually begins to develop all that themselves because things aren't being handed to them. It's actually one of the reasons I didn't have kids. I didn't trust myself to not just give my kids everything because I hate to see people suffer. So, um, we have to be so careful to understand again, we want to, it's a beautiful thing to have the impulse to want to take care of people, but it actually breaks them if you just give them everything.

>> Nice. Uh, Morgan Xavier, writing core values for a society in my novel. Goal is minimal non-negotiable laws. When should government intervene regarding physical violence? At first slap? I first thought so, but it seems more people only respond to force, not words.

>> Yeah, it's wild. So, some people will only respond to force. So, Jordan Peterson introduced an idea that I really thought was smart, which is minimum force necessary. So, if you think of it as, okay, I'm interacting with this person and I'm going to use the minimum force necessary. Now, if they're being cooperative, then there might not be any force that's necessary. If they push back a little, then you escalate a little. If they push back a lot, you escalate a lot. If they pull out a knife, you got to pull out the gun. It's like this is just how it goes. And so, you don't want to move to physical restraints if that's not necessary. you don't want to move to um you know, like literal life-ending type violence unless you've absolutely been pushed to that. And so anytime where we see that the escalation of violence on behalf of the state, whether it's a cop or the government, whatever, um when we see them escalate the violence inappropriately, that's when everybody rightly freaks out. So, this is one of the things that thankfully ICE learned uh over everything that happened in Minneapolis was their escalation. It just was too much. And so, it was creating instability. It was creating some of its own problem. And so, um, yeah, you have to be very, very careful. So, if you use the very nebulous, but if you use the edict of minimum force necessary, you'll get to the right place. There are still sometimes where you got to shoot the person in the face. Uh, but you shouldn't start there. And lastly from Sage Woody, this conversation makes me contemplate my first experience working for a plumbing union. Everyone get paid the same whether you're the lowest producing or thinking person or the best.

>> Yeah, it's maddening. So yeah, unions to me and this is something that I will certainly spend more time on as uh my life justifies it. But um I've been in a union before and um I've run companies before I had thousands of employees. And so I've been essentially on both sides of this. And ultimately I think what ends up happening is you run into a government disease with unions where the union becomes it just wants to get bigger and it no longer is thinking about the health of the organization. It's just thinking about how do I justify my existence? How do I grow in power? Uh, and that's where that tends to derail. Now, you don't want companies to be in a position where they can um have a monopoly so that the employees don't have anywhere else to go um and then be able to essentially trap them in underpaid jobs because um there's no competition. And so empowering the workers is very important. We're never going to get out of the economic disaster that we're in right now if workers are disempowered. So, we definitely want to be in a position where industry is thriving, where there's tons of competition, even in AI. And this is something that's going to come up when we get to the Alex Karp crash out um where he talks about that same thing. He talks about competition and we should want to see competition. Um I don't think he specifically mentions empowering workers in the tirade, but um that is certainly one of the advantages of having that kind of competition. And so when you have these just incredibly important industries, we have to really pay attention to make sure that the government isn't taking a stake in those companies, that the government isn't letting regulatory capture happen. You want there to be maximum competition between the different companies because it's so good not only for the consumer, it's so good for the employee because the employee can be like, "Oh, you're not going to pay me what I'm worth. [ __ ] you. I'm going to take my talent somewhere else."

>> All right. Um, New York has been in the middle of a heat wave. It was 93 degrees a few days ago. New York Mayor Mom Donnie tweeted out, "It's hot out there and the power grid is working overtime to keep us cool. Set your AC to 78°. Please turn off lights, electronics you're not using, and unplug when you can. Our city is doing its part, too. Maintaining the 78° rule in our buildings, dimming turning off your lights during peak electricity demand, asking private partners to do the same, and powering down non-essential equipment. A stable grid means the AC stays on and lives are saved. Let's ease demand and get through the heat together." [ __ ] this kid. Let me be very clear. The West Power Crunch is a choice. America is running out of electricity and you've got people like Mom Donnie telling people to set their thermostats to 78 rather than focusing on innovation. No way. No way. Anyone that tells you that we have too many people and not enough electricity is a [ __ ]. Anybody that is telling you that you need to throttle your usage is the bad guy. Get them out of office immediately. If it were true that, "Oh my god, this is just a problem. Who could have seen it coming? I never would have guessed like this isn't bad policy. This is just a tough break. It's an unusual heatwave." If that were true, Chinese farmers would not have AC for their pig pens. But they do. And they're able to post video after video trolling us where they have a pig pen that's open-faced, man. It's not even an enclosure. It's like a lean-to and they've got AC pumping on it so that the pigs can walk up to where they get their food or their water and just catch a nice blast of AC. Or seeing in the Middle East countries that put Okay, if you've ever been to the Middle East, that [ __ ] is hot as [ __ ]. People are sitting outside. They're they're not even in a lean-to. They're sitting outside and they will just roll AC units up to them to make sure that they've got a cool breeze while they eat at a restaurant outside. Okay, now listen. China has way more people than we do. Way more. And they've used innovation and smart policy to ensure that they have all the electricity that they need. The West is shooting itself in the face. China just blew past 10 trillion kilowatt hours of consumption. That's more than the US and the EU combined. In fact, right now, China has more power than they need. Now, the question that the West should be asking is why? And the answer is because they know what the demands of AI are going to look like. They know that by innovating, you can give your people as much as they want. That is the glory of innovation. And so, China has just kept increasing their capacity as fast as they can, from nuclear to solar, coal, everything, because they understand that we can innovate our way out of this problem. So, China used to have horrific air pollution. It's already getting better despite some of the horrific things by a Western standard that they're still doing in terms of pollution, but they understand we're going to innovate our way out of this. And to innovate, we are going to need to temporarily run a little bit hot and then we'll use innovation to clean this up because nobody, not China, not anybody wants to degrade the environment. But if you make the trade that Europe and increasingly the US is making, that we've got to be green first and then find a way out of this, all of a sudden you're going to realize that you're damaging your economy. Your economy is the engine of innovation. Without a thriving economy, you'll never innovate your way out of this because you won't be able to reward the innovators. Guess what they'll do? They'll leave. They'll go to the place that actually wants to incentivize the innovators. And the this is my new drum that I'm going to be beating. If you don't understand the power of innovation, then all hope is lost. Your government should be fostering innovation. And so it is it is a moral crime that these guys spend their time talking about um shutting off power sources now in the hopes that we may one day have green power because the very thing that's going to stop you from getting green power, which China is doing faster than anybody, China is greening up their electrical grid grid faster than anybody. And how are they doing it? They're doing it because they understand that they've got to have the energy now in order to fund the innovation. So why does the US and the West broadly suddenly have too little power? It's bad policy. They are just hellbent to go green now before they have things to put in place of the power that they're pulling offline. You don't need another villain. That's all you need. For 20 years, the West has treated energy like it's a climate project instead of an industrial innovation project. We've subsidized intermittent power generating sources with things like wind while regulating firm power just completely out of existence. We retired coal. We obviously hate nuclear. We have strangled nuclear via a ridiculous amount of regulation that was designed to stall progress, not designed to make it safer. Because I understand regulation to want to make nuclear safer. Awesome. Let's do it. But that's not what it was designed for. The regulation that we actually have in place is designed to slow that progress because people don't like it. Now, we've blocked oil pipelines. We've bet on a grid that requires the wind to be blowing. The sun drops more energy on planet Earth than you need by a lot. By by a lot. A lot. A lot. Europe obviously has gone the furthest into green madness rather than focusing on the sun and just saying, "All right, cool. We don't like the amount of pollution that we're putting out into the world. So, we're just going to use that energy that is currently polluting to green up as fast as we can via innovation and solar." Okay? It it it is the literal China playbook. It's extraordinary and it's going to put them in a position to beat all of us who are being stupid. Now to be clear, getting poor in energy terms is the same as just getting poor. Energy costs are the foundation of the entire economy, both from an ability to innovate standpoint and energy costs, as we're seeing with the Strait of Hormuz, is the closest thing to just inflation. Now, if we want to be nitpicky, and we actually need to be if we ever want to talk about cause and effect, inflation is not the same as prices going up. It's just that inflating the money supply is one of the fastest, most guaranteed ways to make prices go up. But prices going up is what people actually care about. And when you jack up the cost of energy, you take prices up because everything is riding on the back of energy. People don't understand how much because we have historically had enough energy. Now that we're running out, we suddenly realize, "Oh, hey, wait, does energy actually do a thing?" Yes, energy runs your entire modern economy. And Europe just keeps sliding backwards economically because of all of their moronic energy policies. It's so crazy. They literally applaud themselves for all of the regulation that they put in place, not realizing that the very foundational thing that's elongated life expectancy and made life better all across the West is economic prosperity brought to you by energy. The industrial revolution brought to you by innovation. In the West, things have been good for so long that we're now creating our own hardship. We're actually taking these incredible sources of energy and we're before we replace them because if you were just racing to replace them with green energy, I'd be all for it. But taking them offline in the hopes, fingers crossed, that we get there. This is like the meme of the guy. If you've ever seen it, the kid, he's got a boot on his head. It's like, "Oh, damn." Like someone standing on my neck. Would you please just get off my neck? Let me thrive. You pull the camera back. It's the kid's arm in the boot holding the boot on his own [ __ ] head. That's where we're at. That's this moment. That's our energy policy. We are creating the problem ourselves. Okay? Please understand, we are in a race for AI supremacy. This is an arms race. It's arguably the most important race that we've ever been in, ever. Arguably more important than nuclear because remember nuclear is brought to you by intelligence. What is the I in AI? Intelligence. So if anybody is able to get to a self-learning AI first, it could very well be a winner-take-all moment. And so we should have a savage amount of anger at any politician who complains about energy usage rather than fostering innovation that's going to allow us to produce more energy than anybody. That's what America should be focused on. Creates jobs, creates opportunity, lowers the cost of living, and as a reminder, the excess deaths from heat across Europe dwarf dwarf, it's not it's not like it's a little ahead. Dwarf the gun deaths in America. And so I love all the energy uh against the gun deaths in America. [ __ ] that [ __ ] I'd love to see a lot less of it. But if you don't have the same energy for something that is massively, massively worse and probably easier to fix, to be honest, for the policies that are being put in place for energy, [ __ ] off. It's so stupid. Look at what actually would solve the problem and then do that.

>> That one came from the gut.

>> That one came from the gut.

>> All right. Trump was on CNBC um talking about the way that America needs to grow.

>> When you announce bad numbers, the stock market

>> would go down. Today, it's the opposite. When you announce good numbers, the stock market goes down. Sometimes really depending on how good the the better they are, the more

>> because they have this this phobia. They have this horrible derangement syndrome about inflation

>> and growth can be good for inflation, not just bad for inflation. And it's a shame anytime numbers are announced that are not so good. I wish I could flip it the old way that when you announce great numbers because otherwise

>> it's almost like they want to kill strength. They want to kill success.

>> Some of them do announce numbers. I wonder like you have a couple of countries India is one doing very well but it's at 7 8%.

>> Uh others take a look at Japan's numbers. I mean they're doing very well. She's very good. She's doing a good job, a friend of mine. But

>> they're allowed to go up. We're allowed to go up. If we go up,

>> they want to kill. There's no reason we should stop at 4%. We should be at 12% and 13% GDP.

>> And I hate what happens where in the old days we would be that's how we built the country. Now you you announce positive things and they want to bring it down by raising interest.

>> So he's already said so many things. We we need to start taking them part by part. Here's the truth about what Trump is trying to do. He wants to flood the market with cheap money. Let me be abundantly clear. That is a terrible idea. America was not founded on cheap money. Remember, the founding fathers absolutely hated the idea of a central bank. Why? Because they knew that every empire before them ended up abusing the privilege of money printing to steal from the working class and give to the wealthy. So they're like, "Well, we know how this goes. We know that this ends in the death of the empire." Now, to make it nice and complicated, they also understood debt is very useful. And so they created a central bank and put a 20-year um like self-detonating timer on it. And so they use debt to kickstart the economy in the same way that Marushia Dark used his car loan to get the car, but then paid it off ultra fast and then hopefully isn't just going to restack more debt at 26%. And that is precisely what America did. All right, a little bit of debt, super beneficial. Inflation sustained is ridiculous. It's ridiculous. Now, let's look at some real stats. So, first of all, Trump talks about our economy as if it's growing by 4%. He's almost certainly hearkening back to what I think it was Q3 of 2025 where we did grow by 4.1, I think, ultimately adjusted to 4.2%. So, that's that is a number that happened at one point in his second term. I will give him that, but it is not the number now. The US economy grew 2.1% in the first quarter of 2026. Okay, that's where we're at right now. That's the final number from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, right? They've revised it up a little bit, but still it isn't the number that he's talking about. The what 11, 12, 13% whatever he said, that that's a bit crazy town. So, um, people need to be very clear about where we are exactly uh in the economy. So, we're four times we're growing four times faster than a quarter before. Okay. So Q4 of 2025 was like what got revised to I think .5%. So that was basically fake and so that was tied to the government shutdown. And so when you hear, "Oh my god, we're at 2%. This is 4x. Like, how how could Tom be complaining about this? Sure, maybe Trump is being hyperbolic, but come on, man, this is good news." Well, it's good news until you look under the hood. Then you're going to start seeing something different. So, business spending right now uh on equipment has surged 15.8% last quarter. Like, holy [ __ ], that really is phenomenal. But guess what? That's a story of AI. Now, there are all kinds of problems with what's going on in AI. I'm going to set that aside. But that, hey, 15.8% spending on equipment. That tells you the industry is very optimistic. They're they're going balls to the wall. Home building though fell by 7.8%. the same quarter, same economy. The the these are two different worlds, man. So, we've got like this two-track economy where like the buildout of residential is getting hammered. And by the way, the housing side, this is not a blip. Residential investment has fallen five quarters in a row. So, we've got this housing crisis brought to you by not building [ __ ] because of terrible policy. And five quarters in a row of people investing less and less. So, home building is the most interest rate sensitive part of the economy. So, historically, it's been one of the most reliable recession signals that we have. It It's flashing red, boys and girls. It is telling you people are not feeling optimistic. They are not building for both policy and just like where am I going to get the money from? All right, if you turn your eyes to the consumer, consumer spending is two-thirds of the entire US economy, which is already crazy and should terrify everybody, but it is what it is. In the final estimate, consumer spending has only grown by .5%, which has gotten revised down from earlier numbers. And households are increasingly funding what meager growth we have by spending down their savings and by using credit. It's not because their income's going up. Okay. So, some storm clouds there. Not loving that. So, I understand what Trump is getting at, which if we, one, it's like it is true. You can grow the economy by running it hot. And there are times where that's a justified way to do it. However, if you look at what his biggest motivation is going to be, say it with me now, it's to win in the midterms. To win in the midterms. He's got to be able to point to stats and say, "See everybody, look at all that money going around." And he knows, much to my dismay, as every politician knows, that at first, at the beginning, when you're pouring money into the system, it just feels good. And people don't realize, "Wait a second, [ __ ]'s getting more expensive. Hold on, I've got more money, but did I actually get ahead?" This is where that concept of real growth comes in. Nominal growth meaning number go up, that's easy. Real growth meaning I can really buy more [ __ ], that is a totally different number and inflation gives you nominal growth and it makes it seem like things are happening, but real growth is a lot harder. So the question becomes, what's actually holding the headline number up? Two things: AI infrastructure spending, baby, it's hot, hot, hot. Equipment and intellectual property investments are all concentrated in the AI buildout. I have done endless content at this point about how high risk the AI industry is right now. That does not mean that AI isn't real. It doesn't mean that AI isn't going to be the biggest thing ever. Like I think it really is going to be, but I think that there's going to be some turmoil. I think between here and there, we're in a very large bubble. I think it's going to play out very similarly to the dot-com bubble. The internet is as transformational as people thought, but we went through a pretty rocky period. It took a very long time to get back out the other side. The second thing that's propping up that 2% number, which again is much higher than what he's claiming, is government spending just rebounded because we shut down at the end of 2025. So it's not really growth, that's just the shutdown ended. So you strip those two outliers out and the private American economy barely grew at all. So growth in financial sales to private domestic purchasers came in at just 1.7%. So while first of all, he's inflating the numbers. He's not even talking about the real thing. But even if you get excited about the 2.1% because it's up roughly uh what would we say, 4x over where it was before, when you dig underneath, you realize, okay, like listen, if AI ends up going better than I think it's going to go, more smoothly, let's say, then sure, there's something to be at least like, okay, directionally we're moving in the right direction. But this economy is way more fragile than Trump wants you to believe. And anybody that says, "Hey, let's inflate our way out of this," literally [ __ ] them and the horse they rode in on because of the mechanism, it will make things worse for the working class. The very people that we supposedly want to help. Now, I think that some of the things Trump is focused on actually do help the working class in terms of tariffs, forcing people to build things here in the US, building manufacturing here in the US. These are good things. We should do more of it. And it does skirt a very fine line of like, you can overdo it and then it's top-down control, which is why I don't want to see Trump investing in any companies, the US government, even if it in the short

term makes people money. We should not be investing in companies at the state level that is going to create madness that is choosing winners and losers that makes things worse for the worker. They're disempowered because there's less competition. So it's just all around it's a terrible idea.

Uh but yes, we do need to do things that force employers to focus here in the US. That would be a good thing for workers. More empowered workers means a middle class with growing real wages, not just throwing cheap money at the problem.

>> Nice. Um >> and build houses. Build houses. >> Would love to see the housing uh affordability crisis get solved. Uh maybe Trump can you do that to get on the Mount Rushmore.

Um, we need to talk about Michael Sailor though because he's in some interesting waters. He's Mr. Bitcoin orange tie number go up. Bitcoin is in a bit of a bare market down in a bare market now. Um, and $4.7 trillion asset management JP Morgan Warren's Michael Sailor Strategy Company is creating a new risk for the Bitcoin market. There's speculation that he might hit a liquidity moment where he'll have to sell up to a billion dollars of Bitcoin just to pay off investors. The numbers getting too low. The balance book isn't working.

Just like um SPF saying Bankman Freed who was early >> be Yeah, you finished this sentence. >> Yeah, I'm not comparing it. But just like SBF was early, but all his like investments ended up paying off. If he didn't go to jail, he'll be like a hundred billionaire at this point in time. >> Dude, he he is one of the greatest investors of all time. >> He was literally like 10 out of 10. If he hadn't done it with stolen money, it's so funny to say that sentence, but if SPF had not done it with stolen money, he is one of the greatest investors of all legitimate genius. >> It's wild. It's wild. >> So, I say that to say I hope Michael Sailor gets to the other side before either his investors pull out, he gets brought before court or something like that.

>> Wow. He's never going to get brought before court because everything he's doing is legal. But um this is a very good example that you're bringing up of you can have the right thesis but have the wrong timing and you're still [ __ ] So getting the thesis right and the timing wrong is the same as just being outright wrong.

So here's the fascinating thing about um Michael Sailor. So, Michael Sailor um and I were in a joint meme at one point because he asked me when I was interviewing him and I was saying, "Man, listen, uh diversification, why would you go all in on one thing?" And he said in a really quippy, cute way, how many chairs are you sitting on? And obviously the punchline being, I'm only sitting on one chair because how ridiculous would it be to sit on a bunch of chairs? But the reality is that if I knew that one of the 10 chairs in my house was going to break, guaranteed, and that if it broke, I would fall onto a cadre of knives and I was going to die, then you can bet that I'm going to spend a little bit of time sitting on each chair because I don't know which one is going to be the one that breaks. And if I'm constantly moving around, then I reduce my risk of falling through. Or maybe better yet, if I have a little bit of my ass cheek on each one of the chairs so that when one breaks, I don't end up falling. That's a far better analogy. Uh that yeah, I would try to spread my ass across as many chairs as possible so I don't fall into said knives. And unfortunately, the gamble that he's placing goes something like this. And this is a very true statement. The only way to get truly wealthy in the stock market in a relatively short amount of time is to place one concentrated bet that nobody else believes in and be right. And so far it's made him a phenomenally wealthy person. And so the bet so far has has paid off. And if Bitcoin just continues to be another asset class that grows over time, um he'll be one of the most vindicated human beings on Earth. Like it will it will truly be insane what he will have been able to pull off. Really really and nobody can take away from him that bro we're still in early innings. Who knows where this is going to go. Anybody that tells you with certainty um that Bitcoin is going to zero I will point you to um [ __ ] what's that guy's name? Who's the bar stool sports guy? >> Uh Dave Portoy. >> Dave Portoy. Thank you. So Dave Portoi uh has said this time he's going to ride Bitcoin to zero. Why? Because every time he sold the price would shoot up. Every time he'd buy it would go down. What he's saying is, savvy though he may be, he cannot predict the future. Nobody can. This is why you have to play the game for the long term. Have a thesis, make your bet, and then write it out. My beef with Sailor is that I think he trusts himself too much. I don't think anybody can predict all of the things that can potentially go wrong. And that's why the investors that end up surviving are the ones like Ray Dallio, who very smart obviously, but bets against the market in a weird way back in the day. And it just goes on positively for too long, completely wipes him out. He ends up having to borrow money from his dad. So imagine going from this highflying uh Wall Street guy making all the money in the world, fantastically wealthy to like, [ __ ] dad, I can't pay my rent. Uh and his dad has to come in and bail him out. He's like in his late 30s or 40s, man. Like that would have been wild. And he realizes, ooh, I often think I'm right, but how do I know I'm right? The answer is you don't ever know you're right. And so one of the things you have to do is just diversify. And so uh I think Sailor is it's one of those where if he gets wealthy man I'll be the first to be like damn good on you. Like you made a bet it paid off. Never going to throw shade at somebody for doing that. But in terms of it is it an example that I think people should follow. Very much not. Even if it ends up being a winner for him. The me as a thinker my thing is mitigate your risk. you the there's a really cool um stat that shows that the people that take the biggest risks in life have the most stable home lives. And I've always thought that made a lot of sense. When you've got a strong foundation, when you know that ground zero is I'm only going to fall this far, then it's like, okay, cool. I'll take risks above this point, but I'm not going to do anything that puts that in jeopardy. So, man, I would advise him, not that he's going to listen, obviously, but I would advise him, yeah, have some massive amount of money that you want to be banking on that. Just make sure that you're diversified into enough other areas that if that doesn't if that bet doesn't pay off or you just have the timing wrong enough that you go through something incredibly tumultuous, make sure that you don't have a steady foundation. And look, maybe he does. It's just never the thing that I hear him talk about. Um, so, yeah, I would say be very careful. Be humble in the face of the markets. The markets have devastated way more people than any of us can count. I would say it's humbled infinitely more people than it has elevated. Um, even though we can point at the people that it's elevated, the just unimaginable sws of people that have been slapped down uh over time is pretty legendary. So, um, yeah, stay safe out there, boys and girls. Um, this was probably the best crash out I've seen um on CNBC.

>> Don't play it until we get a chance to set this up. >> And he's not even It's not even like a crash out cuz he is saying like valid like points, but I could tell that like the news anchors lost control of like the they like that's not where they wanted the interview to go and they were trying to like bring him back in, but he kept going.

>> But Alice Karp's Palunteer Alex Palunteer CEO Alex Karp was going in on the evolution of the AI market.

>> All right. He talks so fast in this. I want to set the stage for people because he's going to uh blow by a lot of really important ideas very very fast. Um, one I I actually enjoy people calling anybody that speaks with like passion, emotion, momentum as they're crashing out. It's just a fun way to think about this stuff. So with that definition, he's definitely crashing out. Like he's very animated. A couple times they're like, "You sound very angry." And he's like, "No, no, no." But so anyway, he's bringing uh a level of elevated emotion and speed to all of this because he's really trying to get people to understand a very important point, which is AI is the single most important technology in all of human history. It is now completely integrated into the economy in ways that are um people must pay attention to if they want to know how to navigate this moment. And then the single most important thing he's trying to get people to focus on is that corporations absolutely despise the way the AI is being done right now. And so don't fall for the propaganda because the way that companies are set up with large language models is that the large language models are going to win and companies are going to lose. Meaning he believes and this is what you're going to hear him say, but again very rapid firey sort of all over the place. But what he's trying to get across is the very nature of the um the large language models in the setup that we have right now is every bit of data that you send them they're training on. They now have all that information and that they are going to hold the he he refers to it as alpha. They're going to hold that alpha. And so you're basically going to trade your company getting some efficiencies now for them owning essentially your IP and all of your alpha into the future. And so people need to understand who owns the data and that you've really got to protect yourself from somebody else owning the data. Now he's got a very self-serving reason for saying this which he believes that Palunteer has created the only thing in the middle between your proprietary data and the AI that I'll let him explain. But I just want you guys to understand like the what he's actually driving at.

>> And CEO and CNBC's Simodi who covers Palunteer uh joins us and uh tell us about tell us about the deal with there's so many things I think we all want to talk about but but let's get to the Nvidia deal first.

>> Because because I have so much respect for Nvidia and Jensen Wong I'm going to try to keep this more adult than I usually do but the truth is if you want to know how this came together from my perspective it was uh it there's there a lot of technical issues. Who controls the models? Who controls the weights? Who controls the value of your business? Um, but um, you know, we're on we're we're sitting on critical infrastructure across America, Ukraine, Israel. Everyone who uses LLMs on the battlefield runs on top of our ontology. Um, and our clients are just with the Frontier Labs is to say I'm welcome at the Berkeley faculty. It's like there's just a level of discomfort and loss of trust. That also made it it really really.

>> Okay, unpack that. What do you mean by that?

>> Well, you have Okay, so when you're on when you're using large language models, they are it's like a at this point everyone technical realizes they're like a critical resource to make them valuable in an enterprise like battlefield context or regulated context or manufacturing. You have to have what's called an application layer. We we have this thing called ontology that now everyone's copying, but de facto it takes a large language model. It makes it safe and useful and precise. So safe because it doesn't touch your unlearning data. Safe because it prevents the large language model from caching your data and replicating your business. Uh uh safe because it doesn't transfer your IP of how to fight secret data, top secret data or in in a clinical context. So the the general way these things were sold and again these people are I Sam and and and Daario you there's nothing more fun than debating Daario in private. So this is I'm not throwing shade at them, but something has gone completely wrong. And the basic view among enterprises in this country is I'm going to chill lax uh and waste my time with tokens. I'm going to get no value and they're going to get my IP.

>> Now >> that sounds like shade. >> Okay, >> I want to say that is shade. to your point of putting like markers in before we kind of get through this video, just if you could kind of summarize what he said so far about that about the application layer about AI and kind of the promise of what they were sold based on tokens versus what they actually need with like the application layer.

>> Yeah. So, um this is something that we run into here at Impact Theory, which is okay, I'm trying to create something using the large language models. For us, it's largely art or if I'm scripting, I want something to be in my voice. the way that I can do that to create art that's literally ours um I just can't do through the LLMs. And so we realized, okay, we can sort of get close using the LLMs, but to get the consistency that we need, we've got to be able to control the weights. And so then you try to get something open source so you can really like tweak it and control it and make it more your own. And he's saying that everybody is realizing, he said anybody technical understands that you have to have an application layer between you and the LLM. And partly because you don't want to be sending them your um information so that in his words they can cash it and replicate your business model if it's meaningful enough to them. Uh the vast majority if you're a solo entrepreneur please don't even worry about this. This is at the you know the larger level. And he's saying but also so not only do you need to be able to protect your data but you've got to be able to have enough control over the weights that you're getting what you actually need. So he's like right now everybody's token maxing. you're just trying to like use AI for the sake of using AI, but it's probably not outputting what you actually need. You need to crack this thing open, change the weights so that it gives you because the weights are what determine the responses that you get back from AI because AI is trained on the entire corpus of human knowledge. And so what it gives back to you is all about these weights. And so he's saying you've got to have something where you can control the weights so that you get back what makes sense for your organization. And if you're just trying to token max and be like, "We're using AI." He's like, "You're spending a bunch of money. You're not getting out of what you need." And he's like trying to bang the drum to get everybody to understand. Remember, hiding in the background of all of this is AI's become so systemically important to the economy. But the uh big players and investors quite frankly are overhyping it. So we have an overinflated AI bubble. And he's like, he's about to get into this. We don't need to overinflate it. Okay? Just say what it really does. point out where its limitations really are so that some of this like hype can come back down to reality. Focus on what you actually need to do, which is stop token maxing, get access to the weights, control your own uh information.

>> Um, and just to kind of put a practical example on here, um, Shamav tweeted this where AI company Anthropic is now announcing it's going to begin developing drugs of its own with its clawed science.

>> Let that land like a [ __ ] nuclear weapon. Yeah. So, thank you uh whatever Lilia, whatever the uh >> Eli Liy. >> Eli Liy, thank you. And uh thank you Fizer and all the people that have been pouring data. You just uploading every bit of data that you guys have into our systems. We now have that. And so, nah, [ __ ] it. We're going to go do drug discovery with your data. Appreciate it.

>> Yep. All right, moving on.

>> And not to shade, it sounds like if you're saying these >> No, no, no, no. This is reporting.

>> Okay. And I and this is reporting that I've I've literally against my own interest called these are like I'm profiting from this right. So the reality is you may not like us at my former school Hford or Berkeley but enterprises in this country trust and love us especially ones that are involved in critical infrastructure both public and private.

>> Okay. So I want for those countries we're coming up to July 4th. I want those c I want for us and our our our our our our friends across the globe to have the very best tech resources. In fact, the whole secret of challenge here is the forward deployed model, the products that have been 5 years ahead. You know, you've been with me for a long time. Everyone everyone everyone said FDES were services. They said we don't even know what an ontology is. That's the only thing people talk about now. It the secret was we delivered the best things for the war fighters.

>> Those war fighters You can hate Palanteer all you want. You should definitely be skeptical involvement with CIA, all of that stuff. Also, just the amount of data that they're intaking, but these guys are [ __ ] smart. And there is a reason that they've been so far ahead of the technology that we had in the government before. Um, so yeah, Alex is such a controversial figure, but damn, these guys are bright. Have serious trust issues. But it's not just the word visav frontier labs. Then you have my enterprises in the private sector who have the same issues. They're like, why would they get access to my data if they're going to build my alpha? Why wouldn't I control the wage? Why would.

>> And that's >> for people that haven't heard the term uh alpha before, it means your intellectual advantage. So, do you know something that other people don't? Um, you'll hear this talked a lot about in trading. Uh whoever's got the alpha, who's got that early information that other people don't understand yet, so that we can go trade against that with that early advantage. What what aligns me with Nvidia and I think is what the c technical customers want which is control over their compute their models their data stack and their alpha. They want to know they own the means of production. It's not being transferred to someone else. They're not interested in some fake deploy code that somehow is deploying tokens that transfers the alpha to a third party and the jig is up. And so we have to figure out a way both pro both our our products are agnostic. We we we now sell a product to customers that allows you to switch from model to model because and we're completely agnostic but we need to rebuild trust and that trust is going to happen where everyone gets to ask ask and answer basic questions. Who owns the data? Where is it cached? Are the prompts secure? Is this being transferred to you? Are you being comp if it was so valuable? Let's say I can make you a billion dollars right tomorrow. Wouldn't I say I'll make you a billion dollars and I want 30%.

>> Why are they charging for tokens if it's so valuable?

>> So then Alex, if the key >> So with that point though, is this kind of the evolution of the AI market in general where you know is the jig up for open AI and anthropic as people are starting to realize like wait a second you have this, you have this control and you have this thing and I'm paying you all this money for tokens. Um Meta was on a $2.3 billion runway with just on tokens last year. So is it starting to change would that fundamentally change the business models for open AI and anthropic with this push back coming from the corporate level?

>> It may change their business model >> um today's business model but it's definitely going to change the trajectory that they're on for tomorrow's business model which is thank you for teaching us how to invent new drugs. We're going to spin off a company that's going to invent new drugs. That that is really when he talks about we need to earn back trust. He's talking about the AI industry. He's not talking specifically about Palunteer. He's saying these guys are stealing your [ __ ] data.

>> And they're getting all the what again what he calls alpha. They're like, "Cool. You just educated us on the way that you guys think, the way that you approach the world, the thing that makes you you. We now have that. We're going to go do that." And so, um, what I think he doesn't end up saying this, but what I think he's trying to get at is OpenAI, uh, Anthropic, Google, everybody, all these guys, if they want to continue to be this incredible engine of prosperity for the US, if they want to deliver something that is actually going to be beneficial to the corporations of America, to the world, then they've got to really create a self-deployed firewall where it's like We don't have nor do we want access to all the things you're giving us. So, um, that's your data. You guys keep it. You need to know that when you partner with us that you're not um allowing us access to things that will allow us to replicate your business. So, we are trying to provide essentially a commodity of intelligence. What you point the intelligence at, that's on you. And if you can turn the commodity of intelligence into something extraordinary, phenomenal. That's great. Love to see it. But ultimately, we're like providing electricity. So in providing electricity, we don't get to then be like, "Oh, by de by providing this electricity, we can now replicate um Tesla's factories." It's like that's not how it should work. You give me a commodity, that commodity is intelligence. Fantastic. Everybody has use to it. Now you can make the argument that what they built was legitimate. They went out, they learned from all of human knowledge, but they're not trying to take it for their own spin-off companies. It's like, I've done this, so now everybody can have access to the intelligence. So, we were the aggregator of these patterns, which nobody had done before. So, don't squawk about like, hey, that's not fair. That's my, you know, information. It's like we we've pulled forward the patterns from all of human knowledge and now anybody has access to it. But what you go do and build with that, we're not taking that as like a form of um ability to map your entire company. And now we can create these products based on that. And so he's trying to, again, he doesn't say this, so this is me like trying to think through where he's actually going. He's trying to curtail them from losing all credibility, stealing people's companies, and then everybody's just like, "Fuck this." and they hunker back down and say, "I'm better off like not having access to what they're doing, either developing my own or only working with people that are building that kind of firewall." And that's what Alex said at the beginning. He's like listen people not understanding this I profit from but I want people to understand it so that they will insist that these companies put something there so that an open AI or an anthropic is building their own version of this application layer or that other companies use mine don't use mine but you have to have that application layer and then now what's the next step then because how do you rebuild that trust Cuz on one side you have people trying to bomb data centers and stop that going. On the corporate side you have AI companies stealing data. It seems like they're getting hit on all sectors. Like the consumers aren't really messing with them. The business the BDB model where the big money was supposed to be. They're starting to realize there's chinks in that armor. Do you think that it's one of those things that they can come back from this or.

>> Of course this this is the greatest innovation ever of all time. AI is going to be the thing that we all want it to be but it's going to be a rocky road as we figure out okay how do you do this right? Um, how do we separate the wheat from the chaff? A lot of what's going on in AI right now is hype. All people have to do is deploy it for themselves. If you actually use it on a day-to-day basis like I do, you realize very quickly, oh my god, this is insanely extraordinary. It has helped uh create massive efficiencies and it absolutely falls on its face at a certain point and is like, "Oh, I'm not going to even try to use it for that right now because it's so bad at that." every bit of time that I try to like, well, maybe if I refine it, maybe if I refine it, you're like, it's just wasted time. It becomes inefficient. So, one thing and and we can certainly move on from Alex, but one thing that he does really go on to try to stress for people is that there's no reason to overhype what AI is, okay? It's creating distortions in the market. So, stop overhyping it. Be realistic about where it is. Be realistic about its flaws. talk about those and start moving towards an industry that's sane, that protects the corporation's information, that allows people to create a niche for themselves by holding on again to what he calls their alpha, their edge, the thing that they don't understand, that most people thing that they understand that most people do not. Like all of that's very important. And so he's trying to like create a rallying cry for the whole industry like don't leave this really really obvious thing just to me. I'll solve it. And Palanteer, sure, if you guys are going to leave us this opportunity, we'll take advantage of the fact that corporations understand it. Corporations are angry as hell at anthropic and open AI for doing this. Sure, it's a great business opportunity for us, but why [ __ ] do that? Like, let the industry be a healthy industry. One thing that he does say later in the piece is he's talking about you should want there to be competition. You should want there to be 50 different um big AI companies performing well, thriving so that people have choice so that people are doing different things and uh approaching it in a different way. He's like you don't want this to be only Palunteer. You don't want this to be just Palunteer, OpenAI and anthropic like you want this to be a thriving ecosystem and right now the ecosystem is losing people's trust. it is abusing the big corporations by doing this and creating these spin-off companies and basically stop [ __ ] doing it because it's going to He doesn't say in this piece though I can feel it hiding in his words but this could just be me projecting um not only is it good for there to be competition but also it AI has become so systemically important to the the world economy and certainly the US economy don't do anything that will cause this huge delay in people adopting AI because they just don't trust you. And so there's going to be enough hurdles in the way, as Drew was saying, you've got people already just want to bomb data centers and they don't want them in their neighborhood. Uh you've got artists that couldn't hate AI anymore if they tried and countless people that fear that they're going to lose their job to AI. So there's all these headwinds pushing back against AI. And he's like, you're going to [ __ ] step on your own dick this hard by actually abusing your corporate customers? Like what are you doing? So if people take that away as the message um then I think again that may be me projecting but I think that's an important part of this. If you understand all of that it's like this message um he's a little bit all over the place but that message becomes incredibly important for us all to understand. Whether you're approaching it as an investor or you're approaching it as just like a person that's like how am I going to get to the other side of this or you're approaching it as an entrepreneur that's like how should I be interfacing with this it really becomes important for the industry to uh police itself earn that trust not be abusive uh and be like become the technology that you can become instead of just like how much can I [ __ ] eat up right now in this moment to maximize my profits in a new cycle. It's just really dumb.

>> All right, let's jump over to the UK where they're taking an interesting approach to policing.

>> That's putting it lightly on on our 250th birthday of rebelling against uh the UK, which unfortunately is from time to time known for being dumb asses. Uh these guys are going full 1984 mode. It really is crazy. Now, keep in mind, my wife is British, so this is this hits very very very close to home for me. Uh but seeing them give us so much of British common law which has made so many parts of the world better for it. Even when they went and colonized somebody terrible but gave them British common law brilliant. Uh man seeing them go against that now with these insanely Orwellian draconian policies is absolute madness.

>> I'm breaking no laws. Okay, >> I'm not approaching people.

>> Pause for a sec. So, we got to set these clips up. So, you've got a guy who's filming a cop. She's pulled up. She is presumably right before this, you want to start the clip over, but presumably is um, you know, stopping him, warning him against something. So, he takes out his phone to start recording it and is basically saying, "Hold on a second. Am I breaking a law or not?" And that's where this picks up.

>> I'm breaking no laws. >> Okay? >> I'm not approaching people. >> People are approaching me. >> Okay? And all I'm saying is if you carry on then there will be issues. All right. >> With the people >> with the police. >> Why? How is that possible when I'm not breaking any laws? >> Me and my colleague have we've explained it many times. We can arrest someone to prevent a breach of the peace. Breaching the peace is >> but he has to be doing something wrong. >> Yeah. You we're do we arresting you to prevent it from you doing something wrong.

>> Okay. Pause for a sec. I want to translate this into real words. The police in the UK are able to arrest someone because other people might get mad at them for the thing that they're doing. So, for instance, imagine waving the um flag of England. That is considered by many to be a racist statement. Now, that [ __ ] is crazy. How the [ __ ] can your country's own flag get you in trouble if you're waving it? Now, they're going to say, "But hold on." But the reason they're waving it, they're trying to be provocative. So, the [ __ ] what? This is what freedom of speech is for. Now, the UK doesn't have freedom of speech. It's certainly not enshrined in their constitution. This is crazy town. So, somebody saying, "I don't like that they're doing that." can get you arrested. There are plenty of videos out there of the most absurd [ __ ] people saying, "Oh, I don't like what they did." And then that person getting in trouble. There's one video. I didn't play it today because I think this one's a little too weird, but uh where there was a guy who is um he gets knocked down by somebody and then the police rush in to arrest the guy that got physically assaulted and they let the guy that physically actually two people physically assault him. They let both of those people go and arrest the guy that got physically assaulted. It was crazy. Now, they might be saying, "Hey, he started this, but he was nonviolent in every I've seen the clip. Completely nonviolent." And then no matter what, and to be honest, he's not saying anything at the time he gets attacked. But let's say that right before they started rolling cameras, he was just saying the most unhinged [ __ ] ever. He's still the one that gets attacked. And they don't give a [ __ ] about that. They're more mad that this guy made people mad. That is the craziest [ __ ] ever. People have to be responsible for their own actions. I don't care if somebody's acting crazy, saying crazy [ __ ] If you attack them, you should be the one going to jail. Full stop. Period. End of story. Someone could be coming up to me and saying the most hideous [ __ ] about my wife or whatever. If I attack them, that's bad on me. I'm not in control of my emotions. Now, if they put a hand on my wife, that's a very different story. So, anyway, that is what we see playing out here. You've got to show the other one cuz there is an even th this clip, dude. I was like, what the [ __ ] is actually happening? You've got a guy I'll set this one up as he pulls it up. Imagine a guy's at a bar. He's chilling. Two cops come up to him at the bar. They're like, "Can we talk to you, sir?" They pull him outside and they're like, "Uh, you sent some tweets and we're here to let you know that while those tweets weren't a problem, you might post something in the future that could be a problem." What the [ __ ] All right, play this. I just couldn't believe it. We're not going to play the whole thing because it goes on for like seven minutes or some [ __ ] but 12 minutes. Oh my god, I watched the whole thing. It never gets less crazy than this opening bit you got to play. This is so mad as well.

>> Yeah, I presume you were. >> Um, I was just waiting for the conversation to get to that point. Um, ultimately, it's more of a just so you're aware.

>> Pause for a sec. Is the volume up more for the audience because this is like, first of all, this is mumble rap, so we can barely hear the guy. Anyway, you got to crank this [ __ ] up.

>> All right, chat, let me know if you can hear this or if I have to translate everything. or accusation. Um, are you aware that if you schedule a protest that will come to these houses and events? >> I haven't scheduled. >> Are you aware of that one? >> Yes or no? >> If not, I'm not reading anymore. >> Yes. Yes. >> Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I haven't scheduled any protest. >> I'm not saying you have. I'm saying, >> okay, pause. So, they're saying, listen, like if you were to schedule a protest or something, that would be a problem. He's saying, but I haven't scheduled a protest. And they're like, "Yeah, yeah, no, we know. >> Keep going." >> All right, we know where this is going. All right, carry on. >> Okay, perfect. Just so you're aware. >> Yeah. >> Section 162, the crime police act 2026. >> Bear in mind, I was in the bell and crown nowhere near his house. >> Today, you mean >> now or anywhere. >> Okay. This is again, this is just raising awareness. >> Just raising awareness. two uniformed police officers pull you out of a bar to talk to you that there is a thing that you could you didn't do it, but there is a thing that you could do that would be a problem. We just want to make you clear of that. That's like a cop rolling up to you and being like, "Listen, if you punch that guy next to you, that'd be a problem." Yeah, no [ __ ] Sherlock. Why the [ __ ] did you just pull me out of the bar to tell me that? No, no, no. We're just letting you know. Why are you telling me? It's so You got to play a bit more of this. It's so crazy. These guys actually think they're right. This is so [ __ ] wild. >> Using the fear tactics, but carry on. >> Not at all. >> Oh, we are. >> Not at all. >> Well, not we you anyway. Carry on. >> Feel free to sign to read that legation to you or not? >> Okay. Yeah, I'm aware. So, >> um, and are you aware that what you have been doing, you posted, let me finish the posting of going past some people's houses. >> Posting what? Sorry. >> Posting going past their houses. >> Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. No, no. I have not posted going past anybody's house >> on live stream. >> No. >> Okay. Have you not Have you not posted? >> No. No. No. No. No. And no. >> Have you not posted say the fact he lives very nearby to >> That's right. >> What I'm trying to say. >> Hold on. Look how many houses. Right. Let's Let's just go. Look how many houses there are here. >> They're saying basically that he's like trying to dock somebody. He's like, "Nope. Uh I didn't go buy their house. I was very careful to make sure." and and we'll we'll stop playing it there because I think the volume's just too low. But um he's like uh I didn't go buy his house. I didn't dox him. I made sure that it was under the line because they go there there's a line where you can cross and if you post something that doxes somebody that would cross the line and the guy says yes, but you agree this is under the line. Yes. Yes, sir. This is under the line. Okay. So you're just telling me that that there there's a line I could cross someday somehow and that would be a problem. Yes. But we agree that I didn't cross a line. Yes. So, why are you pulling me out of the bar to tell me this? We're just here as awareness. Then he goes on to tell a story, and this is the part that's absolutely [ __ ] maddening. So, this guy, his daughter, lives on a boat. He lives right next to her. 2:00 in the morning, someone smashes the window on the boat in an attempt to break in. Daughter calls the police. They don't come out. They say, "Darling, I'm so sorry. It's already happened. There's nothing we can do." And he says, "So, hold on. My daughter gets broken into. You guys say we're not even going to come out cuz it's already happened. There's nothing we can do. I send a tweet that you agree is below the line is not actually a problem and you pull me out of the bar to tell me that I could later down the road somehow cross the line. So actual breakin, no cops show up. I might do something in the future. Two cops show up. He's like, "Make that make sense." And they just keep [ __ ] death looping on this. We're just making you aware. Just making you aware. Dude, it is so crazy. The UK, if you guys want to drive off a cliff, that's completely up to you. You get to run your country however you see fit. But god damn if you do not see how this becomes complete and utter madness that you are giving power undue power to the state which is going to go wrong. The whole reason boys and girls the whole reason that America was founded the whole reason America was founded was due to man's tendency towards tyranny. And here we are in 2026 and we are watching these governments become tyrannical. We are watching people break down the checks and balances that have kept us sane for a while. We are watching people clamor for safety over everything instead of saying, "All right, listen. Yes, I'm going to have to take care of myself. I'm going to have to be somebody that bears my own cross. I'm going to um have to look at ways to be skillful enough that I can navigate my life that things are always going to be a little bit difficult. But I would rather have freedom than somebody who creates this draconian Orwellian eternally being spied on. We're just letting you know, sir kind of world where I have no freedom. I live in a nanny state. All supposedly for safety. Guys, it it is one of the core reasons that we broke away from the British Empire. It is certainly the reason that our government is structured the way that it is and it's the most profound reason how we created a country that has thrived for 250 years. With that, I will say happy birthday to America. Happy birthday to freedom. May you guys embrace freedom and all the things that it brings. Even though that means that we do all have to take responsibility for our lives, but this is an extraordinary world. It's an extraordinary time to be alive. I can't thank you guys enough for joining me today. Now, do we have super chats?

>> I see super chats. >> All right, but I had to wrap that up with that. I just couldn't let that opportunity pass.

>> Uh, work hard BTC said, "Happy 250 America. Thanks for doing a great job on guys. Don't blow off any fingers with your fireworks." Yeah, I saw this meme that said, "There are plenty of people out there living right now not realizing this is the last weekend they'll spend with all five fingers." So, please, boys and girls, be careful.

>> Uh, Chaos Ballads 8582 said, "If only this conversation about how the AI industry needs to do better and earn back trust could be clipped so I can share it on another Discord that hates AI so much. AI content is not allowed." Um, subscribe to the Tom Bill Clips channel and it can show up there and then clip away. I'm not going to come after you. Clip clip clip. Cool. That's all we got for Super Chats.

>> Awesome. Well, thank you guys for the support. Appreciate that very much. You guys, I hope you have an absolutely wonderful weekend wherever you are in the world. May it be a very, very special weekend. Uh, love some love somebody. Uh, be around people that you care about. There's nothing better that life has to offer you. And the second best thing the life has to offer you is this coming Thursday, July 9th at 1 p.m. Pacific, I'm going to be doing a free master class on how to leverage AI to start a company. I hope you guys will come check it out. We've had a lot of people um have a lot of success with the class, deploying it against their own companies. Again, it's super free. So, come and join me this Thursday, July 9th, at 100 p.m. Pacific. The link is in the description. All right, guys. Love you bunches. We'll see you on Monday. Peace. USA. Great.