The Strait Of Hormuz Is Closed and Are We On The Brink Of Revolution?

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Tom Billy Show, live, or as I like to say, the party at the end of the world. Hope you guys are doing well. Hope you had an amazing weekend.

There were some people over in the uh delegation trying to negotiate on the US's behalf that did not have a great weekend. Negotiations with Iran have broken down, and the US is now set to blockade the Strait of Hormuz as of 10:00 a.m. Eastern time, which is basically right now. Iran has threatened to retaliate to the US's blockade by extending their blockade to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea. We'll see how that plays out.

Are the recent high-profile attacks on business leaders and politicians the beginning of a class-conscious uprising? That is certainly the growing message on social media. We'll see how that plays out, but there have been a lot of warehouses reportedly burning down. We'll see that one. I don't know how much is fact and fiction yet. California gubernatorial candidate Eric Swalwell has dropped out of the race amid sex abuse uh allegations, always fun. And a new study shows Gen Z workers are actively sabotaging company AI rollouts, which is wild. Looking at you, Ryan. We'll talk more about that.

And President Trump tweeted out an image of himself as Jesus, helping to heal the ailing. I would give you context, but there is none. I had to look that one up. I was like, "There's no way this is real." No, it's real. He really did it. So crazy. Crazy. Okay.

"I feel like Trump just trolls us. He's just like, 'What can I do this? I need to get them talking. How can I get the people going?'"

The crazy thing is, he does have a troll gear, obviously, but there's also a gear that's just like he doesn't see how it looks, 'cause that one, that's wild. That's wild. And I'm sure somebody just posted it and then he was like, "Yeah, yeah, this is dope. We need to, we need to get that. More people need to see this, Drew. It would be a shame if this died in some random corner of the internet."

"But yeah, that one's crazy."

All right, let's start at the top. This is Trump's latest update from the war. It is another unhinged post from True Social. So there it is. There you have it. The meeting went well. Most points were agreed to, but the only point that really mattered, nuclear, was not effective immediately. The United States Navy, the finest in the world, will begin the process of blockading any and all ships trying to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz at some point will reach an all being allowed to go in, all being allowed to go out basis. But Iran has not allowed that to happen by merely saying there will be a mine out there somewhere that nobody knows about but them. This is world extortion, and leaders of countries, especially the United States of America, will never be extorted. I also have instructed our navy to seek and interdict every vessel in international waters that has paid a toll to Iran. No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas. We will always begin destroying the mines. We will also begin destroying the minds of the Iranians laid led in the straits. Any Iranian who fires at us or any peaceful vessel will be blown to hell. Iran knows better than anyone how to end this situation, which will already devastate their country. Their navy is gone. Their air force is gone. Their anti-aircraft and radar are useless. Khamenei and most of their quote unquote leaders are dead. All because of their nuclear ambition. The blockade will begin shortly. Other countries will be involved with this blockade. Iran will not be allowed to profit off this illegal act of extortion. They want money and more importantly, they want nuclear. Additionally, and at any appropriate moment, we are fully locked and loaded. And our military will finish up a little that is left. We'll finish up the little that is left of Iran. President Donald J. Trump."

You got to love the all caps. Yeah. So, I mean, this is not going away anytime soon. Uh, it is very interesting that the I don't see people talking a lot about the fact that we have backed them into a corner. This is existential for them. Of course, they're not going to go easily. I don't know what exactly was laid out on the table in terms of the negotiation, the specifics. Um, but what they're presenting publicly, certainly, um, they, they have said many times that they have a right to enrich from a nuclear perspective, and so they are prepared.

"Uh, to fight long and hard, uh, by way of some of the specifics that we do have. The US blockade of the Iranian blockade in the Strait of Hormuz is in effect now, unless Trump has backed down from that. After 21 hours of negotiations, the talks with Iran fell apart. JD Vance and the Iranian negotiators sat across the table in Islamabad, supposedly trying to hammer out a deal, but nothing came of it. There's a whole bunch of talk back and forth as to whether the US is being sincere or not. Uh, I will put on the table whether Iran is being sincere or not. To me, this feels like, uh, unless they are able to get the things that they need in terms of the US backing off, giving them sovereignty, their ability to continue to posture in their own country to be able to get, um, nuclear weapons, long-range ballistic weapons, that is clearly their play for getting their agenda across. Uh, so I don't see them backing down on that, especially not if they believe that they can extend this via asymmetrical warfare, which they've been able to do. Uh, so they are clearly in an escalatory mood. Now, the deal died, according to Trump, on the single word of nuclear. Trump said that most points were agreed to. The one that mattered, though, an end to all uranium enrichment, removal of all enriched material, dismantling of Iran's major enrichment facilities. Uh, that Iran was just not going to go for that."

Now, the response from JD Vance was amusing. Uh, we should let him say it in his own words.

"This is the, um, talking about his wife."

"Yeah."

"Yeah, this was, uh, this was interesting."

"I, I, I love JD. I feel like they're setting him up. I'm going to be honest with you. But..."

"Here's the thing. JD is very smart, and he's very eloquent, but every now and then, if you're on camera enough, and I, I know intimately, you are bound to say something that just falls weirdly."

"Here it is."

"Here's, here's one of them. The second thing Gollib said, which again, I found fascinating, is he said, 'We refuse to give up the right to enrichment.' And I thought to myself, you know what? My wife has the right to skydive, but she doesn't jump out of an airplane because she and I have an agreement that she's not going to do that because I don't want my wife jumping out of an airplane. The second thing Gobbing..."

"Okay, so here..."

"The deal. My guy, JD, he knows, he knows how to get him."

"Here's the thing. What, what he's, if he could have said it this way. Uh, I'm in a relationship with my wife. It's one of the most important relationships in my life. Uh, the US is in a relationship with Iran. It's one of the most important relationships, certainly right now, for the world. There's huge consequences to that. Whenever you're in a relationship, there are certain things that you do and don't do based on what's important to the other person. And so right now, Iran is acting like it doesn't matter that they're in a relationship with us and they can do whatever they want, even though it means, uh, it is extremely important to us that they not continue to enrich uranium. And the reality of any kind of relationship that's this important is you have to consider what the other person thinks is important."

"Mhm."

"Without all that context, it just sounds like the random misfirings of not a madman, 'cause that's way too dramatic, but it just sounds super bizarre and awkward. So, yeah, I mean, look, I get it. Uh, I am somebody who is easy to make sound crazy, so I have some empathy here for him. But, uh, I think if he had laid it out that way, though, he does leave himself vulnerable for a totally different attack, which is then everyone would go, 'Okay, but there are things that the Iranians think it's really important that you do or not do, and you guys are ignoring all of that. So why do you get to be the bully in this relationship?' Um, so, yeah, that line was probably better abandoned in his head rather than the thing that he follows through. But here we are. It seems like this week the talking points have shifted back to nuclear versus the blocking or the opening of the strait, because I thought the strait was supposed to be open, and now we're blockading another blockade, and we're back."

"So there, there."

"Yes. And there's definitely the meme-worthy stuff that we can go on there, and the blockade of the blockade is funny. However, I will say, um, I didn't pull this clip, but there's a clip from, I don't know what he is in Singapore, but a senior official in the Singaporean government, and he said, 'No, no, no. Listen, more oil travels through the Strait of Singapore than anywhere else in the world.' And I'm telling you right now, if you don't draw a hard and fast line and say, Iran, you absolutely cannot charge a fee for this, you cannot blockade this. He was like, 'All of a sudden, there's going to be tolls all over the world.' And while the Strait of Hormuz is bad, it's not the worst place that that could happen, and it will escalate and it will become a problem. And he said, 'So we're not choosing sides. This is a matter of principle. The international waters are international waters for a reason. Nobody gets to control those, and shipping needs to be free and safe. Period. Full stop. End of story. The world round.' Now, this is one of those things where people just don't know how the world works. And since World War II, the US has had the most, um, dominant navy in the world. And we've just gone around and made sure that nobody was basically stopping any of this free flow. Mhm."

"This is the first time where it's like, yeah, it's actually being impeded in international waters because you've got things like, um, the Panama Canal, where that's a sovereign nation that literally the US helped them tremendously, but you just dug a hole through your country, made it so that ships could pass. There's, it's like a thing you have to do. You've got to maintain it. You've got to run it. And so, yes, there are fees for going through something like that. But international waters, up until what's going on in the Strait of Hormuz, were free and clear. So I think that there is, while I certainly understand anybody that's looking at the US right now like we're a bunch of lunatics because we've gone in and taken a strait that was open and closed it, we weren't the ones that did it, but through our actions, the, it has led to this. So I certainly understand why people have a problem with that. But you really can't let it stand now. The, and I mean that to the international community. So, I think that's part of where Trump's attitude of, listen, we can pull out. Like, if you guys are going to let it stand like this, then we'll pull out. You guys will have to deal with it because it's the very complicated thing right now is without, I don't think Trump planned for this, but I do think it was a contingency plan that the US was well aware of. If you go in and they respond by blockading the strait, and people don't help you, you can pull out, and it will be economically advantageous for the US because now, if that becomes a quagmire and ships like are having to pay these huge tolls, the US is going to go, 'We're open for business,' and so you can come to the US, we'll sell you oil. We just got control of Venezuela. We'll make sure that they'll sell you oil. And so now all of a sudden, this idea of the greater North America as the single largest, highest producing, um, oil region in the world becomes open for business in a way that it wasn't previously."

"And so again, this is not a claim that Trump is playing like some 90-degree chess. Like, it's just there are knock-on effects. We're going to respond to the knock-on effects. And so the US right now is in a position where we win if we get control of Iran's oil, and we win if it's a total shit show and we just back out. Now, I think plan A is way better than plan B because there are going to be a ton of other knock-on effects to leaving the strait in that, um, situation. The world is not going to smile upon that. There's going to be a ton of political fallout. Uh, but nonetheless, from an oil production standpoint, the US is in an insanely good position, even if all we did was create total chaos and then back out."

"Yeah, we don't have those same amount of dependencies as some of the other countries. So that makes sense."

"And if the countries dealing with it find that it's too expensive to deal with them, they'll come to the US. So, yeah, it's not only are we not dependent, but we will benefit from selling the oil that we do have. Yeah, that is a, there comes a supply and demand portion at some capacity, though, because eventually, the UAE nations, let's say Europe, let's say Asia, they do go to the US. Originally, Iran fills it in their pocketbook with the tolls. They will then on their side balance some stuff out, try to cut their deals. And so it might be a short-term solution, but I know if long-term we can become the energy s, like, superstore of the world. Can we take over the Middle East in that way for a substantial period of time?"

"Already bigger than they are. I mean, us and Venezuela together."

"Yes."

"Yes."

"For sure. Us and Venezuela together are a supercell of oil production."

"So how many years does it take to normalize to get it up to the speed? The GCC, the, um, Suez Canal, the, uh, Strait of Hormuz is only responsible for about 20% of the world's, world's oil. And the vast majority of the oil from Iran goes to China. So the US is not exactly going to be traumatized if China is having a hard time sourcing oil. Uh, so, yeah, I think over the next, call it, five years, seven years, we would be able to start siphoning off a large portion of, um, the demand that is not able to be fulfilled there, if that actually ends up being a thing."

"And so, yeah, we'll see. But..."

"If you have somebody in the White House that is determined to make us a much bigger producer of oil than we are now, the oil is there. It's really just the political will whether we're going to insist on going green or whether we're going to say we're going to run the table now in terms of oil."

"Um, on the back of the Strait of Hormuz being now blockaded starting April 13th, Iran said it would retaliate by also taking control of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, uh, which is close to the Red Sea, with their proxies, the Houthis, doing that. This will cut another 12% of global energy supply, bringing the total shortfall to 32%. 20 from the strait, 12 from the Red Sea. So now this is now affecting northern Africa, Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia. So it's one of those things if that, if the strait then gets blockaded, then they control this strait as well. What would then be the knock-on effects, you think, for oil and from the worldwide, uh, impact?"

"The real question is going to be, how angry does the world get at Iran versus how angry does the world get at the US? Because that obviously is unsustainable. People will have to take action. And so it, one of two paths will happen. Either people are going to go in and they're going to start clearing it. Like, supposedly, I don't know that this is true, but I've seen a ton of reports that the UK is also sending mine sweepers there. China has a ton of diplomatic pressure that they can put on Iran. Um, right now, though, China seems to be gearing their pressure far more towards the US. Now, they're not saying the US by name, but they're saying, 'People better stop meddling with our oil contract.'"

"Yeah, I got the, the quote."

"So, here it is."

"We are committed for peace and stability."

"This is, sorry, explain who this is."

"This is, uh, China's Minister of Defense, Admiral Dong Jun."

"We are committed for peace and stability in the world. We are monitoring the situation in the Middle East. Our ships are moving in and out of the waters of the Strait of Hormuz. We have trade and energy agreements with Iran. We will respect and honor them and expect others to not meddle in our affairs."

"Who, who could they be referring to?"

"Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, and it is open for us. Um, and there were those reports the last couple weeks that there were 10 or 12 ships getting through, and most of them have been going to China and Asian countries."

"Yep. So..."

"Yeah, just as a PSA reminder, uh, the war in Iran is not entirely about China, but it is largely about China. And I think it encompasses everything to say that this is the flashpoint for the reorganization of the world order. And it's interesting because we've talked about this for so long. I've been banging this drum for a while. Everybody was saying that I was fear-mongering, but the reality is, if you look at the economics, this moment was self-evidently going to happen, meaning the restructuring of the global world order. And as that happens, like, now you're in the messy middle of it all, and it is very difficult to know how this is all going to play out. But this was an inevitability, much to my dismay."

"Um, so globalism unfortunately didn't work. It did. Well, it worked until it didn't. That's probably a more honest way to say it. Uh, and so as we found ourselves in this point, caught in Thucydides's trap, where you've got the rising China, US panicking about a rising China, the US realizing this now is a multipolar world again. Uh, that China is poised currently to apply more strategic pressure to the entire world than the US was in many ways, especially because they could do it via soft power, not hard power. And so the US had to do something. Now, was this the something that the US had to do? Probably not. And I think that this is a unique, uh, confluence of needing to do something and then summoning a populist leader that comes in the very specific flavor of Donald Trump."

"Uh, has led us to exactly what we're seeing right now. Um, but I'd be curious to see if anybody has like a, this is a better way that we could have unwound the global world order that is realistic, given the situation that we're in right now from, this is a populist moment. So, because I can give you the unrealistic version of how this all could have been done, uh, where everybody's holding hands and we just do what's right, you know, for everybody, sort of on balance, but that was never going to happen. Um, so, but I haven't heard a credible breakdown of like, okay, this is how we do it, given the realities."

"But the disintegration of some of the, um, alliances that have stood for such a long period of time, like us in Europe, that, that is wild. I would not have expected something that dramatic."

"I definitely want to get there because we have to talk about Spain, we have to talk about Canada. Um, we're definitely seeing shifts with our allies. But one more thing about these straits and these, uh, water in these straits, Drew, uh, all these things, um, impacting, we're not talking about the second and third order consequences. Everybody's talking about oil prices and gas prices, but we have helium, we have fertilizer, we have all these things that are based off of petroleum."

"So, I'm curious now that we're entering month two of this war, because it was supposed to be the, the four to six week. We're now at week six and we're going to kind of creeping over into a second whole month."

"This is now a quarter, half a quarter. We're going to start seeing some of these supply chain issues stress because I think it's been like, we have a month of supply on demand. That month is now gone. What are you doing now? How are you resourcing? What are the, um, order con, second order consequences of it? Do you see anything that you're like, bubbling up? We have helium collapse, talking about we have fertilizer, and is there any particular industry you think that is going to be the next thing that's going to collapse other than gas prices that we should be keeping an eye on?"

"Well, the one that we should be keeping an eye out for is food. Man, that's the one that I really worry about. When you look at how much of the fertilizer around the world comes out of the Gulf region, uh, you start to realize that we really could be facing, call it, famine light. Like, I don't think this is going to be, um, something that escalates that far out of control if this gets, um, back in control after a single cycle. But it is something where a very distressing amount right now comes out of the, um, the region that's being impacted by the Strait of Hormuz. I think people will turn to other places like, um, Russia, I think can produce a lot as well, but that one is where people should have their eyes on. So this year, you will almost see a downturn in the amount that is produced. Uh, and if this were to drag on, you know, call it, six months, eight months, woo, like that could get really rough. Um, how bad? I haven't done a deep dive on that yet. So I just know it's an area to pay attention to. Um, I see some people being super alarmist. Things tend to not be as bad as you expect. Um, so I won't go that far, but that is something to really pay attention to. Now, the medical industry seems to be impacted quite a bit. There's a fair amount of machinery that runs off helium."

"Um, so that could be an issue. Um, TSMC seems to have secured a lot of the available helium to keep running chip manufacturing. So, call it, modern way of life. Um, that probably will be able to get what it needs. Uh, but costs are going to go up. So that's going to be the real one. The real thing is just the underlying, it looks like inflation. So I will often just round it to calling it inflation. Um, when oil prices, when energy prices go up, then everything gets more expensive. And so you're already in this, and we're going to talk more about this later, but you're in a position where the, the people are on the verge of revolting already, and now you add this other economic stressor in the form of oil-created, uh, inflation. It's not going to be fun."

"I do want to talk about that, though, and this is just my hill to die on, and every time I could dunk on the airline industry, I choose to. It's hilarious because America, Delta started it, American followed, but I think JetBlue was the third one that added. They all increased their baggage fees because they said the oil prices are going to be unstable. When Trump announced the ceasefire last week, oil prices came back down, and they're like, 'Hey, well, you guys raised the 3% surge. You could probably bring it down right now.' And they were like, 'Yeah, it's not coming down.' Like, there's this certain, 'cause I was, it was the first time we went to Iraq. That was the first dollar hike of gas, and everybody was like, 'Oh man, gas is not $1.99 anymore. It's not 99 cents anymore. Don't worry, it's going to come back down. This is just for the war,' and it's like, no, it never came back down to those levels. There's these fundamental steps. So as we hit that moment where it feels like this is one of those..."

"All right, guys, co, we had 10, 20% on everything. This is the Strait of Hormuz, 10 or 20% on top of everything. Is that what you're talking about with like that inflation? Like, there's just going to be this raising of prices that everybody's going to just have to feel, and it gets baked in."

"Well, oil tends to be very responsive to market demand. So, I mean, it's, it's also controlled. Keep that in mind in terms of it is literally a cabal of people that get together and say, 'Ah, we're going to produce more. We're going to produce less.' Um, but this is when there is a stressor in the system. If that stressor stays for a long time, then yes, it will elevate prices. Some of that is real, and some of that is fake. And to your point, the stuff that's fake in a time like this is really obnoxious, and people are going to be very upset if they actually come to understand what's going on. Uh, so, yes, if those companies wanted to be, I don't know, patriotic, if that's the right word, but if they wanted to be, um, respectful of what everybody's going through and honestly just self-preservation, um, they would dial up and down as needed. Yeah."

"And if you see an opportunity to come back down, then you would come back down. Um, you would certainly at least get a little bit of goodwill or less eye from the people. Um, but yeah, for a host of reasons, they're not going to do that. Some of it is, it's very difficult to communicate to, um, the frontline troops as to where the prices are. Some of it is just, yeah, we've gotten people used to this. There's no reason to give it back. And if we lower it again and raise it again and lower it again and raise it again, um, that will drive people way crazier than just raise it once, um, and leave it be. But yeah, I don't need, uh, anybody to think that they're doing it for the right reasons."

"Yeah. Um, so you brought this up earlier from our allies' perspective, there's kind of been this wave of things that's happening. So starting at the timeline, starting from the beginning and kind of working backwards, we have, um, Spanish PM telling Trump, or Trump announcing, 'I will cut off all trade and cooperation with Spain because their refusal to support us in Israel.' Two hours later, the Spanish PM arrives in China. This is his fourth v, his fourth trip to China in like two years or something."

"I was going to say, keep in mind this isn't a response to what's happening, but it's certainly going to influence what happens. Now, I, for one, am surprised by how quickly our allies are going, 'Yeah, China, we're good.' That really surprised me. I mean, this, this is a country that has, uh, a very different way of running the world, their part of the world, than the US does. Um, and so seeing people as a child of the 80s, where it was just like everybody in the West was breaking towards capitalism and really pushing hard back against communism. And now all of a sudden, though China, I don't think really can claim the communist title, they can certainly claim the dictator title."

"Uh, and so the..."

"Dictatorships work until they don't. And that's the thing where I'm surprised that people are, um, moving as quickly as they are to embrace China. Maybe nobody more so than Canada. I don't know how deep Spain's ties are. This is more optics than, uh, reality for me, just because I don't know the specifics. But that is fascinating, and that is something that, um, the US is going to have to contend with, that you have a regional power that internally does things that are extremely questionable, but externally are really trying to paint themselves as steady yeti. And so being like, 'Hey, the US is doing all this crazy unhinged [ __ ] like, we're the completely stable, rational, long-term vision people.' And that's a message that the world is like, 'Yeah, cool. Like, let's go see what China has to offer and let's start making deals there.' And that would be very problematic for the US. And if the world's, um, sense of what the US is and what China is just basically completely inverts, and the US is like this radical, unhinged country that you can't trust, and China is a stable country that's moral and doing things the right way, um, that would also be problematic for the US. Problematic in no, um, small part based on what that will cause the US to vote for, and so will become reactionary in our own voting. And so the deep dive that I just wrote, man, honestly, it is, um, I don't know how to articulate this without..."

"I refuse to succumb to nihilism. I refuse to feel like there's nothing that we can do. But when, in every deep dive, I try to hold myself accountable to, okay, what do I expect people to do with this information? And the punchline is just never going to change. Money has physics, and so everything that we're seeing right now is because people are violating the physics of money. And it doesn't matter, left in the US for sure, it doesn't matter left or right, they're violating the physics of money. And so they each have a different way of trying to write the ship. And the reason that I'm still more afraid of the left is their way of writing the ship is 100% guaranteed to make it worse. And the right, the way they plan to write the ship is to get unprecedented growth. That would work. It's just that they're not on track to do it."

"And so, um, right now, they would need like north of 4% growth. We're 0.5. So it's like, we're way the [ __ ] off. And that, that one's tough. So you've got Trump acting like a lunatic. Now you've got the left where it's like, I know their policies won't work. So that one's like a guarantee failure, but they might fail more slowly than the suicide all-or-nothing gamble that Trump is doing. So it's like, ah, like this, this one is distressing. If you don't balance the budget, it is game over. And I, it's like there, that's simple."

"So it's easy."

"But yet people will not embrace it. They will, between simple and easy, man. Things can be simple, but that doesn't mean they're easy."

"Yeah, it's wild. So..."

"But going to your point now of Trump being this, uh, unstable nut. On an international level, he has caused some people racist. So we're talking about the Hungarian elections that just got finalized. Trump personally endorsed Orban twice this year, sent Vance to Budapest days before the vote. He got crushed in Canada."

"Crushed. Like they have, it's either 75% or just below. So they're within shooting distance of being able to change their constitution."

"Yeah. Same thing happened in Japan. They went to the right, but nonetheless, you get in countries like swinging all the way in one direction or another. Now, sorry, I know you want to go through the whole list, but the, I haven't gone deep on, um, Hungary and Orban yet, but some people are claiming that the guy that beat Orban is actually more to the right of Orban. So that's where I'm like, okay, wait. I'm gonna need to look at what's actually going on there."

"I, I, I don't know. I don't know enough. That seems surprising."

"Yeah."

"Because the European leaders are certainly claiming victory with whoever got elected. And I doubt they would do that if that person was actually to the right of Orban."

"Um, so we'll see how that plays out."

"Yeah. But same thing happened in Canada. The Liberals were headed for a landslide loss, and then Trump went on his terrors, his '51st state' rhetoric, and flipped the entire, uh, race. In Romania, the Trump pro-Trump candidate went into election day as a strong favorite, lost by a landslide. Australia, you guys are kind of getting the thesis of this story. 64% of Europeans view Trump negatively. 25, only 25% of Europeans will consider the US a friendly country."

"Isn't that wild, bro? 25% of Europeans consider the US a friendly country. That is wild."

"Down from 61% before his election. That's crazy."

"That is crazy. That, that is, that is nuts."

"To your point, and I even got to give it to Peter Zhan, because it's the first time he was the one that I heard champion this, that whoever was going to be the president was going to have to deal with some very, very tough decisions. Yes. So by no means was this 100% Trump's quote unquote fault. However, his reaction to this situation, I think, is his fault. And I think that a lot of these statistics, they do lay at the feet of him. He thought he can art of his deal, the weight of it. He thought he can bombastically engage people and just because I have leverage, you're going to fall to me and things like that. That works really well for New York, New York State real estate negotiating. It's a bit different when you're on an international level and there's alternatives and other countries and factions and things like that playing against you."

"You are watching China walk softly and carry a big stick, and you're watching the US walk loudly and carry a big stick. And it is, I, I don't know what has happened in Trump's life that made him think that you can just smash people, belittle them, make fun of them, bully them, and that there won't be these second and third order consequences. That's the part that I just cannot figure out."

"Um, like what he's thinking there. Uh, I think that the US absolutely had to use its leverage to position itself well for the changing world order. There's no doubt. I am not in the acquiesce to China camp. I want to see us outmaneuver China. I want to see us, uh, be strong on the world stage and make sure that we are in a dominant position globally, for sure. However, you cannot do that by alienating everybody, making fun of them, belittling them, all of that publicly. Like, you just, there's, if you want to behind the scenes be ultra-aggressive, but then publicly let all of them save face and make sure that they look good to their people, great. Then you've got a path to them getting on your team. But when you belittle them, dude, you're going to, they will do things that are not in their best interests just to look strong. And so I'm like, yeah, I, I don't, that is so self-evident to me that that's how humans behave that I'm just, yeah, I don't know what he's saying."

"But in the American political system, he doesn't have that level of accountability. So this is the same guy that was calling Marco Rubio 'Little Marco,' and Marco Rubio called him a threat to democracy, but then now it's like, 'I'm the president now. You do what I say.' And Marco's falling right in line with that. So the same type of leverage that he's used previously in his work life, for in his work life, for his entire life, it worked in those aspects. So he thought, 'Oh, okay. If I could do it in New York State circles, if I could do it in the city, if I could do it and get, become the biggest hotel brand at one point in time, if I could do this and win a presidential election twice, and everybody that was talking about me now wants to work for me, it could work with Europe, too. It could work with, like, the Arabs, too. It could work with all these other countries.' And then I guess they're now realizing like, 'Oh, wait. I don't have as much leverage. America isn't looked at as this thing as I thought.' They were surprised when Iranian, Iran started attacking other countries. They're like, 'Oh, snap. They didn't just obey us. Wait, wait.' So I think now we're starting to see the break of like, you know what? We're not going to do it just because we're used to doing that. We're going to break up the way of things. And that spontaneity, I don't think he countered into his decision-making. He thought just like everything else that I tried, it fell to my, like, it fell to my knees. It fell to my whim. In whatever I wanted to do, I was able to will it into existence. Now, these other countries with other individual sovereignty, they're like, 'No, we'll, we'll suicide it. We'd rather be suicide bombers and bend the knee in other places.' And that wasn't a thing, I think. And he's now getting like used to that being a pushback."

"I'll be interested to see if he's actually getting used to that or if he still has a mental model of the world that you can just keep smashing people harder. So what we're watching in Iran is Trump running an escalatory dominance strategy, only to find out that it's very hard when you have asymmetric warfare. And then the same thing is happening at the, uh, ally level, where he's just trying to escalate harder, call them bigger names, be, uh, meaner, all of that, and expecting at some point that they're going to cave. And I'm still, I get taken back to Steve Wozniak every time saying, you know, Trump is just surprised that they're not, um, God, what was the word that he used? That they're not acquiescing. He used a stronger word than that, but that, you know, we're putting all these troops right off their shore. We're threatening to smash them with this hammer, and we expect them to cave. And they're not caving, and just can't believe it. And that's the part where it's like, okay, like, you get it. Hopefully, they've got, given you the message, but he's just like, 'We're just going to keep escalating, escalating, escalating.' Um, and it reminds me of the very famous, 'The beatings will continue until morale improves.' And it's like, oh, Jesus. So, yeah, uh, the strength, peace through strength, when coupled with diplomacy, where you're giving people the ability to, um, join your coalition without looking weak, that I think is a very wise strategy. But, uh, setting people up such that they're going to look terrible if they get on board with you, even when it makes sense, is just a bad strategy."

"And then last..."

"Capitulating. Thank you."

"Last thing on this, um, topic, we have, uh, Canadian PM Carney talking about the days of sending 0.7 cents of every dollar to the US are over. The days, the days of our military sending 70 cents of every dollar to the United States are over."

"Does anybody know though? I want to know what, what the, where are you sending those dollars to? So, are you sending them to China? That sounds like a terrible [ __ ] idea. A terrible idea. These guys will put back doors in your technology for sure. Um, so that one is wild. And if he's saying that they're going to build their own military-industrial complex, cool. That I could actually understand if they're like, 'We need to be self-sufficient.'"

"I think every country should be acting in their own best interests, and then the world order should be a reflection of everybody doing their best with what they have. Um, and if that's what he's saying, cool. But I doubt that's what he's saying. And so, I'll be very interested to see, uh, where that money is going to go to. This is why I, I call the whole, this is Trump's master plan, the greater North America project. I, I kind of call BS on that because he purposely voided trade agreements that we had with Canada and Mexico. And if his ultimate aim was to unite North America, he would have at least kept those into place, secure the bag, and then come back and negotiate to that point of having all the, like, having all the point of strength."

"Listen, alienated everybody. And I was like, 'Yeah, it's for my master plan to unite all these people.' It's like, 'Well, you called them idiots and [ __ ] six months ago, and now you're going to ask him for a favor.'"

"Yes."

"We're going to see the same thing happen."

"That, that, that is a very deep flaw in his master plan. But that I really think is his master plan. This is the thing that drives me crazy is when people say that Trump doesn't have a plan. It's a very big difference between Trump not having a plan and the plan being bad. The reason it drives me crazy is the same reason it drives me crazy that people have an emotional response to the economy instead of a fiscal response to the economy. If you want to go after Trump, then start breaking it down piece by piece. What should we have done here? This is something I try to do a lot where it's like, okay, I did this with the, um, JD Vance thing. This is what should have happened. This is what he should have said. If for no other reason, then I can get people to respond to my own thinking, to see where the flaws are. But..."

"When you are going into situations like this and you start attacking sort of the lowbrow variant of this, 'Oh, he doesn't have a plan.' No, he has a plan. But if that plan isn't working, why isn't it working? What is the part of the plan that needs to be adjusted? And PS, by the way, what do you think that we should be doing? Because if people are just having these emotional responses, we're in for a problem. In fact, I'll state this very clearly, because this is going to be a theme in the show moving forward. If the world at large and America specifically continue to react to things emotionally, there will be a level of bloodshed that is going to be just absolutely devastating. And that is the very thing that I'm trying to put some very small contribution towards not happening, because there are solutions to these things. But they involve people getting out of their feelings and into an actual cause and effect analysis of the different situations. And right now, as a global society, we are doing a god-awful job of that. And social media rewards the emotional things. And so the more you can tap into emotional, the more likely that is to go viral, which means the more emotionally charged you are, the more likely you are to get attention, and therefore the more likely you are to influence things. And so, man, being involved in this and watching how this is unfolding and knowing that the more people use the leverage that will get them favorability with the algorithms, the more they are deranging the public who is already prone to map things emotionally, and therefore the more likely we are to really go astray, uh, as a planet. And when the planet goes astray, it, it ends in world-altering levels of violence. And I just feel like people are not paying attention to where this escalates to, and that makes me very nervous."

"You, the, the end kind of threw me off. Are you saying in regards to emotional responses leading to the revolution, leading to the warehouse burnings? Are you saying..."

"Leading to World War II?"

"Okay."

"So right now, everybody's response, not everybody. Right now, the vast majority of people are processing through what's going on right now through an emotional lens. What I wish to be true, what I want, instead of, okay, what, when you look at the cause and effect, how do we get from here to where you want to be?"

"And we should be just, if anybody wants to contribute meaningfully to that in whatever way they can, I get it. Most of us are going to contribute in some small way. But if we're going to contribute in some small way to something that actually makes sense, it's got to be based on cause and effect. And you've got to be able to trace the logic of cause and effect from where we are to where we want to end up. And if anything breaks down in there, you should be hungry to find out where it is going to break down so that we can actually build a bridge that's going to work. And more and more what I see is people, they get to a narrative point that feels right, and they just stop."

"Yeah. I think when we..."

break down Trump's response, though. I do think that we do a spectacular, spectacular amount of mental gymnastics in order to justify his irrational decisions. And I understand, like, the joke of, "Who's the were in this?" um, the 4D chess audience, because I think every time Trump comes out with this like statement, it can be, Trump can come out tomorrow and say, "I want to go to war with, uh, Ukraine because I think Ukraine is a threat to democracy." Okay. There's going to be somebody that jumps in immediately and be like, "Yeah, the reason he's really going to be roed with Ukrainians." And nobody's like, "Well, wait, why is he doing this? What's going on?" It's before we even say this is a good idea or a bad idea, people are already spinning their wheels to justify it, to make it look good, to put to paint Trump in the positive without even saying, "Okay, was this a good idea? What were the alternative ideas and why did he choose that one?"

Yes, totally. So, the what I want to do, though, is move everybody away from the argument of whether this is 4D chess or not, which just doesn't matter. And you start looking at what's the cause and effect. So, he's doing this thing. It's having this effect. What do we need to do next? Is that the thing that Trump is doing or not? Now, by way of, 'cause there are times where I'll go, "Listen, he could be doing this, he could be doing this, he could be completely confused, whatever." But by mapping it out, you're showing a chain of logic. And that's where trying to get everybody beyond the, "Is this 4D chess or not?" onto, "Okay, let's just talk about the actual event. It has these knowable consequences. There will be some unknowable consequences. If this happens, where do we go? If this happens, where do we go?"

This is like, uh, I think I actually said this to Dave in the interview, Dave Smith. Um, let's just run the thought experiment of what happens if we do what you're saying and Israel takes the boot off the neck of, um, people in Palestine. Palestine becomes its own state. There's no blockade. They do whatever the hell they want, and then they attack Israel in that scenario. Now, let's talk through what we actually would, um, consider right or moral for them to do. Because the one thing I find is people will stop at the, "Um, I don't like this thing. This thing shouldn't be that way." And I'm like, "Okay, fair, but it is that way. And so now let's go with the thought experiment because you can begin to understand either how we believe this ought to play out, how we believe this is playing out." Both mapping to "is" and the, uh, like all of these things are knowable. They are discussible. Much better way to say it.

And so what people tend to do, though, is they'll get caught up on, "It's not 4D chess. This guy's an idiot." Heard. Great. I accept that's your position. Now let's move forward with, "Let's look at the daisy chain. Where do we think this goes from here?" Whether it's a bumbling set of steps or whether it's actually got a chain of cause and effect. Where do we think this goes? And then with every movement, hopefully, we get a little bit closer to mapping someone's behavior so that we can actually figure out, "Okay, this is likely to go in this direction."

So, for instance, I think Trump is prone to two things. This is how I'm mapping him right now, and I'll certainly update if it changes. Um, escalatory dominance is the thing that he uses. I'm just going to keep getting louder, smash more things, break more things, uh, to get what I want. And at the same time, he pays deep attention to the markets. And so he'll go, go until he sees that US Treasuries are getting too expensive, and then he's going to deescalate. And it's like, "Okay, those are two very useful points of information."

I also think that he will leave things in chaos as long as it's not bad for America on an economic standpoint right now today, because I do think that Trump often thinks to one order of consequence and then stops thinking. And so I think, so all of that influences me to think there's this web of options that are before us in terms of how this could play out. I think Trump will continue to be as aggressive and talk about smash, mash, mash, uh, as he can. And then if the, um, cost of interest on the, um, US Treasury gets too high, he's going to pull back. He's going to do deescalatory rhetoric up to and including leaving, claiming victory, even though he's leaving it in a mess, because he knows the reality is he's may not be thinking through all the loss of allies, but he knows that the US can produce a metric [ __ ] ton of oil, especially with our relationship with Venezuela, which means that some percentage of people will leave the chaos in the Middle East and now come and buy oil from the US.

So, you put that all together, and it's like, "Yeah, those are some pretty dark days." But they reorient you towards this idea that he's talking openly about, but does not seem to gain any traction in the press, which is the greater North America idea. And so then it's like, "Okay, if we can start mapping that stuff out, then we go, 'Well, what does that look like when you're alienating Canada and Mexico?' Like, how do we get cohesion in that area? And what do we want to see happen there?" And then how does that influence who and what we vote for? Because that's like, there are going to need to be two really pressing questions at the midterms for anybody that wants to make sure that the Republicans get booted out of office. And that's going to be, "Okay, what's your plan with the budget?" Because if you don't balance the budget, then we're still headed towards catastrophe.

Nobody's asking that question, though. I know, much to my dismay. Okay. And then, but they should be, and it's not the only question that matters, but almost. And then the next question is, "What is your strategy? Is it in terms of world affairs?" So, "What are you going to do with Iran? What are you going to do with our allies?" And then that way we can compare. We have Trump is running a smash and grab strat. Cool. We know what that is. And then this person's going to, and then get those answers. But if we just stop at, "I don't like this person and therefore I'll vote for anybody else," you'll just swing all the way in another direction and have a different set of woes, but nonetheless woes.

Copy. And then at the top of this, you said both the left and the right are trying to break America in two very uniquely different ways. They have two different bets. One person is betting on inflated government, uh, costs to dictate which problems need to be fixed at a state level. The other side is deregulating tax breaks in order to give money, push the money back down to the corporation class, the ruling class, and hoping that they are better allocators of resources than the government is. Now, when we first, I wouldn't have framed it that way, but that is a dichotomy. That, but that's like, I, I didn't lie in that way of, if you're trying to represent me, it's not a lie, it's just incorrect.

Okay, but how would you dictate the Republican reallocation of resources? Uh, my beef was with the framing of the left. So I think that the left, pushing it to the government class to dictate which problems get solved on the state level. Yes. I don't think that they are trying to solve problems on the state level. I think that they are wildly economically illiterate and they are bending towards socialism. Though I know Michael Malice thinks that the political wing, not the political wing, the, um, what does he call it? The corporate, corporate wing of the Democrats is stronger than I think. I have not seen evidence of that. We'll see that that'll play out in the, All the donors are the, the corporate, like, Yeah. But if you look at who's actually getting elected, uh, I still believe that Mom Donnie is the spirit animal of the Democratic party.

But all the people who swung these midterms and inter intermediate elections, the governors, the republic, the, uh, governors and the senators in the on the Democrats, they're still getting Goldman Sachs checks, checks. They're still getting big pharma checks. So, it's this, the corporate oligarchy of the Democratic party is still very much active and well in electing people. I, I have placed my map, my my marker of where I'm at right now. And the marker of where I'm at right now is that, uh, there is a reason that fraud, waste, and abuse is so grotesque in California, uh, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Uh, we'll find out if it's just as bad in red states. And if it is, then that would certainly update my mental map. But right now, when I hear people on the left talk about economics, it is ridiculous.

Um, I don't, I know we're going to go to this later, but if you want to play the clip from, uh, Kamala Harris, like this [ __ ] is wild. And I've played the clip of, and by the way, bringing up Kamala Harris because now that Eric Swalwell has pulled out, people are saying that Kamala Harris is going to run for governor of California. Uh, they've already put out a poll asking how people would respond to her doing so. Um, so, and there are people that think that she's going to run for president again. That one seems less likely, but I suppose. Um, so let's listen to Kamala Harris speak about the inflation specifically.

"What else are you going to do to fix this problem with inflation?"

"Right. Thank you. Well, let's start with this. Prices have gone up and families and individuals are dealing with the realities of of the that bread costs more, that gas costs more. And we have to understand what that means. That's about the cost of living going up. That's about having to stress and stretch limited resources. That's about a source of stress for families that is not only economic but is on a daily level something that is a heavy weight to carry. So it is something that we take very seriously, very seriously. And we know from the history of this issue in the United States that when you see these prices go up, it has a direct impact on the quality of life for all people in our country. So it's a big issue and we take it seriously and it is a priority. Therefore,"

So, you see it like my beef with this is that it gets cut off at this top of the interview. So, So, wait, you think she get she brings it all back around? To me, this is the setup of a response to a question. She does not understand economics. That, that's my stance.

So, the same, and we can pull up more clips of her. The same way how we laid out, Trump said this thing, but here's what I think the web of possibilities that are in front of him. Mhm. We have a clip where she talks for a minute and don't get me wrong, she's definitely given the inflation is a problem. It's a political answer. And people are suffering and we have to understand that prices are going up and the quality of life is impacted. That is the emotional, That's not a political answer. That's a vamp around, "I don't know how to explain it." That's the emotional appeal to my voters because my voters vote emotionally. So that's the same question that if people are saying, "Trump, how are you going to make America safer in 2025?" That he would say, "First off, America's a complete ruin. Biden ruined everything. The world is on fire." That's not him not understanding the question. That's him setting the stage for, "This is where we are. This is what's happened. Now this is what I would do that he was too scared to do."

I'm confused as to what your thesis is. So, my thesis is, uh, the left on mass and Kamala Harris specifically, are economically illiterate. They actually don't understand the economy. And that this clip is evidence of the fact that Kamala Harris specifically does not understand what inflation is, which is why she can't tell you what she's going to do about it.

Your thesis is what? My thesis is we're using this clip, this one minute out of context, but it it matches your worldview. So you're putting it in the, I'm classifying this as evidence of this worldview that I have. That is, But do you think that my thesis is wrong, that Kamala Harris doesn't understand inflation? Correct. I, I mean, I don't think you are able to run for president without understanding inflation. So I think she at least understands inflation. I don't think she has a good idea of how to solve it. But I also don't think Trump had a good idea to solve inflation, 'cause we're still up. So, I don't think she's the only, I don't think she's the only presidential candidate that is uniquely ignorant about inflation. I don't think if I haven't seen anything on the right that people who have ran and won, not people who are just talking or people who are on shows, but people who are on the right who have won who are then trying to enact in legislation that fights inflation. Because as much as we want to talk about inflation is based on the unbalanced budget, we also have seen Republican regimes cutting taxes at a rate that increases the deficit that doesn't help the balance, that doesn't balance the budget, things like that.

So, uh, so if I can, um, say in a succinct way what I think your, uh, hypothesis is, let me know if this is accurate. Neither the left or the right understand the economy, and it is unfair to single out the left, which you, Tom, are only doing because it fits your worldview. Single out Kamala Harris because it fits your worldview, not the left. Sorry. Yeah.

Okay, that's clear. Um, I think that that's, factually inaccurate. Uh, and I'll speedrun what has led me to this worldview because I do not care. I don't identify as being left or right. Uh, so I am perfectly happy. Anybody who will get into office that will actually make the changes that we need is going to get my vote. Yeah. Um, but here's why. When I look at people on the left, the things that I see them say, and if you see people that are making, um, fiscally responsible arguments, please surface them for me. But, what I see people doing is showing a distressing lack of the understanding of cause and effect in the economy. So you've got Mom Donnie and all the socialist [ __ ] that he says, which just from a physics of money standpoint is so broken and so terrifyingly wrong that he is guaranteed to, if he follows those policies. I'm obviously always hoping that he will wake up and realize that there's cause and effect, but, uh, if you follow those policies, which I bang that drum plenty, and if, Yeah, I, I kind of, I get the speedrun from that.

So, let me just tag in right there because this is something I don't push back on you a lot when you say, um, we both agree, I think, that we don't run a purely capitalist system in America. Yeah. So, we have socialism sometimes when it's convenient for the a greater a great amount of people. So sometimes we'll socialize losses for the banks because we know they're going to help this middle class get mortgages for houses and we justify it and we write it off. Sometimes we socialize things for the for, uh, for the automotive industry because this is a tier one pillar of America. If America can't manufacture, we're gone. Understand that we socialize losses for the military because it's national defense. When we need something, we create money for it and we are able to implement those policies. I think that the same way we are mostly capitalism, little bit of socialism over here is the same way that like a Mom Donnie character would be like, "I'm mostly socialism, but when I hit that lever, I'm going to have to add in a little bit of capitalism." And that goes back to the more oligarchal wing of the Democratic party. Yeah, give away people free Medicare, free Medicare because the far big pharma companies don't care because they know that that's going to be more money for my pocket. So I'll prop up that candidate because that's better for me, just like Lockheed Martin's going to prop up a poor war proar candidate. I think that when we get to certain checks and balances, I think the same, a little bit of socialism that the capitalism sprinkle, they don't think the socialisms are going to sprinkle a little bit of capitalism when they hit those rubs. They don't think that they're going to turn those levers, just like historically we have turned those levers. And that's why I think it's an unfair comparison because we're, we're allowing exceptions on this side, but we're acting like those exceptions never exist on this side.

Okay. Are you attempting to represent the flaw in my thinking or flaw in the left and the right? I'm going specifically to your thinking because you're saying Mimani is on a one-way track to socialism. There's going to be no other alternative method. There's going to be no alternative system methods he's going to utilize. It's going to be socialism or bust. And I'm saying, even the free market capitalists that we prop up, even the Reagans, there's a little bit of socialism in some of their positive. Right? But do you think I want to sprinkle the socialism on the capitalist side? No. But I think that the people that you say have a better grasp of the economy, they still sprinkle a little bit of socialism on the capitalism side.

Okay. So, um, that's very fair. That that is actively what's happening in terms of their running unbalanced budgets that they will money print, that they will cover. I mean, Trump went crazy during COVID. So, for sure. Big beautiful bill, and even the estimated 200 billion for this war. We ain't have it, but it's going to be drummed up. Yes. But I think with socialism, you really have to begin teasing out what are the mechanisms that they're trying to do. So the thing that people can, if you're going to rage against Trump's economic policies, the economic policies, forget for a second the, uh, what he's doing in Iran that is causing an inflation-like, um, reaction, but he's trying to lower taxes to spur growth. M. And so you can certainly make the argument that, hey, you're lowering taxes and therefore you're still operating at a deficit and therefore you're going to money print and therefore you're going to do the ultimate evil, which is inflation. That is absolutely true.

The thing that I will say on the right is that you have people like Massie, who are wearing a pin that counts the deficit. You've got Trump that understands that we have to grow our way out of this or this is going to be a problem. So you at least have people that are, uh, call it dumb and absolutely ruining the company, the country, but they they understand what actually has to be done. Whether they can do it or not is a totally different thing. And I say the left has like John Fetterman, who goes on the right sometimes, who says, "Not every trans person needs to be in the bathroom." Like, he fights all those quote unquote lunatic far-left policies. Let me see if I can.

Um, are you saying that on the right, we have very few people that are actually trying to grow our way out of this, and it's basically just socialists as far as the I can see on the right and the left? No, I think that was a radicalization of the opinion. And I didn't say that there were socialists on them. Well, but you stopped me to say, well, you're naming Massie. It's like, Massie is somebody on the right. I also named Trump, and I could have talked about Bess, and I could talk about your commerce secretary, like, there, I could talk about Sachs. Like, there's a gazillion people that I can talk about on the right in their cabinet that actually have economic literacy.

But it felt important to you to say that, well, there's John Fetterman over here. So, I'm trying to figure out if you thought that I was giving you an exhaustive list of the people on the right that are economically literate. You named the president and his cabinet and a and a senator. And I'm saying, "Okay, well, I can name you like a presidential candidate and his senate senate counterpart on the left who are doing." Okay. So, I'll ask it again. Are you saying that the left and the right are equally socialist? I think that the left and the right are equally attracted to one system, but will turn the levers of other system when it justifies their interest. Cuz to say that they're equally socialist to me is is not the same, but they both have both capitalist mechanisms and socialism mechanisms that they use depending on their.

Are you saying that the left and the right are going to take us to the same end point? Off a cliff? Yes. Physically, yes. Okay. So for you, there's left and the right economically doesn't matter. It's six of one, half dozen of the other. Yeah. Okay. Um, and to understand your argument the best is to understand that the left will sprinkle a little bit of capitalism when needed. Let's put that in quotes. And the right will sprinkle a little bit of socialism when needed. Yes. Okay. Um, and so you feel that I'm doing some injustice. Okay, cuz we got here by saying, um, the right is trying to grow its way out of a problem. The left is just economically illiterate. Put them in rice. And I'm saying, well, you can criticize the left for their response of cozying up to socialism, which is equaling the economic illiteracy. And I'm saying, we're saying this without just without acknowledging on the right, they also have some economic illiteracy principles, but we just justify it in a different way. So we don't bring that up. Uh, that is very helpful to understand that's what you see. That is not where I'm at. So, um, I'll keep pushing in. Let's find the next area where you feel like I'm being unfair or I've not articulated my stance.

Uh, okay. So on the right, you have an orientation towards growth, economic growth. Do we agree on that or no? I think both people want growth economically. So, I think comparing the, you're going to have to make a case for that. That seems so obviously false, 'cause you're comparing intent versus actions, and then you're comparing actions versus intent. And I think we should start with intent. So, I think, well, start, start with intent is great. So, you're telling me that the left, their intention, let's grow economically, not let's capture as much money from people via tax as humanly possible, in order to grow the middle and working class. That's not how growth works. But it's, it's a redistribution of assets. Correct. That's not how growth works.

So, you're redistributing. These are fundamentally different things. Okay. So let's just lay it out then. So on the left, we want to redistribute assets from the from the wealthy class. Redistribution on the left, to the working and the lower class. The redistribution on the right is away from the government into the, I'm going to call it the landlord class, the ruling class. They're the only generate money. So you're not distributing money from the government. The government only seizes money from the people. Let's just be very clear about. Money that was, I'm going to say, entitled to the government. It's not entitled to the government. This is the very difference since what you and I have started, what we've started down the path of trying to do is delineate why I would say that, hey, these guys have a different orientation than these guys. And you're basically saying they don't have a different orientation, they're doing the same thing, but would one does it. Point where, and what I'm saying is that is not true. And that fundamentally we have to tease out where the, let's call corruption, that's an easy way to say it, where the corruption is that they share. Okay, what corruptions they have that are different, and then what orientations that they have that are different, if any. And I'm saying their orientations are so [ __ ] different that that's why I keep saying, "Okay, we've got to look at these orientations." Ask very specific questions of our candidates to understand where they're headed. Because a Democrat like, um, Clinton was awesome. Fully supported, was amazing. It was great to live through. The economic results were wonderful. So to me, this is about orientation and economic policy. My read of what's happening right now is that the left is going more towards redistribution. And the right is, if you want to make the claim about where they're going, pathological is that right now under Trump, they will continue to spend any amount of money that they have to spend to be dominant on the world stage, and they're just being completely blind to the dangers. Let's go to actions, 'cause on the left, we have risk redistribution if everything eliminates.

Well, hold on, 'cause you said we needed to talk about intention, and now as I'm talking about intention, we're going back to actions. No, because because on the right side, you're saying this. I'm, I'm going to articulate your point. On the right side, you're saying they are so busy on growth, that's where their focus is. How do you get to growth? What what policies did they enact to get to growth? Redistribution. The big beautiful bill. It's not redistribution. So what they're, I'm changing the tax policy. So how the how the how the budget was set up, I am now changing that. So instead of you paying this to the government, you're now paying this to yourself, you're paying this to your corporations, you're paying this to the employee. On the left side, instead of you paying this to yourself, instead of paying this to your employee, you're paying this to the government. And the government's going to do this with.

Okay. Are you talking about deficit spending? I'm talking about the tax, the tax, uh, code. So when we're saying what is the intention, if Republicans want to in institute growth, what policy did you do to institute that growth? How did you get to the growth you want? Big beautiful bill that was Trump's. This is gonna spur growth. What that bill did, it lowered the corporate taxes. It made people. So, where your paycheck was going originally is now going in a different place. If the government, Oh, hold on. Hold on. Why do you say your paycheck is going to a different place? Because from, How is a tax cut, your paycheck going to a different place? Saying now we, um, have less money and so therefore your paycheck still has to go to a government, um, program. You, so how your paycheck was constructed.

I think here's the difference. You think that the government is entitled to that money, and I do not. I'm not, I don't, it's not that I think they're entitled to it or not. What I'm saying is like, when the, Here's just so that you can understand how I think through this. When the government taxes you less, they are stealing less of your money. So every time a government taxes you, they're stealing you. That's that's a base assumption. Now, you, not a base assumption. That's the reality. No, but I'm asking, you can say, hey, I want certain things to be paid for and so I'm going to contribute to this willingly. Yes. We have gotten to the point where that's not what we do because we run deficits.

Okay, let's take, let's take a step back though, 'cause we're already two points up of the main point. Base assumption. If a government taxes you, they're stealing your money. Since when did government taxes get enacted? 1913. Want to go further than that? Income tax was 1913. 1913. Since 1913, we have been stolen from, and we agreed to the social contract being stolen from. A lot longer than that, but sure. Okay. So, if we want to, So, government getting taxing you stealing your money. Okay. But since 1913, we said it's okay to steal our money. So, us rehashing that. Sure. Uh, so I feel like things are getting very muddled right now.

Okay. I'm trying to make sure that we define very clearly what we're arguing against. We can go intent, and I think the intent on the left is redistribution. The intent on the right is growth. I think that the way they're each going about it is pathological. So I don't think that the right is growing well, certainly not right now. Look at the results. But you said you wanted to talk about intent. So that would be in the world's most simple, oversimplified, but so that we can talk about it. If you don't think that the left is redistributive, then we should argue that. If you don't think that the right is oriented towards growth, then we should argue that. But we we need like firm things that we can hold on to and say, "Okay, it's oversimplified for the sake of discussion, but here's where we're at."

Okay. So let's leave those two things on the table. Redistribution and growth. Perfect. How do we enact those things? So the first thing when a left person comes into party, let's say they had the same, uh, Senate, House, and, uh, party that, uh, control that Trump has currently, they would enact a legislation. Their this is their first order of business to change the things that I want. Trump's first order of business wasn't, "If you start a business, you get $1,000 back." It wasn't, "If your business hits a billion dollars, you don't have to pay taxes anymore." It was the big beautiful bill, a tax cut. So when you get your paycheck, that's already an unfair characterization. So the biggest, the most important thing that Trump would need to do right now is make sure that the American worker has bargaining power. To make sure that the American worker has bargaining power, you're going to need to start delobizing, which is exactly what he did to make sure that the, He did the big beautiful bill before that.

Um, so I'm looking right at the first thing he did. The big beautiful bill. I think means something different to you than it does to me. So the big beautiful bill is pathological because it is not a balanced budget. Therefore, it is unhinged and wildly problematic. However, and it got signed in. So that's why I want to talk about it's, Okay. I'm just, we started at the very beginning. Intent, intent. Cool. I, I can see on that. What's your first action you did now that you got the power? And I'm trying to compare those two things and we're not. I think you're misreading the situation. So, let's, You've got, Mhm. Redistribution on the left. You've got growth on the right. Yes. You just made, I, I said yes to that already. I think we're rehashing that again. But yes, but now you're saying that the big beautiful bill wasn't oriented towards growth, which seems patently untrue. The big beautiful bill is pathological, and I hate it, but it is oriented poorly. It's not going to execute well because it steals via inflation, but it is designed based on very classic efforts to grow, to lower taxes, which does have a stimulatory effect because now companies have more money that they can invest in their companies, and that is likely to bring jobs. Which is why then I said, well, if you want to talk about that, the most important thing that Trump has done in terms of classic, make sure that there are more jobs and make sure that the American worker, which is something nobody talks about why American workers cannot keep their wages going with inflation. And the reason that they can't is because the budget is unbalanced and because, Globalizing is probably a bigger, more important part.

Okay, hey, but you're not arguing these points. I'm not arguing these points 'cause you're already two levels down of the first thing. So again, I'm, What do you think I'm missing? Legislation. And the reason I'm I'm harping over legislation is because, Be specific. What, in legislation? So the first act you have free reign. Everybody gets one big, every president gets one big move. Obama's one big move was the, Stop at big beautiful bill. But what is it about the big beautiful bill isn't oriented towards growth? It's the way that it's not, it's not set up for incentives of growth. It's set up to take money away from the government class back into the people, back into the, uh, ruling classes. That's how you grow. And that's an assumption. That isn't an assumption. That's, God knows how many hundreds of years of economic, we can pull up. Here's the great news. Now we have data. The point of disagreement. We have data. So you're saying that giving the money to the government that grows, but giving the money to businesses in the form of just not taking their money does not grow. That is the argument that is now being set up from the left and the right.

But that is that what you're saying? Yes. And I'm saying that right now on the left, on the left, it's, if you leave that money into the government, we're able to now socialize all these things so that way you'll get those resources and you don't have to pay for it. On the right, they're saying, we're not going to give you everything. We're going to push the money back down. But what has happened historically when corporations get that tax break, they do well, but they don't pass the wages down. Wages don't increase. They don't pass, they don't hire more people, and those things that the trickle down doesn't actually trickle down. So when I say red, when I say economy grows, when I say redistribution, let's get to there, 'cause but we keep going around the thing. I understand how to articulate how, you think I'm going around, 'cause we're, we're not talking about the actual point of what the second order consequences of this legislation is. 'Cause what I'm saying is on the left and the right, it's both redistribution, but the redistribution just looks differently. And that's what I'm saying. And that's the part where it's not left and right. This guy's a socialist, this guy. They're both redistributing. They're just redistributing a different point I'm trying to make.

Here's where you've, I think you've made your point very well. What I'm saying is you're wrong. Okay. So, I'm trying to make sure that you feel understood. Yeah. But that you don't think I'm confused so that we can argue the points where it breaks down. Okay. So then you're saying then if the, if corporations had more money and we invested in them, they would then make the wages go up. I don't like the way you say corporations had more money. That that feels like how would you like to, you've got over here, redistribution is how economies break. This is like, if you want to destroy a country, go socialist, go communist. You will destroy it and it it will be, uh, economic hardship for everybody. The way that you grow an economy is via innovation.

So the part that I worry is getting lost is that the only, the only reason that a GDP gets bigger is because you are more efficient per hour of output of the people working in the system. Mhm. And so how do you think that happens? How does a worker in the system become more efficient? Yes. When you create efficiencies, when you create innovations, when you, uh, And do you do that by taxing the companies more? No, but you do that by government incentives in different places. Why? Why? Why does that become, Because Tesla was created out of government, was created out of government incentives. And often times those incentives are tax breaks. So the thing that I can't figure out is why in the big beautiful bill, the tax breaks that they're proposing, which are classic ways of making sure I can I can articulate this specifically. So on when Obama was in office, Howard, for example, he had EV tax breaks. So there was three different levels of this. On the solar panel, he completely struck out. He wanted an American solar panel to buy it. China just did it cheaper, easier. They scaled it better than him. He tried. A bunch of solar companies came and they died. That was a L. Okay. Windmill company. Second thing, we got a couple windmills company. It was 50/50. The juice wasn't worth the the squeeze. We could get them built up, but the amount of electricity they generated, it was a 30, um, a 30-year break even and it wasn't worth it. But on EVs, he knocked it out of the park. American manufacturing, if you are able to manufacture your car with an electric battery, you are then able to get an incentive tax break. The incentive tax break was then passed on to people. EV market exploded in the US, and that's the first time companies like Tesla, but there was also 17 more spawned up. The best ones rose to the top. The better, the not the not capitalist succeeding ones fell off. What is the mechanism that you see at work there? That was incentives to go into a certain area and, What was the incentive? It was tax breaks and it was government, uh, subsidies. On those, those two things. Now let's go back to the big beautiful bill.

Big beautiful bill is not saying that all corporate taxes who then spur this type of, uh, investment get bricks. Trump did something correct with the Trump accounts with the, uh, kids. That's a that's a win. The no car interest. That's not growth. So I want to make sure that we, I love that as well. That's protection against inflation. That isn't growing the economy. What I want to focus on is, I am, I'm making one simple argument. Redistribution is death. Growth when done well is the path forward.

Describe growth in one sentence so I can understand what it is. That you unburden private industry so that it may act selfishly and generate more revenue. When we have done that historically, has that led to a increased GDP number, increased employment, and increased wages? Yes, without question. In fact, I think I have pull up there's a thing that I put in there about capitalism and how capitalism as it goes up, uh, people just get yanked out of poverty.

Um, okay. I, I find that to be the exact opposite because if we go from the 70s and trace it back to, You think capitalism causes poverty? I don't think capitalism causes poverty. I think that we need to stop those one sentence. Uh, gotcha. Uh, I'm trying to like, just simplify so we, 'cause you said, uh, when you incentivize corporations, you give them, you unburden them. You minimize taxes, that that leads to increased GDP, increased wages, and increased employment numbers. It does. And what I'm saying is the same thing has that was the assumption in the 70s, and that was the basis for trickle down economics. We thought if we unburdened all these corporations, it was then going to bleed down to the, uh, middle class. That trickle never happened. The excess profits that the corporations got, they went into stock buybacks. They didn't go into people. The excessive, uh, GDP that was growing created the K-shaped economy, 'cause all these people up here are making it and they're doing the growth, but these bottom people got kind of got, and wages are now stagnant. You started with a really important delineation, and, um, we have somehow drifted away from this. Okay. And that was that we aren't living in a truly capitalist society. Agreed. What I'm trying to put on the table is all of those distortions, those are the veer towards the redistributive. So it is, so the things that were making things bad are the socialists of it, the capitalist of the things making, Aggressively accurate.

That, that we have hundreds of years of economic data. I'm, I'm not arguing that. I think that the interesting part of this is, Isn't that the exact thing you are arguing? Because I'm going to say it in one sentence because I feel like we need to, we need to do bumper stickers. When we have a break in the system, a lot of times we want to put a capitalist band-aid on it. Depending on who is the break in that system, that band-aid then gets rebranded. It got rebranded to communism during the TSMC when Intel was like, Intel was about to die. We're going to take over your chips and we're going to invest in that. That was a communism style practice specifically for chips. But it was okay because we needed it. It was a national resource. All these other things. We own them. We own the means of production, officially. Officially. So, okay. But when it came to the bailouts, 2000s, 2008, COVID, we put on a socialism band-aid. We need to figure that out. We need to socialism our way out of that stuff. Yes. So, now we for different parts in the system when we have these different bumps, we have band-aids that we pull out in different ways. And all I am saying is the same way that we see the left right now saying we need a socialism band-aid for this one thing, we're going to keep capitalism in the other places, just like what China's doing. I think on the right it's like, see these guys want it to be socialism or death. We want to speedrun. Yes, Assan wants to speedrun it. But there's also Steve Bannon who wants to go back to Project 2025. And I don't, 'cause I don't put Trump at Steve Bannon in the same ecosystem. There are people who are far, far right. There are people who are far, far left. And I don't, do I don't think it's a disservice to pick the leftest person and throw them at you or the rightest person and throw them at you to to you know, disprove your point.

Hold on. So none of that would disprove my point. So the great news is I'm just trying to map cause and effect. Yeah. So if what you're bothered by is that when I look at the situation, I map this as, um, the left has a more terrifying orientation. The right, which is fumbling the ball about as hard as you can right now, has a less terrifying orientation. The thing that we share a concern about, which we're not talking about, which I feel like you're trying to blame on capitalism, which is very jarring for me, given how much time we've spent together, um, is the thing that's broken in the economy right now is deficit spending and money printing. Period. Yeah. So when you look at where is the right going wrong, it is that they have gotten very comfortable with big government, money printing, deficit spending, all of that. And so that is going to hollow out the middle class.

So it, I'm not even, I think it is morally wrong, but I don't even need people on board with deficit spending is morally wrong. I just need them to look at the cause and effect. That when you take from people, don't let them be in control, then the economy gets worse. And whatever mechanism you use to do that, you are going to suck the energy out of the, uh, economy, and so you're going to create a problem. And what I see on the left is somebody who thinks sucking the energy out of the economy is a good thing. On the right, it is a means to an end. And so they're both pathological. They are both terrible. Republicans have their vacuum on for a little bit, but they're going to turn it off. And you think the Democrats are going to have their vacuum.

On 24/7, non-stop, to get to eventually. If the Democrats, when they're going to take 80% of your paycheck, and they're not going to stop at just a 50.

"That's the assumption." "I'm not." "No." So my assumption is that the right, right now, will leave the vacuum cleaner on forever. And the thing that scares me to death when I think about, um, trying to contribute meaningfully in some way to pulling us out of this, is getting people to understand, whether the politician is on the left or the right, if they're going to leave the budget unbalanced, they are the problem.

Now, I'm so full stop. Now, I'm speaking to the ideas of what is the orientation to the active left and right, where they're trying to get to. And I'll say this, and maybe this will clear things up. Um, do we agree that the spiritual center of the left, and maybe we don't, and this is the derail, but do you agree that the spiritual center of the left wants equal outcomes for everybody?

"Yes, I'll give that to you." "Okay." "Yeah." That to me is eat your babies. And I don't mean that as a joke. So you can understand, even though you don't agree with me, maybe you can understand why I'm going to reject that outright. So history has run that experiment a thousand times, because that's 100% socialism, 100% communism.

Now, on the right, even though they're pathological and doing a bunch of dumb [ __ ] do you think they would be mad if we grew our way out of the debt and we didn't need to deficit spend anymore and the um stock market was [ __ ]? Bear with me, please, because I, I just need to know if "I, I can give you the one sentence I would give for the right." But do, do you agree that they would want that?

"No, because I think what the left." "I think what the right." So that's where we disagree. I think where the right actually wants is individual, individual outcomes. So on the left, it's equality of outcomes. Left, it's the ball's on your court. There's no doctor. There's no school. None of that. You're on your own.

"I don't know that anybody on the right is saying that." Maybe right now, they're just vetoing property taxes. How do you pay for your local services? Property taxes. So "that's how it's paid for now." There's certainly a big argument to be had there. But I just want to get to, if we grew our way out of the debt and the stock market was ripping and roaring. Do you think that the right, because there would be very unequal outcomes?

"But, but think, but think how you, how you." Bear with me. I can't get an answer on this side. And I don't "I said no already." "I said no already because." So they wouldn't be happy with that?

Because this is the thing. Would the left be happy if everybody can afford a house and that house could be a $60,000 house in Louisiana? Not everybody's getting a downtown penthouse. Would they be happy if everybody can afford a house and have medical insurance? Yes, the left would be happy, right? But they, but they wouldn't be happy.

But you said equity of outcome. You didn't list the, the things. So, and then on the right, you didn't say. "Time out. But that." On the left, you said, would everybody be happy with equity of outcome? "Yes." On the right, would you be happy with everybody being individually responsible for their in things? I think that's the equivalent.

"Okay. So, you'll agree to those two things." Jeez. Great. "That's it. Thank you." "Wonderful." "Thank you." Okay. So, now we can talk. Now we can go second level with amazing.

"Mhm." Are you saying to you, these are, um, you think that the left makes sense? So that the, "but everybody can afford a $60,000 house." Equity of outcome versus individual results may vary. I think that's the right and the left.

"Okay, perfect. Love that. Now, are you saying that the left idea is good and the right idea is bad?" "Um, I, I, I don't think there's good or bad." I think it draws through the heart of every human man. But this is the, this is the conversation. This is the level of the conversation I want to have the debate on because I think in certain things, individual sovereignty is absolutely important and the government should stay out of your business. And I think for everything, there should be equity of outcome. So I think when it comes to medical, it should be equity of outcome. Everybody should be able to see a doctor. It's going to suck and it's going to be expensive and it's going to be disrespectful and some people are going to have to hurt on their profits and that's whack. That's terrible. At the same time, though, if you didn't get up and go to school, I don't, you don't deserve a college degree. You don't deserve an $80,000 job. Some people are going to be homeless and that's going to suck and it's not going to be nice and that's going to be. So I think that there should be equity of outcomes in certain situations in the society and I think that there should be individual sovereignty on a vast majority of things in society.

Okay. And I think "I love that you and I are very, very similar in that." Now, where I think we break down is that if you, to get equal outcomes, "do you agree that at some point you must do so by force?" "No." "Really?" "Yeah." "How do you get an equal outcome without force?" "You get an equal outcome by one, limiting your entrance." So, what do you want to have limited equal outcome on?

So, here's the thing that you all have to contend with. Do you agree that once you have a sufficiently large group of people, that there will be dissenting voices? People who disagree with you. "Yeah." "Yeah." How do you deal with the dissenting voices? "Debate, and then if you win, you win them and the policy gets changed." But let's say that you lose, but you still dissent. "Then I, I dissented against Donald Trump. You still got elected and that's still my president. I, I'm pouting about it, but he still won." Now imagine that you actually did something about it and you decided that you weren't going to pay your taxes. "Then I'll go to jail." "Correct. That's force." So I'm saying. "You don't agree that's force." "Hold on. So people, but that's true now." "Yes." "What?" "So what did we just accomplish in this?"

So Drew, what I'm trying to get you to understand is that the reason that the equal outcomes never works is people will not, never the reason that you end up with a problem over there is that must be enacted by force. So if you get to the point where you say, "Okay, what we're going to do, we're all going to come together, we're going to fund the government and these are going to be the things that we pay for. Great. You're going to have winners and losers, but you can decide whether you want to stay in the country or not." Yes. What ends up happening is that as you ratchet that up and you start confiscating the means of production, you start trying.

But before, before we get to that point, it's, you know how when we talked about the left and the right and we said the, would the right be mad if they got the increase stock market and all that as opposed to saying individual sovereignty? I think we're doing that again where we're now speaking on different levels of the argument. So equal outcome.

"I don't think we're speaking on different levels of the argument." The, how my mind works then, it, it's I categorize. The way the way that the government works is we all come together as weak people and we say that we're going to agree that some things are going to be paid for. We're going to put into a system where you're able to, um, pay a certain amount of tax. You're going to vote. You're going to be able to somewhat influence your destiny. And then the things that we pay for, we agree on. Where it starts to break down is where you do that via theft, which is inflation, which is what's happening now. So the things you're not able to vote for.

And so we just, in 1913, we enacted the, um, central banks. We agreed earlier that this is the beginning of all the problems. Now, what we're putting is, if we were in a situation where we had a balanced budget, then what you're talking about makes sense to me because you can say that we want equal outcomes and everybody gets to vote for the things that you want to pay for, and the budget has to be balanced. But when you want equal outcomes and you're stealing people's money to get it, then you will realize some people are going to say, "Hold on a second. That's not fair. You're taking from me in order to give to these people, but I'm over here winning and now you're giving to all the people that are losing." So, I'm just saying, I love what you're putting forward. When you put it forward in the abstract, that we want personal responsibility on most things, but hey, there's some things that we're going to come together as a society, vote for, and say, "We just, we can't tolerate this. We don't want to see people not able to get medical attention." And as I have said many, many times, a society can have anything they want. They're just not going to be able to have everything. And so, at some point, you have to prioritize. What I'm saying is the thing that doesn't happen is we don't do that. And we say we're going to get everything and we're going to do it through inflation. And so then I go to, okay, if you're stealing my money, you're pathological. Now I just want to map whose orientation is stealing my money is good and whose orientation is, ah, we want to grow and get to the other side. Now I get it. They, right now, they are both distressing, but one ideology. I'll say it another way.

"Mhm." The right needs to immediately start getting rid of the, um, socialist policies. Full stop. And the left needs to enact more capitalism in their, uh, future plans of. "Yeah. They need to come back to the middle." That would be perfect. But there's still something in your, I can see it in the, like, smile on your face.

"I was literally about to say, go to the wide so we can shake hands. I feel like we landed the plane." "We so." "I thought, I thought so." "What would you say is, do you think that I have had an epiphany in this conversation?" "No, but I think we clarified our base assumptions and then we also listed where do we think each of the sides come through." Holy crap, we got nine super chats. Yeah, we've been, we've been talking about this for an hour. Bear with me. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I got to try for the health of our relationship, if nothing else.

"Oh, yeah." So I want to understand. So if, you know, I haven't had an epiphany in this conversation. I don't think you've had an epiphany in this conversation. "I think I had an epiphany." Okay. Because I think what happened was we went from, we were back and forth from ought and is. So I think when we were talking about what the economy is and then we were laying points at that and then we went into the alt of it all and then we were then having conversations about the and is because when it's, if we went to the, um, how it ought to be, we would already have a balanced budget. We would already stop be, uh, there would be no inflation. We would stop money printing. This conversation is much different when we're $40 trillion in debt.

So that's why I think that was the way we kind of crossed paths. And the second thing that was important to me was talking the fundamentals at the beginning. So individual sovereignty versus equity of outcome. Then we can argue the policies all day of how we get to that. But I didn't want it to be equity of outcome, stock market growth, because that's not apples and apples. My comparison, it's the individual sovereignty, equal outcomes, and then how we execute those things is a whole another thing.

"I'm going to go to a meta conversation about your and my relationship." "Yeah." "Um, we've had these conversations before, which, every now and then, as a producer, you allow it to happen. Uh, which I love them, as they are incredibly enlightening to me as to where we stand." "Um, I see you as an avatar for an incredibly smart, incredibly well-intentioned person who views the economy very differently than I do. And that always makes me a little bit tense. And we, uh, reason being that you and I are here often. You hear the things that I say. You have opportunities to argue. And when you allow yourself unfettered, um, ability to argue, there is this sense that I get that there's a lot you leave unsaid in a lot of shows, which is very generous of you as a producer to keep the focus of the show." [ __ ] kudos. Um, but the show is only interesting to me in as much as it may actually be able to enact change. And so we keep coming to this impass where there is a sense that you think I'm confused. And that's where I always get.

"Let me, okay, let me rephrase that. I don't think that you're confused. I think that we have, we talk in segments a lot. And I'm using the word segment specifically because we don't look at the entire body. We talk about the digit of the left finger or digit of the left hand. We talk about the right kneecap. We talk about the neck." "I talk about cause and effect all the time." "But it's, it's specific layers of the economy. So, okay, your neck is swollen. Is because you have inflation that has all attacked this one right, uh, this part of the right side of your neck. It is now causing the local red, uh, blood cells to react. But then if we take a zoom like step back, it's still what you're eating. It's a big, there's a lot of things that go into that specific ailment that we're talking about." "Yes." "So I use that symbolism to say that when we talk about the war and the economy through the war, it's much, it's different than talking about the economy as a philosophical." "40,000 foot level of it." "Yes. But let's go back to where we started. So."

I wanted to play a clip of, we did play a clip of Kamala Harris at my request, where she shows what I think is a systemic problem on the left. And the argument spiraled from that, which is you don't believe that there is a systemic problem there. I can feel now, we'll loop and this will end up being bad TV. So I'm going to put a pin there. But you feel a sense of reconciliation that I do not share. And I feel that this is one of those times where if, if you and I were a married couple right now, I'd be like, we got to go another hour or two hours on this because the, um, I don't want to sweep anything under the rug, which we were going to do for bad TV reasons. Um, but I worry that sometimes you and I represent the middle-ish, uh, people, and yet the divide that we still have. So anyway, I'll leave it there. Um, but I'm always grateful to you for.

"Tom, I, I, I want you to know like, people think like I get mad or I get like I have real [ __ ] to worry about. So of polit, like a political conversation about the, like about the alts of America is not something that's going to keep me up at night. So I, I didn't internalize this. I don't any type of way. I don't take it personal. I don't think those are shots about me or anything." "I didn't read you in that way at all. To me, this is a, a very big problem that the world is facing and we are careening towards a real problem that maybe I'm internalizing too much. But, um, yeah, I, I think that we have."

Honestly, we, like, it's interesting that we got here because we were about to talk about the revolution, people burning down warehouses and stuff like that. And I think that "your response was probably going to be into economic problems." So I feel, "I thought it was going to be that's what I mean. I thought we were going to transition into that conversation. Then we hit a bunch of fractals. We didn't even get there yet."

This is, I can't believe what time it is. That was a wild. "That's what I mean. I looked at like, oh snap. The whole show is gone." Uh, time flies when you're having fun, man. Time flies. Time flies when you're having fun. So. "Very true." "Uh, it's, I do want to just at least give you the moment to talk about the revolution thing and like bring those two together because I thought I was playing producer like, 'Okay, I'm going to bring it back this way.' And then we got caught up in the wrong and I didn't climb myself out."

"Did we get caught up in the wrong? I don't know. I think that was, um." "I appreciated it though." "Yeah." "Yeah." "Yeah. I think what just happened is indicative of where we are as a country. Even as you march back towards the middle, um, I think it is interesting that all of us, hopefully all of us, map a sense of cause of logic and so we think that we are right. Hopefully we are all open-minded and willing to change. Okay, having said all that, uh, the question of whether or not this is a class uprising, I think is a very interesting question that is going to be ferociously debated. Um, when you look at all the violence that we're seeing in the last two weeks, someone threw a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's San Francisco home. Days later, two more people were arrested near his house after shots were fired in the neighborhood. An Indianapolis city council, uh, man who voted for a data center had 13 bullets fired into his front door. A note was left on the porch that said, 'No data centers.' And before all of that, a 29-year-old worker, warehouse worker named, uh, Kamal, uh, Abdul Karim, burned a 1.2 million square foot distribution center to the ground and then uploaded a video of himself saying that if they were just paying a living wage, that the warehouse wouldn't have burned down. Now, nobody knows if all of these incidents are actually connected, but there is a crazy pattern that is starting to be very difficult to ignore. Luigi Manioni, uh, who shot the health insurance CEO in cold blood on a Manhattan sidewalk. Uh, his legal defense fund has raised nearly a million dollars from 30,000 donors. The guy that burned down the warehouse said that he saw parallels between himself and Manioni. Roughly half of American college students sympathize with Manioni more than the man that he killed. Social media says that we're watching the beginning of a class uprising, and these kind of things have happened historically. Uh, if you guys know, part of why Teddy Roosevelt ended up on, uh, Mount Rushmore was he was the guy that saw us through the sort of last round of all of this stuff. And the thing that worries me is the arguments that are being put forward right now are to rerun what we did with Teddy Roosevelt. And so part of, um, the reason that I wanted to spend so much time with Drew in that conversation is that that people are putting forward yesterday's solution to a totally different problem today. And the truth is that the anger that people feel is completely justified. Completely justified. The system is rigged. It is rigged against you. Uh, it is as problematic as people think. Since 1979, American worker productivity grew by 80.9% while wages only grew by 29.4%. The top 1% now hold as much wealth as the bottom 90% combined. For six straight years through 2025, the bottom 80% of earners failed to keep up with inflation, specifically on the things that matter. Housing, grocery, energy, healthcare. These are the things that you can't cut without real consequences. And when you're spending 65% of your take-home pay on rent, people are going to go berserk. But what concerns me is that people are not mapping the cause and effect. And if people were beating the drum about inflation and money printing, then I would have hope for the future. But we are not. We are beating the drum about greedy corporations and billionaires. And that is to fundamentally miss the connective tissue of how we have ended up here. That was what was happening back in Teddy Roosevelt's day. And that's why the things that he enacted actually worked. He broke up the monopolies. He made sure that worker, um, like 40-hour weeks and making sure that they weren't being abused by a system that had virtually no visibility. That's what you had to do back then, for sure. But now people are fighting back against billionaires as, as if the way that billionaires are getting rich isn't through inflation. And that's the thing that people do not understand. Owning assets right now is the great protective mechanism because the system is so rigged. And here's the hard thing that people like Manioni are learning right now. The real wealth is in the middle class and the upper middle class. That's where all the money is stored. It's not with the billionaires. And so the great irony of watching someone like Hassan, [ __ ], talk about taxing people to death or somebody like, um, oh, the guy from Connecticut, Bernie Sanders, talking about taxing people to death is you will notice Bernie Sanders used to bang on about millionaires and billionaires are the problem. Millionaires and billionaires. Ever wonder why now he only says billionaires? Because he himself is a millionaire. So what ends up happening is people realize that, oh, wait a second, not only when we try to tax the billionaires, does it not work because they will leave. They will, um, stop producing, which is by far the worst. They will hire accountants and professionals to help them avoid the tax. But no matter what you do, short of showing up with weapons to confiscate their wealth, you don't end up getting more money. Look up the Laffer Curve. There is just a reality to be faced that there's only so much money that you're going to get through tax. And by the way, and I just cannot stress this enough, if you have an unbalanced budget, no matter how much you tax people, it isn't going to work. For every dollar that we have taken in in tax revenue since 2019, the government has spent, it's like a $1.58. It's, if that isn't exactly the number, it's right around there. So, you will never solve this problem by taxing people more until you balance the budget. And no matter how many times I say that, it just, that's never the argument. What ends up being the argument is that people burn buildings by throwing Molotov cocktails and ultimately they're aiming at the wrong target. And if we could get people to understand that killing an insurance executive or burning a warehouse, uh, to the ground, going after AI CEOs, this isn't going to solve the problem. They are operating inside of a machine that they didn't build. The machine was built in 1913. And if you want to know who to be angry at, be angry at central bankers and politicians that keep voting for it to exist. The machine right now is a $2 trillion annual deficit machine that turns the gap between what you earn and what you owe into somebody else's asset appreciation. That deficit is the thing that's driving the K-shaped economy. People think that they're stealing money. They're not stealing money. And I'm not asking you, well, money is being stolen, but that is a whole different thing. Fraud in the government is just going to be horrifying. But when you're mad at a billionaire whose net worth just keeps going up and up and up because they own assets, you have to ask, why are those assets going up and up and up? Because money is being stolen from the middle class. It is being stolen from workers, but it's being stolen through inflation. So that's the thing that we have to get everybody to focus on. And yet, every major period of extreme inequality in recorded history has ended in one of two ways: structural reform or mass violence. So the question becomes, what's the structural reform that would work right now? And the structural reform that I'm rebelling against, and this is one of those moments where I feel bad about Drew because his face is drug all up in this [ __ ] show. And yet, as a producer, he is generous of spirit and allows me to say my thing. But the reality is, I believe that the things the left wants, the vision that they have for the future is the thing that's going to lead to increased violence is going to be problematic. Now, the left or the right is [ __ ] up so much right now that honestly, it's a throw them both in the trash and just look for a candidate that will speak to one very simple thing: the understanding of the connection between deficit spending, inflation, and the growing K-shaped economy. Because anybody that bangs the drum about taxing billionaires more does not understand the actual math. And the violence historically never fixes that math. It just makes things so painful that everyone is finally willing to accept the cause and effect of austerity, balancing the budget, making sure that we're not inflating people into madness. So the anger is right. I understand emotionally why people are so outraged that they would do the things that they're doing, but the mechanism that they are calling for will make it worse, not better. And if the people who are mad are never able to map that difference, then the rage is only going to bring more suffering, not less. Teddy Roosevelt understood the mechanism of his day and he addressed it. We have to understand the mechanism of our day, which again, is deficit spending and money printing that causes inflation in the K-shaped economy. That's the thing. And I, I am perfectly, I'm thrilled to vote for a Democrat if they are just gung-ho about, we've got to balance the budget. We've got to stop any policy that isn't economically viable. And so, yes, I'm going to continue to call out people that do things that don't make sense, like what Trump is doing now, and that say things that show that they don't understand the economy, like Kamala Harris's bumbling thing on the economy, or like one of Biden's senior economic advisorss who could not explain modern monetary theory. Because we all have to call out the things that don't make sense because whether it's fun to talk about the physics of the economy or not, we're all beholden to them.

I was going to ask, like, is this going to keep continuing? But I think from Manioni to the warehouse to now at Amazon warehouse to there was another fire in New York somewhere, it seemed like it's already escalating. Is this the pockets of violence part of the debt that you think we're, we're at now?

"Yes. Oh, for sure. And the AI of it all is just going to make things worse. So, people are, uh, understandably afraid of AI and so you put that on top of everything else that's going wrong. Yep. And you get what we're seeing now. Now, my hope is that it remains pockets of violence, that we pull our heads out of our asses, that we balance the budget, and we stop, uh, inflating people into oblivion. But, yeah, we'll see if we actually do it."

"Nice. Um, okay. We have a plethora of super chats and I feel like some of them have are going to be a longer conversation. So, let's jump into that."

"Yo, this show flew by. This is the fastest show we ever." Johannes Alcazar says on this topic, on anonymous Dutch immigrant wrote a whole constitution called Protocol 10 because of the unrealized gain tax protecting citizens from parliamentary overreach. Could be NL's Satoshi for laws.

"I'm sorry, that disappeared. Read that again. I can't find that." "Oh, uh, an anonymous. This is from. So, this was from last time. They sent it in when the show wrapped up." "Oh." "Got it, got it. I was like, I did not see that. My bad. Read." "Apologies. I forgot the context. But yeah, an anonymous Dutch, uh, immigrant wrote a whole constitution called Protocol 10 because of the unrealized gains tax protecting citizens from parliamentary overreach. Could be the NL's Satoshi for laws."

"Um, yeah. I mean, listen, the unrealized gains thing is, um, that that one is my like rational kryptonite. I, I just go absolutely nuclear every time that it's brought up because it is so destructive." "Are you team close the loopholes?" "I love it. Yeah. [ __ ] them. Make everybody pay tax. Yeah. Yeah. But just make that [ __ ] blanket." "Yeah. I think the capital unrealized capital gains is chasing like we're playing loophole whack-a-mole where if you just take the loopholes, you don't have to worry about the capital, like, yeah." "Trying to make these policies." "Yes. But the, the bad news is my personal thing that I just become unglued about is when people talk about these things without cause and effect and, when you say tax unrealized gains, like I can't tell if they're evil or they're dumb, but it is, it is one of those two." Suhib Shishi says with a $50 super chat says, "Hey, let's go with the $50 super chat. Appreciate you. Good morning. Happy Monday to you."

We often frame geopolitics strictly as empire economics, choke points, and reserve currency. If every state action reduces to financial survival, what is the moral break pedal? If any atrocity mathematically guarantees dominance, what says no? Thank you.

"Uh, well, it's very interesting. The thing that says no is the will of your own people internally. So the check on all of us is that we have an algorithm running in our brains placed there by evolution that says that you have to do something that contributes to the group, which gives us deep empathy. Now, in-group, out-group is also a very real thing, which will let you be homicidally murderous to somebody that you consider on the outside and you won't even think about it, which is [ __ ] wild, but nonetheless true of the human condition. Uh, and so countries have to put the brakes on themselves and eventually you get enough people that go, ah, yeah, I'm perfectly willing to be shot, tortured, killed, whatever, but I'm not going to remain silent. But oftentimes that will be a hundred plus years in the making because it's pretty bad and, uh, governments will be absolutely ruthless. Uh, and there are ways to get people to go along with some pretty ruthless [ __ ]. Look up the Mongols and what they did. Man, if you give enough spoils of war to your most murderous people, they'll stay murderous for a long time. And if you're making things good, uh, for your people by sending them the treasure of the people that you murder and slay and genocide out of existence, they'll rock with it because their life is great. Um, so that's just, uh, my favorite saying that you're arguing with God. I don't know why, um, that's how humans are, but that's how humans are. So waiting for those breaks to apply themselves is pretty terrifying."

April says, "Deep dive on silver. On January 30th, 2026, JP Morgan closed their short on silver at exact bottom. London Metal Exchange/LBMO glitched and went offline. COMEX raised margins 20%. Asian markets closed and new Fed chair announced silver 120 to 78."

"You know, it's interesting. So maybe, but the most interesting thing about that this weekend I had an epiphany as I was writing, um, another deep dive. I can't tell if it's a really small but vocal minority of people that want deep dives to merely be a, hey Tom, I, I don't quite know what this thing is, go explain it versus what I have been doing, which is this thing really matters to your life. You need to understand it. So here it is. Go check it out. Um, if it is just, oh, this thing is important and I want you to do the research and I want you to write about it. I don't want to have to do it. Just give me the, the cliff notes." "Um, that's a very fundamentally different way of approaching this. So, anyway, um, if on that side that ends up being what this is, then maybe, we'll see. We'll do some experiments and see if you guys respond."

Stephanie Burnbomb says, "I heard there's a tree in Ethiopia that provides perfume to the world. It's in danger. Is this important in all of this?" Haha. Uh, steady Eddie. Everyone knows an Eddie.

"I saw that one come through and I was like, 'Wait, what?' Uh, so I mean, I'll give you one man's take on this. So, the LA wildfires that burned so many homes in the Palisades was partly caused because there was a plant, uh, that they didn't want to go extinct. And I'm of the opinion that [ __ ] that plant. So, um, if there is a tree, like get its DNA, get some seeds, plant it somewhere safe, make sure that it won't go extinct, that if they have to be moved or killed for some reason, that we can replant. Um, but yes, I am of the opinion that if humans are doing something that is, um, as thoughtful as we can be, but ultimately protective of sensible human growth, to put some nice caveats in there, uh, I'm pro-human in that way. Also, shout out to Stephanie. She's always dropping super chats and like thanks on videos and stuff like that. Longtime supporter of the channel. We appreciate you, Stephanie." "Indeed."

Brutus Lugo says, "Tom, be for real. Who has historically been better for the economy on paper, the Democrats or the Republicans?"

"What do you mean on paper?" "Uh, I'm assuming because this came in during the debate. I'm assuming he's talking about like who actually balances the budget, who, you know, deficit spending things."

"Oh, great. So, god, Jesus Christ. So, Brutus, you've been here for way too [ __ ] long. Uh, so here is what I will say about me. I have a classically right-leaning mildly temperament. Meaning I air." "I don't even want to use the words Republican." "I, I believe zero." "That's hilarious. I believe evolution gave us something roughly akin to the left and the right. The left is to make sure that we have compassion, that we work well together as a group, and the right makes sure that we have personal responsibility, that we innovate, that we push things forward. So, I am, I would say, deeply compassionate. But if you want to know where I, when I look around the world and I think people are acting crazy, I'm more likely to look over here and be like, 'Hey, you need to carry your own weight. You need to get off your ass and like do your thing.' Because I believe that's the best for the individual soul. And I think when everybody does that, when everybody's like, I want to carry as much weight as I can. I want to get as strong as I can while still loving my fellow man, while still looking out for the tribe, all of that. That tends to be the contribution I'm going to make to the group. If you want to know where I am politically, I am not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat. I am cause and effect. I'm a cause-effectarian. So, whatever the [ __ ] that is, I'm going to go for whoever. If a communist rocks up and is like, 'Let me tell you how the economy works and we're just gonna [ __ ] do that, but they want to use the word communist, whatever.' If they're going off cause and effect and their policies are the thing that are going to make people's lives better, I'm here for that. You guys have heard me say over and over and over. My [ __ ] focus is a thriving middle class. I'm not in the middle class. So, the reason that I bang the drum for the middle class as hard as I do is that is what is good for all of us. I don't think anybody, even though some people may think they do, I don't think anybody wants to be in an ivory tower when the people at the bottom are trying to knock the [ __ ] ivory tower down. I think every great leader in history, including Genghis Khan, realized that you've got to like make sure that everybody's feeling good because if the average person isn't feeling good, you're going to find yourself dying by Molotov cocktail. So, I don't know what the [ __ ] people think comes on the other side of that. So, I don't give a [ __ ] about political parties. I care about cause and [ __ ] effect. And I don't know how many times I have to say that. So, if I'm going to vote for someone in every election, let's be very clear. I'm not going to do protest votes. I'm going to vote for the person who I think can actually win and who will do the least amount of damage if I'm forced to think between those two options. Or hopefully, praise Jesus, we have somebody that we actually have reason to believe is going to do something awesome. And if people confuse that for me being a team player, they're going to be routinely confused."

Lisa Contraas says, "I love the master class. Both of you debating a highly emotional topic with self-awareness, respect, and civility. It is such a hard thing to do. This is why the show is so valuable to me. Love you both."

"Thank you. That's very kind. Uh, all the flowers in the world for Drew. He got drugged into this." "All the flowers for Tom. Look at this guy. Come everybody. I do not love a faith like that. Come on." "It's true." "It's true. It's true. I want you to think about his job description had nothing to do with being on camera and taking the slings and arrows that come with it. So, shout out to my man."

Alien in my beverage says, "Tom, consider whether both sidesism is your temptation for first approximations. Trump getting benefit of the doubt, leftists less so, and until they are assumed equal problems as the basis for further approximation, economy then tiebreaker. If people, um, ever see me do something that is lacking cause and effect or something that I'm unaware of. So, for instance, Mandani is, uh, I know that I get, it's almost a like variant of porn for me where I know, oh my god, I'm going to get so outraged by this and I like rub my hands together and I'm ready to go. Uh, and so I know I'm at my most at risk when I'm talking about that. Um, so I try to be my most clear-eyed. I try to find the things that he's doing well. I try to find out, okay, if there's cause and effect here. Um, so if I'm not mapping things by cause and effect, definitely call me out. If I'm not able to explain why I think the way that I think, call me out. Um, but having a taking the time to map out what I think is happening on both sides does not strike me as silly or dumb. That feels like the right approach. I don't understand the both sides thing. If both sides really are making a mistake, then you should say both sides are making a mistake. If one side has a vision of the future that is fundamentally, um, impossible, I'm going to say that. So."

Alien, alien in my beverage again says, "Drew, consider whether your first approximation is about making sure good intention is pragmatically salvageable, creating productive tension with outcome first, intention second, policy is then third wheel and combo."

"That's a very good, uh, assumption of my blind spot. I appreciate that and I look into it because I do think of intention, then I think of policy, and I think that those two things, in his measure, is very true that sometimes intention is executed, but the policy has disastrous results, and I always assume that they'll come with a policy that executes that exact intention and they thought about the preserve, preserve perverse incentives that are tied to that policy." DK the sage says, "Look at how much tax money California dumps into solving the homeless problem that has only gotten worse. The K-shaped economy is a feature, not a bug. Keynesians love the economy as it is and as it is and have no interest in balancing the budget."

"Yeah, correct. I don't think that California is making any attempt to solve the homeless crisis. Just to be very clear." "Yeah. And there's another super chat that said New York and California are running these policies and it's to this point too. It's that is not the, uh, outcome that I think anybody wants and there is a problem there." Brutus Lugo says, "Tom, whenever you invoke the Laffer Curve, you assume that we have to reach the peak at which taxing more will result in less returns. Why do you do this?"

"Uh, because the way that people are putting forward tax policy right now without first talking about balancing the budget is so stupid, uh, that I want to remind everybody that you're not going to tax your way out of this problem. So, have we reached the perfect level of tax? No, we have not. Um, but if you're in surgery and let's say that you have gangrene at the foot and the doctor's like, 'Let's just cut him off at the waist.' I would hope somebody would go, 'This guy's a [ __ ] lunatic. I don't even want to hear any more about cutting more, cutting more, cutting more.' Uh, let's actually understand why the [ __ ] we amputate a foot when we amputate it. What's going on? So, I have said a thousand [ __ ] times, Brutus, and you've heard me say a thousand times, the only way out of this is a beautiful deleveraging, which includes increasing taxes. So, of course, that's on the table. But we can't even get to that [ __ ] point because people are at a stage right now where they are so wrong about the nature of the problem that they're just putting forward ridiculous proposals. But if you want me to say every single time, beautiful deleveraging, I will try to remember."

And the last super chat is a $50 one from Tyler Gilb.

"Hey, thank you. Thank you for $50 super chat. Appreciate the generosity." Says, "Tom, the product I want to try and solve, the product I want to try and solve. Uh, no, I will have to competition sooner or later with business and people on Elon's level. How do you suggest I go about making my business successful enough to be able to compete? I'm starting out from scratch."

"Okay. So, making, uh, the phrase that I've always used in my own mind is there's always room for the best. So, you've really got to solve your product. Your, you've got to solve the problem that your product is designed to solve better than anybody else. And if you can't do that, then you're going to be in trouble. This is one of those things. Understanding business principles, being a good person, being good at social media, none of those things actually will make for a good business if you don't have product market fit where the audience immediately recognizes this thing is better. If you actually solve the problem in a way that is obviously better and it is a burning problem that people really want solved, then they'll go way out of their way to get your product. You just have to really make sure that this is an innovation. I would focus there. And by the way, if you really have an innovation, you'll be able to raise capital if that's what you have to do to take on some bigger foes who might play some funny business to try to keep you out. Um, so yes, that is a very speedrunny answer, but true."

"Is there something to that though? Like if I have a really great idea for an EV innovation, but I know that my competitor is going to be BYD and Tesla, do I then try to pivot and create licensing? Like how do you recommend, like I want to play in this place but I know there's going to be big boys in that."

"You have to raise a ton of capital. So you'd have to go to somebody, show them that you don't have an idea. You have like this thing is executed to a level where it's like, okay, that [ __ ] is real. Whether it's building a prototype, like let's say you built the flux capacitor and you're like, this will create time travel, but I don't have the money to build the DeLorean." "So I'm going to show you the proof as to why I believe that this works. And then I only need to raise this much money and then it will either work or it won't. And if it works, we've got something massive and if we don't, we don't. And if you understand it well enough and you can convince people, they're going to give you that seed money to see if you can pull this off. But there are times where capital is the only way forward where the thing you're trying to do requires so much capital, you just have to embrace it. Like if you want to do, just to make it about gaming for a second, if you want to do an MMO, you're going to have to raise capital. You, you just MMOs require too much ongoing maintenance of the servers on the back end. This is why MMOs just fail so routinely is they spend all their money developing the game. They can't get it all the way across the finish line. There's not enough players in the beginning because you're going to need a year, two years, three years like post, like early launch to support the [ __ ] out of that, uh, to make it good, to address the concerns and all that, but the server costs are so expensive. There's just no way to bootstrap it." "Gotcha. It's a good point."

"And that's it for super chats." "Nice. Uh, all right. Yeah, that's all we got."

"All right. We, man, I did not think that we were going to be, uh, at almost 10 minutes over by the time that I got to say this, but I am going to be offline for the next almost two weeks. Uh, so we will not have any lives. This makes me very sad. We will have, yes, we will have plenty of content for you guys, but we won't be going live. Uh, so we won't go live Wednesday, Friday of this week or Monday, Wednesday, Friday of the following week. Then we'll be back in full force. So, uh, it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for me that I'm going to be taking advantage of. Um, I apologize and appreciate everybody's understanding, and I hope to see you guys all back when we get back at it. And thank you, by the way. I know today's show, um, was unusual in terms of the format, but, um, I actually think that that is us at our best. Uh, so I really, really appreciate you guys. And one more shout out, Drew. Thank you so much for being a sparring debate partner that problem my thinking. It's much, much, much appreciated. May you all have somebody in your life that, um, wants good things for you, uh, and is willing and able to challenge your ideas. It is extraordinary. So, uh, love you guys all bunches. Have a wonderful time and I will see you when we get back later. Peace."

"Another one. What?"