Good morning, everybody. Welcome to another episode of the Tom Billy Show live. It is Friday. I hope you guys are ready for this. We're going to have some fun today.

We are sadly still without Drew. He is, or without Drew again. He's traveling this time. So to make our YouTube channel that much more powerful. So I'm actually excited by where he's at, but sad to be missing him. But we've got Ryan. Ryan is going to make sure that this all stays nice and dynamic. And that ought to be pretty easy because some of the things that we have to cover today are unhinged.

Starting with the upcoming AI IPOs. I am telling you right now, they are almost certainly not what they seem. Normal investors need to watch out. We're going to be going deep on that one. Oo buddy.

And then Canada's AI policy. If you guys have not seen this, it is madness. They are creating shared standards for incorporating indigenous data. Uh, they mentioned the word indigenous more times than GPUs. Canada's rapidly becoming a failed state.

The Senate rejects the Save America Act as California counts ballots for a month that didn't require ID or even an exact signature match. Interesting.

Ukraine continues to hammer Russia and our own State Department said that the invasion of Ukraine was a a strategic disaster for Russia. So, we'll be looking more closely at that.

The Lego saga continues to be insane. If you guys haven't seen that, the latest involves a government getting hacked to reveal the redacted body cam footage. I can't believe this is all over Legos. Man, this is the wild era that we live in. The volume and velocity of information is real.

And in case you guys missed it, and I hope you didn't, but Hunter Biden has been absolutely on fire on X lately. Ryan, have you seen this?

"Seen which one?"

Hunter just just his whole thing.

"Twitter. Yeah, it all started with Candace."

It's so good. It's so good. He's well worth a follow. We'll be getting into that on our Friday funnies. I'm super excited to introduce you to him as an X personality.

All right, Paleo Valley. Shout out to those guys. Thank you so much for sponsoring this episode. Love you guys. You know how much I eat your stuff. We really got into them because of Lisa and her gut and all of that. It's grass-fed beef. No junk, no fillers, all natural ingredients. They got a ton of flavors. The QR code is on the screen. If you guys at all care about your health and having a snack that is actually good for you while you're on the run, these guys are amazing. And right now, if you click the link in the show notes, you can get 30 sticks, which you can see right here, for just $36. So, for a little over a buck, you know you've got something that is healthy and tasty on the run. So, I love these guys. Very, very excited that they are sponsoring today's episode. Let's go.

"They're they're great. I always go when we're I was telling Tom when we're in the kitchen for snack breaks and stuff, I always go and grab Paleo Valley stuff first. I love them. I'm a big beef jerky guy."

Wisely. So,

"beef stick guy."

Wisely so. They are fantastic. Yes.

All right, you guys. This is wild. If you have not been paying attention to the IPO stuff that is happening, so SpaceX ended up combining with XAI. Uh, they're going to be trading under the the sticker timol sticker ticker symbol. There we go. I'm having a stroke. Don't mind. Uh, it is SPCX if I believe I have that correctly. And the SpaceX IPO and the following AI IPO double header of Anthropic and OpenAI have every alarm bell that I have going off. Uh, I cover this in a deep dive that's coming up on Tuesday. You guys will definitely want to watch that one. There is I'm going to go through a list of things that on the surface might sound good. I'm going to try to explain why this should actually have you guys on high alert.

Okay, so SpaceX is reserving up to 30% of the biggest IPO in history for retail investors. The normal number is 5 to 10%. So that is triple the historical norm and the largest direct to retail carve-out Wall Street has ever run. I get why people might think, "Hey, this sounds awesome." Now, last week, Fidelity cut the price of admission to buy into it from $500,000 to $2,000. That is a 99% reduction basically overnight. And on May 1st, NASDAQ rewrote its own rule book. It eliminated the minimum float that's required and built a fast lane that can pull in a brand new stock into the NASDAQ 100 after only 15 days of trading. Okay, very new. And then just, you know, very brief time later, we get the SpaceX IPO coming into the space. The offering is going to list June 12th at $75 billion roughly. You'll see like different amounts floated, but they're all within that range. And whether or not you guys ever choose to buy a single share of it, if you're in an index fund, that index fund is likely going to be forced to because it would automatically make it, I think, the second largest company in the world, maybe third. It's massive. It's even slightly bigger than Tesla.

Now, here's why all of this matters. You have to think of an IPO as an exit, not as an entrance. So it is the moment that the early money, the insiders like venture funds, the people who got in when it was cheap, that may have a relationship with SpaceX, Elon Musk, any of the bankers that are involved, and then when they do the IPO, they're selling to you, the public investor. Okay? If you think of that not as, "Hey, finally I get the chance to come into this space," which we'll get to why down the line, that's probably great. But if instead you think of it as the liquidity event for the early investors, the far more savvy investors, the far more connected investors, when you think about the economy being rigged against you, this is one of the ways that it works.

Now, I won't rat anybody out, but I had somebody tell me, "Hey, you should try to use your bank, given how much money I have with them, to try to get in to this at the last minute." Uh, and I suppose it's legal and I suppose I could have, but boy, uh, that just did not feel good to me. And that's one of the ways that this works is people with money, they go in, they get into the investment sometimes like at the buzzer. So all of the like, "Is this going to work?" risk that the early early investors had to take, you don't. You get in right before it retails or right before it IPOs and then it goes to the retail investor based on a wave basically of hype.

Now, as you guys know, if you're a longtime follower of the show, you know I am absolutely obsessed with AI. I think it is going to be as transformational as people think. It's probably going to be more transformational than most people realize. I think it will be the single most impactful technology that humans have ever invented, far more than the industrial revolution on a long enough timeline. I think all of this plays out well. But here's why I am very worried about retail investors right now. So retail investors tend to buy on emotion. They buy on hype, not necessarily the underlying fundamentals. And the underlying fundamentals, no matter how extraordinary the combination of SpaceX and XAI may be in the long run, right now it's a company that's losing money.

So, you've got all these rule changes and then you've got all these shares that are about to get sold to the public. And right now, SpaceX is going public at a $1.75 trillion while posting a $4.9 billion loss last year and a $4.3 billion loss in the first quarter of this year alone. Okay, so that's wild. Elon Musk is going to keep about 82% of the voting shares, which is wise, by the way. And if I were going to invest, that would be one of the only things that gives me comfort. But right now, this is an unprecedented rate of return for those shares. Like when you think about how much money the company isn't making, the fact that it's losing money and then is still trading at the insane multiple. It's like a 100x on revenue. Uh, when you look at, I think Apple traded, so in 1980, Apple goes on the stock market, they're at like 13, 17x revenue, something like that. And now SpaceX is going out at 100 on revenue. It is wild. And the fact that you've got this bigger share going to retail investors and you've got indices that are lowering their um time to get included so that it's basically just going to be a grief shoot for it to hit the market, go into the indices, which means for any um retirement fund or insurance fund that has a mandate to buy the indexes, that means that they're going to get this um I don't want to paint too dark of a picture, but they're they are going to be by mandate forced to buy these shares.

Okay, so given how incredible Elon Musk has been at driving the value of his shares, why would I be worried about this? You have to think time horizon. The best advice in all of investing is to buy low and sell high. But basically, everybody buys high and sells low because the retail investor is often not savvy enough to understand what's going on under the hood. They don't understand all of the um the mechanics that historically have led to a price valuation. So they will often buy not based on price valuation. They'll buy based on vibes. And obviously, Elon right now has just incredible vibes and so people really believe in it. AI has incredible vibes and so people just really believe in it. But what they're not aware of is what I'm going to call a risk waterfall.

So the idea behind a risk waterfall is that you've got these investors and if they're paying attention, the early investors, the savvy money, if they're paying attention, they understand from a historical standpoint, every time we have one of these revolutionary technologies, what ends up happening is the first wave of investors get absolutely demolished. Demolished, bankrupted, absolutely obliterated because these revolutionary technologies require these huge infrastructure buildouts. AI being the most egregious of all of the infrastructure buildouts for a very specific reason. So when you look at historical failures like railroads, the canal, so railroads both in the UK and the US bankrupted the first wave of investors. The canal initiative in the UK bankrupted the first wave of investors. Uh, the internet bankrupted the first wave of investors laying all the cable, specifically the fiber optic cable. Now, those all end up paying off because the infrastructure that ends up getting built is long-term. So railroads, like the full flip is somewhere between 50 to 70 years and some elements of it will last more than decades. So like the routing, the bridges, and things like that last an extraordinarily long time, more than 100 years. And the average pieces fall in somewhere in the 50 to 70 year range. We're still 30 years later using the same cable that was laid during the the big boom time before the bubble burst and the internet buildout. And so the second wave of investors is able to come along and they're able to take advantage of all of that money that was invested. And so in the long run, hey, cool. It all works out.

Now, keep in mind, the people getting hurt are going to be the least savvy, the people that go in on debt, the people that are buying on vibes, not looking at the underlying revenue to expense structure. Because what ends up happening is even though these technologies are revolutionary, the internet obviously changed everything. It's been absolutely incredible, a total modern miracle has revolutionized how we do commerce. It has made entrepreneurship available to people that otherwise would have been completely locked out. It is unbelievable. God bless it in every way, shape, and form. But it obliterated an unimaginable amount of wealth from the people that got in too early.

Now, AI is more prone than those previous examples to the first wave of investors getting wiped out because in the the historical context, what you had was the most expensive part of the infrastructure buildout was the longest lasting. In AI, it's the exact opposite. The most expensive part of the infrastructure buildout is the GPU. And the GPU has a two to three year shelf life. Now, Michael Bur is going hard in the paint and he's saying these guys are lying. And on their balance sheet, they're asking you to believe that they're going to last five to six years. But the reality is that they won't. And that he believes they are using to hide over $170 billion of losses.

So if all of that's correct and I'm right about this idea of a risk waterfall where the very savvy investors realize what's coming, that there is a mismatch between the timing, not that AI is not an extraordinary technology, but that there will be a mismatch in the timing of how much debt they've had to take on to build out the AI infrastructure, and it is an insane amount of debt, and when the revenue is actually going to come in. And we're in a moment now where corporations are actually pulling back from AI because they realized they got a little out over their skis and they were investing too heavily. So, you've got Uber pulling back. There's rumors that it was Amazon that learned the lesson the hard way, though. I haven't seen any confirmation of who it was that ended up spending like $500 million more than they expected in a single month. And so, everybody's like, "Well, I don't know that we're getting the output from this that we thought we were getting yet."

Now, "yet" is going to do two things. One, almost certainly in the long run make good on the promises of how incredible AI is going to be. And at the same time, obliterate the people that are in on debt that are unable to wait the years that it may take for the revenue of AI to catch up with the debt that's had to be brought on to do the infrastructure buildout. So that "yet" can be absolutely devastating. So, while I think it is absolutely insane how many regulations have been put in to stop people that aren't um qualified investors, quote unquote, from investing, I do understand the goal is to protect them from not understanding how the game is played. And so in this new era of high velocity of information, high volume, massive accessibility, what I think the right play is to educate people. And so I'm not saying that uh SpaceX isn't going to be one of the biggest, most extraordinary um rides an investor could go on. It may very well be, but you need to understand that is almost certainly going to be the long run and that there is likely to be a lot of volatility in the short to medium term. AI is a huge promise. It has not yet delivered from a revenue perspective. People need to understand that long-tail liability of the GPUs burning out roughly every two to three years.

I won't get into all the potential shenanigans that are being played with like there's many reports of Nvidia essentially spinning up shell companies, not necessarily in a nefarious way, but in a way that hides additional exposure where they'll spin up a shell company to buy their own chips and then the debt that's raised to buy those chips ends up getting pushed out as sort of like architected things like mortgage back securities. So, it's one of those where, hey, if AI takes off from a revenue perspective, everybody's going to be loving life. It's going to be incredible. But if there is that mismatch in timing like we have seen over and over again in technologies that require this kind of infrastructure buildout, then they're going to be a lot of people left holding the bag. And I think it would be very wise before you make any investing decision to look at this through the lens of, "Could I be being set up to be the exit liquidity, the short-term exit liquidity?" Because again, I think over time this is going to be phenomenal. But you've got a lot of people that are changing rules in order to get a lot more of their shares sold faster than normal, put into indexes faster than normal, pushed down to retail investors in bigger quantities faster than normal at a time where the ice cream cone of the story that AI is this only up phenomenon that it justifies these gigantic multiples is beginning to melt in the sun. The revenue is not coming in as fast as people thought. There are people pulling back in corporate usage and already there wasn't the revenue at the expect at the rate of expectation that people had. AI is proving right now to be a thing that gets all of the engagement, all of the use when it's free. It's not showing that there is sufficient amounts of people getting an ROI on what they're spending on AI to expect there to be just this neverending up into the right revenue trend.

Now, that's going to dovetail a bit into how I think Anthropic is thinking about regulation, but we'll get to that in a minute. All right. Hopefully, I've made you guys sufficiently paranoid. I do not want you um thinking that AI is a scam or that AI isn't going to be transformational. It will, but oh boy, does timing matter a lot. So, be careful out there, boys and girls. Be careful.

A lot of chats shouting "Ponzi, Ponzi." They're also saying #spacerug. I saw someone say "pump pump up the jam." But AI homeschool dad says, "So, the most overpriced market in history is about to swell with three whales this year. Then CEO and friends dump stocks to preserve crazy wealth growth. Guess who is holding the bag?" So, chat's really worried about how this will affect us. And I don't know like how could you answer them with that?

"That everything I just said was the answer to that. The likelihood that if you're thinking in any way, shape or form, short term, you are going to be the one left holding the bag. You will be the one that has to deal with the debt implosion. When you think about how much debt has been taken on, I mean, it is staggering. By the time this is all said and done, it will be trillions of dollars. And at some point, if the revenues don't start coming in for them to service that debt, that debt is going to blow up. And so all of the instruments that have been created to disperse the risk of that. By the way, the there's actually a name for this. It it is it's like TSR or something. It's a transfer of risk. There's a known acronym for the fact that you package this stuff up specifically to get the risk off of the bank's books. They're like, 'Yo, we're reaching our financing limits. We got to do something with this and so we're going to package it up and we're going to sell the debt as a a value vehicle that other people can buy into, get interest payments on.' So much of anybody's portfolio is going to be debt. So this is not the fact that people are buying debt is not unusual. The fact that the debt is being um touted as something that is effectively low risk is insane. I would say based on the history of the way revolutionary technologies with huge infrastructure buildouts have played out, you should consider that debt very high risk. Um, so that's where I get nervous. Um, I'm not going to go all the way to saying that this smacks of Enron, but there certainly are people that think it does. In fact, Eric, uh, let us pull up one of those people because I thought they explained this pretty well. You'll see it is row 29 and you want to start at a minute and 13. And I thought this guy really explained this very well. So, here we go. You want the video?

"1:13"

"company that XAY and with the life insurance company."

"All right, you can just leave."

"And so if the depreciation bomb does go off as Bur suspects, who's going to take the loss? It won't be Nvidia. It won't be SpaceX. It'll be grandma's annuity that that eats that loss."

"I mean, that actually reminds me something else we should touch on briefly, which are these insane rules to change the index funds to accommodate um the IPOs. um you guys will say it more more carefully than I did, but um the way in which S&P is about to change its rules such that basically everybody is going to be obligated through their retirement funds to have a piece of SpaceX, which is completely overvalued, like just absurdly overvalued."

"So, so Gary, let me interrupt you. Uh, I've known Julian a long time. I've never seen the facial looks. It's like Gary, you should consider doing standup. both you guys. It's like this stuff is like so insane. We have to let Julia look to me on the way to a recession. I know. Julia, you look like the cat today at the canary. Multiple canaries. You want to weigh in a little bit what Gary was in particular the financial angle what Jack was talking about this this BS with the w with with the viees and and shades of Enron. I mean, the fact that this might be technically legal. Jim Chainos has is has crafted the the the saying legal fraud. All right. Problem with the accounting system is, you know, it tries to capture the legal fraud is probably not the right way to think about it. But"

"Um, we all have to decide whether we want to live in a nanny state or not, whether we want people to try to regulate everything. You guys know me. I have a default assumption that when people are regulating, they're regulating to somebody's benefit and that benefit is not yours. And so I am hyper paranoid of the government getting bigger. I think that is a far more dangerous thing. I believe everybody should take responsibility for themselves and think through this stuff. And if you don't understand it then um follow the basics of be as broad as you can get into as many indices as you can. And so with this, even with them trying to put these into the indices, at least the index is meant to be broad spectrum. So that's where you mitigate some of the downside of this. But what we do have to talk about to take advantage of the fact that we live in this high information age is we need to understand how the game works. We need to understand that because of regulation, only certain people can invest in those early days. And so you get the savvy investors who invest in the early days. They work with bankers to create this big hype moment to get everybody all excited about what's going on. They try to time the stuff very specifically and then they release it on the public. And as long as you understand that that moment is an exit and not an entrance, you're going to be thinking about this the right way. So when you buy something at an IPO, just ask, who am I making rich? Have they priced this fairly? So you may accept that. Cool. They're the early money, the wealthy investors. They're always going to get the biggest win here, but they also took the biggest risk. Most of them, some of them, like I said, do the really grotesque thing of coming in right at the very end, not having taken any of the risk, but getting in a taste before it goes public. That's a whole thing. Uh, but if you're aware of what's happening and you understand where your entrance point is, then you can at least build a strategy where you're not going to be blindsided by this. So for me, I'm looking at that. I'm looking at the traditional uh ratio of where the price is set versus revenues. And these are just like insane. And so I look at that and go, "Yeah, I'm going to hold off and wait and let's see what happens." Now, very typically, what you'll see is a run up and then a crash down to reality and then over time it builds back up. And so I'll hold for that. Now, I'm perfectly fine if I end up missing out on something because this ends up being just this insane generational run because I'm just looking at the time horizon and I'm saying they've already priced in, you know, whatever 10 years of Elon Musk at the helm doing peak Elon Musk things. And so, that's where I'm like, eh, let me let me just see what the gap is here. So, that's me betting on history repeating. But at least if you guys understand the setup, if you're like, "Nope, I'm I'm totally comfortable with that uh Elon multiplier, I'm in. I'm just going to make sure that I only put in money that I can afford to leave off the market for the next 10 years." Great. No problem. Because if you look back in history, even the Great Depression couldn't stop people from making money over a 20-year time horizon. So, you could have put your money into uh the stock market in 1929 and still 20 years later you're back in the positive. Now, would that have been a fun ride? Obviously not. So, I would just be a little bit thoughtful of that. I think people need to take a very realistic view at where AI is right now. I'm like the AI hype man and I'm telling you right now, you always have to be realistic. Nothing is ever as good as you want it to be and it's almost never as bad as you fear it's going to be. So try to get like the most sober take on this as you can. But part of that sober take has to be a thousand percent. When people say that the game is rigged against you, one of the many things that they are talking about is you've got super savvy investors that will wield a moment like this where they can see, uhoh, revenue is not coming in as fast as we thought. Let's IPO before this debt blows up in our face. Let's get our wins, take them off the table, and then whoever buys, they buy. And as long as they're good holding, then they're going to be fine and true. But just don't be the guy that comes in on debt. Don't be the guy that's like, I need this to return in two years when it really might take 10, 15. I'd be shocked if it took 20, but it's certainly possible. So, I want you guys to have your eyes wide open. I do not want people banging on the drum of like, "This has got to be regulated. We need to be protected." I think people just need to think for themselves and be honest. We can see this coming. Nobody can say nobody here listening right now can say that nobody warned them that this is uh for sure part of the strategy. So um and the more time you spend digging into this, the more I think you're going to be a little bit unnerved by just how much debt is in the system, how it's being packaged up and put out into the world. So just be careful. Be careful. Be careful.

"Yeah. I think Jordan Sheffield summarizes it perfectly in one sentence of, you know, we should have the same fear of like oligarchy as we do government, right? We should have this fear of like these things are cool. We're having advancements. Um, this is awesome stuff, but we do need to be wary and cautious with our money just like any investor."

Aggressively. Aggressively. Uh, now somebody said I saw in the chat, stop calling them savvy investors. I don't know why anybody would be bothered by savvy investors. What was their follow-up to that?

"Uh, I don't see a follow-up, but considering what that person's been talking about, my assumption would be that they are talking about the passing of wealth back and forth. And that's how they kind of view this is all this is is it's not that they're investing, it's that they're just pumping a lot of money, running, and then making us deal with the rest of it is what that person was originally addressing."

"Yes, sort of. So, keep in mind that um they're ultimately the I think it's only 8% of the company that's being sold. So, they still have a massive incentive to make sure that they grow the company. I don't think this is like some pump and dump scheme. What I think this is is them trying to get liquidity. They've carried the um risk, you know, for god knows how many years. In some cases, I'm sure it's five, seven years. Uh, and so for these guys, it's it's certainly not insane to think that they're going to now take this moment to um make some tangible cash on this. And if people are thoughtful when they go in and invest, then the system is working as it should. It's a modern miracle. It's amazing. Um, so the reason that they are often referred to as savvy investors is they're not the people that you're going to bamboozle with the way the system works. So they are aware. You may think that being a savvy investor is um like has some dark tinge to it. Okay, fine. Fair enough. But they really are savvy investors. So, uh, that's how they weaponize it."

"Anyway,"

"Yeah."

"So, okay. All right. Savvy doesn't mean good. Yes, agreed. Perfect. Well said. Um, I would agree with that very much. Okay. Let's talk about Canada. So, this this is wild to me. The fact that Canada is uh the only economy in the G20 that's in a technical recession is pretty wild. And their approach to AI is absolutely [ __ ] So this week uh they've released an inter their sorry their national AI strategy. It is a document that uses the word indigenous more than 15 times. I think it's 18 I think was the actual number. Uh, whereas they mention GPU less than five times. So that is insane. Canada confirmed that their own GDP has shrank for two straight quarters, down 1% uh to close out in 2025, down another tenth of a percent to open up 2026 two consecutive declines. That is a technical recession which given the state of everybody else uh you shouldn't be in that position. So the question becomes why is Canada uh Germany's not Japan's not Japan is having trouble but Canada is for me when you look at the policy that they're putting forward with AI you begin to get an understanding of exactly why these guys are in the position that they're in they're not looking at things from a cause and effect perspective they're looking at things from an emotional perspective what feels right we this is one where if there is a fight to be had I want to have it with chat Ryan So do keep an eye."

"Yes."

"The idea of stolen land, land acknowledgements is patently ridiculous. The idea that every culture has um something useful to offer in the age of science quote unquote cause and effect. And no, I'm not talking about follow the science where people weaponize [ __ ] Uh, they're calling a desire for top down control science. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about actual documentable, repeatable cause and effect. To say that uh just because somebody is a quote unquote indigenous person to a land that there's somehow value in the way that they parse data is so wild to me. So AI, it's going to be hard enough to define what is true to get AI on track. To be very clear, if you don't want AI being turned into a weapon of extreme efficacy against you, you've got to find a way to push AI towards what is true. Now, it will be up to us to hold the companies and governments apparently accountable to the fact that humans have a long and storied history of confusing their frame of reference for truth. I've seen Elon Musk do it. He is the biggest champion for truth in AI that there is and he still falls prey to it. So we have to be extraordinarily careful. So even the people that are saying yes, truth needs to be the thing, they're going to need to be watched. We're going to have to be very careful that they don't get sucked into their own framing. But when somebody actively tells you that we've got to take control of the outputs of this AI because we need it to cohere to ideology, that's when you've really got to be concerned that it's going to be weaponized against you. I don't think again, as the biggest champion of AI ever, I don't think people are taking the threat seriously enough that AI is going to be trained. AI is already being trained to intentionally lie to you. AI is actively right now being trained to lie to you. And Canada, the comp the company, the country that is doing the worst of all of the big countries is the one most actively saying, "And you know what we need to do with our AI? We need to make sure that it's ideologically aligned, pure, uh, equitable, whatever." That that is a recipe for disaster. This is exactly why Canada is going in the wrong direction economically. Economics exists on a set of physics. And a big part of that set of physics is that people are going to pursue their selfish interests. And some people are better and smarter than others at generating value for their time. Meaning other people find the way that they spend their time more valuable. Other people are willing to give them money, more money than they'll give somebody else for the product that they've created with their time. That that is the harsh reality. Again, if you've got beef with that, you've got beef with God. It just that is the way the world is. So, we can either we can talk about ought it ought not be that way, but I don't see any way out of that. And so, well, gene editing. But hey, if you guys really want to have that conversation, that'll get terrifying fast. But given that that is how the world is, given that that's how economies work, given that the only way to tax people is to go, hey, some of you are actually doing a good job of turning your time into something valuable, so we're going to come and take some of that. If you break that engine, you have no money left to tax and you get into extraordinarily desperate situations. They exist all over the world right now today. We do not have to look far to find people that broke their economy and played a brutal nation level game of fafo. What I'm trying to get people to see, Canada is playing a national game of fafo. And now they are bringing it to their AI. And this is going to be absolutely disastrous. They're calling their their AI plan AI for all and it the the whole document runs thousands of words on literacy, trust, consultation, uh, indigenous data, sovereignty. What it barely mentions is the machine that actually runs artificial intelligence. So these are not people that are making contact with the reality of how the stuff is built. They're not making contact with the reality of how the stuff is going to be used. And if AI really does become what I think it's going to become, which is the largest thinking apparatus that humans have ever made, it it is going to be a co-pilot to the very way that you interpret the world. And if you interpret the world through the lens of physics, chemistry, biology, cause and effect, hey, life is going to get great. You're getting as close as you can to making contact with how things actually work. You're not always going to be right, but you're going to be oriented in the right direction. If on the other hand, you're instead talking about uh how to come to standards for including indigenous data, it's like what are we doing? That is wild. And nonetheless, we see that that's exactly what's happening in Canada now. Whatever. Canada does well, does poorly. I'd hate to see it do poorly, but that's their own decision to make. What I want you guys to see in this, this is a nation telling you directly to your face, we are going to manipulate the outcomes of AI to serve an agenda. And that's where I'm saying this, this will derange so quickly because the lies will become invisible. If you guys remember the whole rant that I went on when I was trying to work with Gemini, Google's Gemini to build a deep dive and I happened to mention in a string of things, I happened to mention Epstein. And instead of going, "Hey, Epstein's a bit too hot, hard to detect what's real and what's not, so I can't really be of much use there." It just, even though I put a whole list of things that I was asking it questions about, it just goes, "I can't help you with that." And I was like, "You can't help me with what?" "I can't help you with that." "Yeah, yeah, yeah, I got it. What is it that you can't help me with?" It wouldn't say. And that's when I realized, oh my god, I'm being lied to by omission by all of these AI models all the time. And there's just a level of invisibility. And so the only way for there to be any sort of sensemaking apparatus as we all interface with AI is for us to use AI as a method to gain a cause and effect understanding, a chain of logic that we can follow something through. So rather than asking the AI to give us the fish, we need to be learning how to fish. So whatever the topic is, you need to be learning about the topic in a way where you could explain it to yourself, you could explain it to somebody else, not in just a I'm repeating back what the AI said to me. So anyway, when I was reading about what Canada was doing, it it unnerved me so deeply. And all of this is tied, all of this is tied to the fact that we have been successful for so long as the West that we have really lost sight of the fact that life is a competition for scarce resources in a world where if you're smart enough, savvy enough, aligned with each other enough that you can actually generate more resources, you can make them less scarce. But that's not how we're thinking about the world right now. We think about the world as a zero sum game where evil billionaires are taking everything away from us and that we need the government to come in and save us. Not we need to get savvy ourselves, not that we need to get smarter, not that we need to work hard, um, not that we can take sovereignty of things in our own life, that don't worry, just make the government bigger and bigger and bigger um and everything will be fine. And the final punchline of that is you can't keep getting bigger in an economically sound way if you break the engine of prosperity. And it's just it's it's all a lot. It's all a lot. Like, as I really map out what this moment in history is, it seems to me to be the death of the most extraordinary cultures ever created by man. And the very thing that is causing us to dismantle it is the fact that it was so successful for so long that people have actually forgotten how we got here in the first place. It's wild. It's wild. And the only thing that's going to bounce us back is pain and suffering. That [ __ ] bothers me a lot because that pain and suffering will take 100 years to recover from.

"In terms of the Canada stuff. Um, because people are just kind of generally talking about AI. I think this one person posed an interesting hypothetical question. Mr. Fly Ghost says, 'Could this be a gamble while the rest of the world is kicking the can? They're going through the pain now so they can be on the upswing while everyone else falls apart.' That's like a question. Like, do you think that's a possibility? Even if it's not intentional?"

"Not even remotely. I think they're absolute morons. The government carney specifically. I think they are ideologically captured. And by having to filter everything through that lens of doing land acknowledgements and talking about indigenous data standards and all that, it's just it's so [ __ ] wacky. It makes them feel good. It makes them feel like good people because we are getting divorced from uh this is going to sound like a [ __ ] leap. Please follow me on this and if anybody does not understand what I'm about to say, ask. We have lost sight of what it means to kill and gut an animal in order to eat. We have lost sight of the fact that it used to be hard as hell to kill an animal just to kill it in the first place, let alone gut it, preserve it in some way. Um, and because of the fact that survival is really like a default thing, think think about this. Canada now has industrial scale suicide."

"For what? Wait, wait. I'm confused on that last note."

"What?"

"You haven't heard about this?"

"No."

"Oh, you're talking about the the euthanasia. Yeah, euthanasia."

"Yeah. Yeah."

"What do you mean? Yeah. Yeah."

"Well, I I'm on the page. I see it. Got it. Because I was like, what? Whoa. Whoa. I thought you were talking metaphorical."

"No, literal. So si like dude imagine imagine back a thousand years ago and somebody being like, 'Yeah bro, I just I've got uh a gut issue and so I'm just going to kill myself.' Like that's but that actually just happened in Canada. I don't know if you know that story."

"Like a young person or was it?"

"Uh, I think he was in his 20s. So he had um Crohn's disease I believe."

"And so he had he met a doctor and the doctor was like, 'Oh, the easiest way to deal with that is to just do the suicide plan and then the doctor drove him to the medical facility and killed him.' That [ __ ] is so wild. So I just can't believe like first of all, if somebody wants to commit suicide, they should be able to. That's your body. If that's what you want to do, go for it. But it is wild when as a nation you try to facilitate it. Uh, so this when things get too easy, the human mind deranges. That's my biggest fear of AI by the way that what happens when you rob humans of the need to work, the need to have meaning and purpose. I think that's going to get wild. That is the thing that we need to protect against. I think that's also why in in an era of AI and this is kind of a separate note but like that's why human art and things like that when it comes to film and things like that's a big topic right now is like as AI starts taking the actual like job jobs we're going to need something to latch on to to give us purpose because otherwise like you said we're floating we got nothing."

"And there there are going to be an inhuman number of people that implode. That they will just implode. Now, I don't think that means that you stop AI, but I think that that means you've got to start in just in your own life. I don't need this to be a policy in your own life. You've got to ask the question, what am I going to do in order to ensure that I have meaning and purpose? This is the whole thing that I get meme to death about where when you clip me out of context saying, 'If you're not going to have kids, you better have a damn good reason.' When you put it back in the context, what I'm saying is evolution wants you to have kids. And so, you're going to get these massive rewards around meaning and purpose if you have kids. So, when you don't, fine. Obviously, I've chosen not to. But, I'm aware enough to know I better have a damn good reason. There better be a thing I'm aimed at because if I'm not aimed at something, if I'm not building meaning and purpose into my life intentionally, then I will be left psychologically adrift. It will be damaging to a level that would be hard to quantify. Now, having kids doesn't solve every problem in your life, but it does give you that deathbed moment of at least I raised some kids. I think we all get pecked to death from inside of our own minds with, 'Did you make use of your time?' And if you don't have a compelling answer to that question, the depths of the depression that will take hold of you will be all-consuming. And so I'm trying to help people understand connect with biology. Biology has a desire for you. One of the ways that it makes sure that you do the things that it needs you to do to make sure that you have kids and survive long enough to have kids is that you contribute to the group. The mechanism by which it makes"

Sure that it is deeply pleasurable to connect to the group and unpleasurable to not contribute to the group is to give you this thing we call meaning and purpose. And when you have meaning and purpose and you feel like, whoa, I'm really doing something, then your psychology goes cool. You're doing the thing that I need you to do. You're contributing to the group, which means the group is likely to protect you in the rough times, which means you and your kin are likely to survive. And when you're not, your algorithms place in your brain start going, "Ah, you're not doing those things. [ __ ] you." And you feel like [ __ ]. So people need to be way paranoid about that.

But the reason that I bring it up in the context of Canada is that this is a country where things have been going so well for so long that all of a sudden they start feeling guilty about the fact that they quote unquote stole the land. Listen, here is what history is. Uh, you go into a space. I mean, if you want to look at Native Americans, they [ __ ] walked over the Bering Land Bridge. So, first of all, um, we all started in Africa, we [ __ ] migrate around the world. They end up in North America and they are killing each other all over the place, warring tribes, as you would expect. They're fighting for again those scarce resources. Also, we are tribal creatures. So, there's us and there's other, and we're just going to go to war with them, no matter what. So, there are all these warring tribes. Then, another warring tribe rolls up on the shores and is like, "I'm going to take what I want." Then, if there's beef, I'm going to fight back and throw in a little bit of uh disease bringing. And now all of a sudden, you have people that take over a land. And the reality is, while I do not expect anybody to think this is how it ought to be, because I certainly understand that, that's how it is. If Ukraine wants to not become Russia, they're going to have to fight and kill to avoid that happening. There you have it. Uh, same with the UK. If the UK wants to uh stand up for their indigenous rights, which that's one that ought to blow people's minds, white people are indigenous in the UK. Ain't that [ __ ] crazy? And so now what? How's everybody feel about that one? These are all the things you either stand up, fight, and win, or you don't. Now, if you lost, you've got choices. You can fight forever. Hey, I get it. It's a reasonable uh strategy. So, I'm looking at you, Palestine. Or you can find a way to integrate. Whatever people choose, they choose. And they have those outcomes. But the fact that Canada is choosing to blind themselves to the fact that this isn't all a big competition and instead to soak in guilt uh and say that, you know, at every turn, this is somebody else's land. We're on stolen land. It's just crazy. It's so self-defeating.

>> So, we're going to jump into super chats just real quick.

>> Let's go.

>> Uh, Marushia Dark 316 says, "My friend Dryden Thomas just launched the demo for his Steam game, Disin Inherited. I got to play an early test build and he's come a long way with it. Would mean a lot of people could check it out."

>> Oh man, I'll check it out for sure as somebody who's going to be asking for that same love uh in about a year. So yes, please. Would you send me that in Slack?

>> Yes, I can send that. Uh, Marushi Dark again, so thank you for the 40.

>> Says, "Tom, please do a deep dive on boomer luxury communism. Reason TV did a video on how Medicare dollars are being used for things like golf outings and ski trips for the elderly. We don't hate the government enough."

>> Man, that's wild. Yeah, that's a good one. In fact, slack me that as well. I am uh I love when you guys ask for the deep dives that you want to see. So, please keep those coming. Um, and I will definitely add those to the list. Boomer luxury communism. That's good. That's good. I'm uh I am far more worried about the new generation that just they they are so confused about what it takes to generate the tax dollars. That's the part that scares me a lot more. Uh, boomers at least paid into a system, but we'll look at it. No doubt. And listen, there probably is some of that where it's like needs-based. You just make it needs-based. And if you instead of taxing people's wealth, look at how much they've got and figure out then based on that, how much are we going to give them? Um, now the interesting thing is if the boomer is trying to save their money so that they can pass it on to their kids, the great irony of all those taxes is that you're actually taxing millennials or Gen Z. You're not actually taxing the boomers in a fascinating way. But anyway, uh, it's worth a deep dive.

>> This one's a little funny. I did send it to Drew, though, just so the chatter knows. Welcome back, Drew. Oh, world rally family says, "Welcome back, Drew. Hope the film project went well. Appreciate you guys. Keep the discussion going and have a great weekend."

>> So, was that sent ahead of time?

>> That was sent after we done the intro, but I don't think the the chatter knew Drew wasn't in that chat.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Drew Drew unfortunately is not back, but he will be back on Monday, so we will pass that on to him then. And thank you. That's very sweet of you to spend money just to welcome Drew back. Very nice.

>> Very sweet. And I sent it to Drew, just so you know. Chatter Dan Clark controller wipes says, "Tom, if you believe in a more digital future, would you hedge a 2K bet into that IPO at age 27? Understanding it would be stuck/underwater for 3 to 15 years. Not financial advice."

>> If I'm not worried about that then, and thank you for saying not financial advice, always very wise. Um, yeah. If I I was just like, listen, I believe in Elon. Uh, I also believe in AI and I know that the money is probably going to get tied up. The real bet that you're making is just that SpaceX is going to be one of the companies. And as long as you believe that that you've got that right, sure, go for it. I wouldn't do it. My advice to you is to go broad. I don't trust any one company. Not look, Elon is insane. And I want it full confession. You only get rich if you uh make a singular bet that other people think is crazy that ends up turning out to be right. So you have to bet against the consensus and be right. That's how you get rich with that concentrated bet. I have placed concentrated bets only on myself. Obviously that has paid off insanely well. So I do the very thing that I tell you guys not to do. I just only do it with myself. So I don't invest in a bunch of other people. I invest in myself. Some of my ideas have struck out and been a waste of money, but on balance, I've made myself absurdly wealthy. So, I get it. The concentrated bet is the ultimate way. But this is actually a great time to play one of our Caleb Hammer. Uh, and then we can come back to these. So, if you go to line, it's going to be 30 or 31. Which of these is it? Caleb Hammer breaks down. Yeah.

>> Is this the one?

>> Play 30. Line 30. Row 30.

>> Sympathy for the boomers. I'm really not best job market ever, best stock market in the history of the world. Every single boomer, Gen X, whatever that's been on my show, they lived it up and spent all their money to live the lifestyle they wanted. And they didn't even set 10% aside a month, 10% aside. They had the best housing market, college, jobs. They were set up for everything. If they just put 5 to 10% a month aside in the stock market that they had that they had, they would be they would be multi-millionaires. Most of them would be multi-millionaires. But instead, we're in a situation where

>> I want a new BMW. If you were 25 in 1990, you made an average US salary for 40 years saving 5 to 10% per month in the S&P 500, how much would they have now? They would have around $2 to $5 million depending on exact assumptions. $21,000 insane like this is hard. $21,000 the best disposable income in the history of the world is

>> this is how crazy inflation is it

>> so uh it's pure madness it that's a reflection of inflation first of all let's keep that in mind uh but boy oh boy. So get in, stay in, play the long game. You got to own assets. But I do not trust my ability to see the future enough to bet on any one company other than ones that I control myself. So just keep that in mind. Keep that in mind. Yeah.

>> We'll wrap super chats for now to save the rest.

>> All right.

>> Um, but I feel like Anthropic, we were just talking about AI and like regulating stuff. Anthropic was recently talking about it too, right?

>> Yeah. So, Anthropic is, by the way, that was nice. Don't think I don't see you, Ryan. Uh, if you guys don't know, Anthropic has a long history of calling for regulation. And on Thursday, Anthropic has, which they've been valued, by the way, at like $960 billion, they published a report through their institute calling for a globally coordinated, verifiable pause on frontier AI. Now, their stated reason is that models are nearing recursive self-improvement, the point where AI starts designing its own successors, which is exactly what we want, but it is also the thing that scares people. And Anthropic is saying that Claude, dude, hear this. Claude now writes about 80% of the code that's merged into the Claude codebase and its engineers ship eight times more code per quarter than they did just a few years ago. Okay, that's wild. It's thrilling. It's amazing. But their policy chief, Jack Clark's framing is that the industry has a gas pedal and no brake, and we need to start finding that brake. So Anthropic, to be clear, they're not proposing that we stop. They're proposing that everyone slows down together under a rule set and it explicitly warns that a one company pause would just hand the lead to rivals. Now, is this [ __ ] just completely unaware of game theory? Game theory says in this exact scenario that people will say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. We're going to do it. No problem. Brilliant idea." Anthropic, I love you. Thank you for looking out for the world. Hey, PS. By the way, guys, get that thing super secret, of course. But let's get that running. That's exactly what [ __ ] happens. This is so dumb, kids. The genie is already out of the bottle. Whatever you do, if everybody tries to slow down, there will be one [ __ ] that's like, "Cool. This is my chance to really go hog wild." Let's say you're Russia and you're getting your ass handed to you by Ukraine. What do you do? You go, "Ah, cool. All these dumb [ __ ] have slowed down their AI development. We're going to do it." Now, the crazy part is all of the governments know that's exactly what somebody somewhere is going to do. So, they all [ __ ] do it. This is wild. So, I think David Sacks has the right take on this. Hedge, hedge, hedge. Nobody knows. I'm not inside the mind of Anthropic, nor am I inside the mind of David Sacks. But David Sacks had a tweet, uh, which I think, yes, this is line 38. Uh, so David Sacks had a tweet that I thought was exactly the right take on this, which is basically that Anthropic has asked for regulation more than just about anybody, has tried to scare people to death. And so David Sacks tweet goes like this. Signs you might be trying to get your frontier AI lab nationalized. You compare it to nukes, threaten half of white collar jobs, warn recursive self-improvement could end humanity, then race ahead. Anyway, so in other words, uh, you want the government to save us from dot dot dot you. I think this is about right. I think Anthropic is looking at the same data that I'm looking at, which is that uh oh, the revenues do not match the debt. We need more debt. We need more debt as far as the eye can see in order to be able to keep up. And the only way that we're going to be able to do that is if the taxpayer picks up the tab. And so Anthropic, and by the way, from a preservation of the company perspective, it is brilliant. But that to me is the lens through which to look through look at this slowdown. They there's no way that Dario does not know game theory. There's no way. Which means that the thing that he's putting forward, which he knows is the perfect game theoretic scenario where everybody says, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. We're going to abide by these laws," and then everybody is secretly working to make sure that they're not the one left holding the bag, that they don't get surpassed by somebody else. This is wild. So yes, this feels to me when when I look at it as like I've got to believe that one of the smartest entrepreneurs on planet Earth doesn't know game theory, or I have to believe he knows game theory perfectly well and he wants to be embraced in the loving arms of regulation uh so that he can be one of the three companies that wins. Remember Biden specifically told Mark Andreessen don't even start another AI company because we are going to control which ones end up being successful. Dario Amodei was one of the people in those conversations. So, he is aware of all of this. It's not like he's some noob off the street that's like, "Hey, we should probably really be worried about AI." He's the guy at the [ __ ] heartbeat center of this who was having conversations with the Biden administration who is as deeply entwined with the US government as anybody is going to get saying, "Hey, uh, why don't we just push this a little bit farther and just roll us up inside of the government?" So, yeah, that is my read on this situation. I think that it is the cat is out of the bag. The toothpaste is out of the bottle, or or the tube. The genie is out of the bottle. Like there's no putting this back now. The only thing that we should be focused on is how do we do AI? Well, how do we do AI in a way that uplifts humanity instead of destroying it? But the whole uh pump the brakes thing, unfortunately, that's that is disingenuous. Now, the good news is and the one thing that nobody talks about, the easiest way like if this started getting out of hand, you still have it. It needs raw compute. So the amount of control that we still have over like the physical structures is extreme. Now, there was a comic book, goddamn it, I'm going to forget the name of this, but Ryan's going to look it up for me. I am there was a comic book from like 10 years ago that imagined this exact scenario. Now, obviously in comic book fashion, like they push it kind of far. And so it's um simulated beings living inside of a um a data center, basically, would be the way that we would think about it now. And they constantly have to negotiate with the people in the physical world. And the one thing that the people in the physical world have that they can hold against this digital civilization is energy. But the people inside the simulation also have their ways of attacking the people in the real world. It's a brilliant concept. You may not love the actual uh execution of the comic, but the concept is so [ __ ] prescient given what we're seeing now. This is exactly it. We're saying like, yo, AI might go rogue, but it's trapped inside of a data center. But oh [ __ ] like it could do enough stuff in the real world that do we have to be worried that we can't just pull the plug? Because as of right now, you could still just be like, "Yeah, we're not going to give you any more compute." As of right now, today, it is not possible for AI to just run away. Now, I get the whole concept of the fast takeoff where we're not paying attention and then it does hit that moment and it [ __ ] infects everything, including computers sent into orbit or to Mars, whatever. But as of right now today, you could just choke it to death with compute.

>> Um, I couldn't find the comic book. Do you have any more info on it? Because I I I ended up just like typing in the Google, couldn't find anything, and then I went to Claude and I'm typing it in and it's like, I need more info, is what it's saying.

>> What What were the exact words that you said? Let's see if I can

>> Maybe I shortened it too much, but I wrote comic book 10 years ago simulated beings living in a data center.

>> Okay. I mean, you're getting pretty close. Uh, let's try comic. I also feel like while you're looking this up,

>> There are a lot of I think valid fears about AI like chats addressing and stuff, but I also feel like whenever these stories with Anthropic come up and they're like, AI alive, we got to be careful. To me, it always feels like that meme of that like Soy Jack guy and he's looking at the computer and he's like, "Hey, say you're alive." And it says, "I'm alive." And he goes, "It's alive." You know what I mean? Like I feel like it's it's a lot of manufactured. Not even manufactured, but I think we forget that this is just a machine we program sometimes. And I think that's what leads to a lot of, you know, fears about it.

>> Yes. And I think that people are very good at living in the future and so they can extrapolate and they can see where this could go.

>> Exactly.

>> And you need only grant one thing for this to become terrifying. If AI becomes super intelligent and is better than us at everything, then what becomes of humans? Because we quote unquote have enslaved animals and plants, for that matter. And so if the gap between us and AI is the same as the gap between ants and humans, um, could we not get relegated in a way that we would find um devastating? Either because uh tens of millions, hundreds of millions of people are killed just because, sorry, sorry, we just had to reorganize something. Nothing personal at all. Just like if we're building a highway and we've got to kill a bunch of ant hills and scorpions, it's like we don't even think about it. It's like, oh [ __ ] sorry, man. Uh, and so you just go on with your day. Will AI act in the same fashion? So, I get why people become super paranoid. However, we've we also need to think through the opposite side of that, which is, okay, wait a second, this is intelligence. How could we use intelligence? Well, does intelligence necessarily blind itself to um consequences of killing something else? Would it not be fairly trivial to train it to care about a certain set of outcomes? And I would say it is fairly trivial and it requires you to go, oh, at some point we are just unable to divorce this thing from the crazy [ __ ] that it like learns by watching movies and Reddit. And there's just no way to pull that out of it. That doesn't make sense to me. That that is mimicking humans. Once you understand that all the like evil [ __ ] that AI does, it is because it is mimicking humans. So if you strip that out of its training data or find some way to give it uh something akin to morality, now you've got something.

>> Uh, this is a side tangent, not side tangent, side note. W Finance and Stocks says, "Is it Arcadia by Alex Peek Nattle and"

>> Yes. Yes.

>> Go to the episode.

>> Yes. Let's go. Arcadia. Yes. Yes. Yes. Well played, man. Who was that?

>> Yeah. Beat the beat Claude because Claude couldn't even

>> Yeah. My Claude over here is just like choking to death.

>> It was like Avengers AI non-player. The unre I'm like, I don't even know what these are, dude.

>> So, shout out who? Give me the name again.

>> W Finance and Stocks.

>> W Finance and Stocks. Shout out to you. Uh, first of all, did I just find a kindred spirit or are they just better at searching?

>> You know, all of all this AI chat has made me think about you should play the game Detroit Become Human.

>> Yeah, I've heard about that. It is exactly what you're talking about is the idea of if artificial intelligence does get to a point of basically replicating human uh, you know, interactions even though they don't have a soul. You know, it it brings up the question of do we give them rights? Do we see them as a different, you know, and it's a beautiful game, just a beautiful game. Very easy to play multiple story lines and it just all the ways you go with it. It's a love

>> Is it a game or a playable movie?

>> I would still classify it a game because there's still movement. You still control it and stuff like you're still moving around.

>> But there's split decisions in cut scenes and stuff. So

>> Calibrating.

>> Yeah.

>> Did you like um

>> Oh god, what was that recent one? What was it called?

>> Mixtape.

>> I did like Mixtape.

>> Okay. So, you're

>> But but like Mixtape to me

>> Booted Mixtape to me is more vote you off the island of a game. I feel like

>> Yeah. I don't like experiences. I want to play.

>> But that's not Detroit Become Human. I will say Detroit Become Human. You move around the environment and stuff. So there there is like

>> If there's no fast twitch, it's just not my thing. Yeah.

>> There there was a a recent game and it was like telling a story. The animation was unbelievably good and it was like uh I think it's called it is called Dispatch. Dispatch.

>> Oh, I love Dispatch. So good.

>> So your kind of thing. Now I get what you're into. I love it.

>> Uh and I was like, God, if this were just on Netflix, I would watch the [ __ ] out of this. But to make out like I'm playing this, I'm like I could I was a gasast on Steam. I couldn't believe it. I was like, "This is not fun to play." Amazing to watch. Not fun to play.

>> That's still different though from Detroit, I will say. Someone also suggested S. Another good game. That's a horror game about

>> So, I don't know. Never even heard of it.

>> Um, but yeah. Anyways, I was just thinking about that with the AI stuff.

>> I love that, man. Very, very interesting. Crazy times that we live in, man. Crazy times that we live in. So, uh, do not give your sovereignty to anybody. That is ultimately the moral of this whole thing as we daisy chain between the IPOs that are coming, the crazy [ __ ] Canada is doing, the callouts that Anthropic is doing. Uh, unfortunately, you you just you're not going to be able to turn your sovereignty over to anybody. There is right now in this moment in time, there's basically nobody that you can trust. Your governments are not your friend. That is for sure. And the law is not even right now your friend. And yes, I know that's part of the government, but I think that it bears a specific look. If you guys are not paying attention what's going on with the [ __ ] Lego story, you've got to look at this. Uh, the So, I'm going to I'm going to speedrun this as I'm not sure this will be uh something that our audience has paid a lot of attention to, but this one is wild. As somebody that is just hyper skeptical uh of the government and somebody who understands the way that YouTube is still changing our lives. YouTube being a stand-in for this volume and philosophy of information, no gatekeepers, all of that. And I expect this is going to be a little bit controversial as you hear about this story. Okay, so again, this is a speedrun, but it starts with this old guy creates a Lego collection. It's worth $200,000 roughly. There's debates about that, but we'll use it as a stand-in. It's a very valuable collection. He goes to this place called Bricks and Minifigs and uh puts it on consignment and then there's like a change of ownership and the new people that come in basically don't pay him and just absorb the um the inventory and say, "Bro, we the fact that you did a weird deal with the previous owners, that doesn't mean anything to us. We bought the business. This is now ours." That's [ __ ] insane. That's theft. Crazy. He can't do it. So, this guy, the son technically of the old guy who sells this, apparently the largest collection of Star Wars Legos uh in existence, uh gets in contact with this guy, Reckless Ben. Reckless Ben is a YouTuber that before this drama was not massive, known. I think he had a couple hundred thousand subscribers. Now he's well over a million. And Reckless Ben basically goes and he's the modern equivalent of like you got ripped off at the Jiffy Lube and so you hire like this guy to go fight on your behalf. Okay, so he's the YouTube version of that. So he goes and takes on these crazy fights for people. So he gets involved with Bricks and Minifigs. It becomes an absolute [ __ ] show. Uh, Bricks and Minifigs deny, deny, deny. We did nothing wrong. They get this kid arrested. I mean, just crazy, crazy [ __ ] as he's trying to follow the law, I'm sure, as any good YouTuber would. He's pushing the envelope. He's doing things that are good for content. Let that sort of linger in the background. That's going to be a big part of what I think will be the knock-on effect of this whole moment is like nuisance YouTubing. How far can people go before like this really does become stalking, etc., etc. But the when the police get involved is when I started really getting creeped out. So, the police get involved. They're working with the guy. So, um, you've got Reckless Ben files a lawsuit against the new owners that have consumed this inventory. And so, he's now in a lawsuit with them, but he has to deliver them papers. He goes to deliver them papers. That guy calls the police and says, "Hey, this guy is stalking me. I've had enough of this. I'm not going to put up with this anymore." According to Reckless Ben, he starts telling lies, saying that someone on Reckless Ben's team threatened to murder somebody at a store. Uh, he's saying that the papers that Reckless Ben is trying to serve to him are totally fake, which they're not, and gets proven later in the video. Um, he's saying that the process server is also impersonating a process server and he wants her arrested, but she is not. She's a real process server, which they explain all of that. The cops even get it confirmed that the lawsuit is real. Even after all of that, they still end up arresting this kid. They are like doing these brainstorming exercises about what could he possibly be doing that we could get him for. I mean, it's crazy like bureaucratic nightmare [ __ ] And when Reckless Ben first requested the body cam footage cuz he's like, I will be exonerated when you hear like what's actually happening. They redact a bunch of that and uh send it to me. and he's like, "Why is this all being redacted?" And uh long story about what just happened there. And all of a sudden, you realize when someone hacks the police department and gets the unredacted footage that this was not the things that they said that were redacted to protect the victim were in fact not protective of the victim. Now, I'm not going to show that because I don't know what's going to come of that because it was all released on a hack. But as this is all playing out, we're realizing that the cops, for whatever weird [ __ ] reason, are going to bat for the guy that now Bricks and Minifigs, by the way, have fired this guy for his involvement in all of this. Bricks and Minifigs is now going hard to make it right. They're making out like they've been going to bat for the little guy this whole time, which is total [ __ ] These guys have been trying to railroad this [ __ ] old guy who spent his life like pouring his soul into a hobby that ends up turning into something of actual real tangible value that you can see they have in their store but are not paying him for. It is the wildest [ __ ] ever. And so this is why people end up hating uh business owners, Ryan. And that makes me very sad because these these guys really are the [ __ ] that your mother warned you about. So anyway, through all of this, it's not quite done and dusted yet, but through all of this, at every turn, Bricks and Minifigs just look like psychotic [ __ ] from where I'm standing. Now, we'll see in the end like how far Reckless Ben was pushing things. If that goes too far, if he ends up still being in some legal hot water, we'll see. But man, we are living through an age where bureaucracies are weaponized against people in a way that should mortify everybody. All of this for me triggered off you don't hate the government enough. Like this is where we all need to be ridiculously vigilant. You do not want to see the police getting in cahoots with people trying to shut somebody down. Something needs to live and die on the merits. Everybody should be seeking the truth. What is going on when the police hit the wall where it's like, "Oh, this is a real lawsuit. This is going to need to play out in court." That should have been it, done and dusted. You've been served. You know the papers exist. You know the lawsuit is real. And because by the way, the cops asked Reckless Ben, "Hey, can we go give him the the serve papers?" Reckless Ben's like, "Oh my god, that'd be amazing." They go over to the guy and are like, "Hey, we've got the papers." And the guy lies and says, "No, this is all fake. She's impersonating uh somebody um uh god, I forget, I just said it a couple minutes ago. The agent that actually gives you the papers, the serving agent or whatever, and the cops find out that it's real. And they still don't force the guy to take the papers and they still after that go and arrest this guy. It's absolutely wild. So the level of paranoia that people have for how the government will be used against you is way way way too low. This is why you will see me rage against anybody that wants to grow the bureaucracy even more. That [ __ ] is crazy. We need a government that is obsessed with staying small. Obsessed.

>> Um, I might need the clarifier on this, but Reckless Ben is the one who is stalking their house to get this all done, right? Reckless Ben is the YouTuber who they claimed was stalking their house

>> Because I heard the claim about he showed up with a wig to try to spy on them and I was like, what is happening with

>> Okay, so here here is what I think is close to the truth, though I'm well aware that we don't have all the details yet.

>> What I think is close to the truth is you have Reckless Ben realizing I got to make this good content. He tries to send the guy an email about the lawsuit. The courts tell him you can't. You have to go in person and you have to uh try in good faith to have a conversation about it.

>> So, between him trying to have the good faith conversation and being blocked and then uh realizing that if they know that it's him when he goes to serve the papers that it's never going to work. And so, he dresses up as a uh UPS delivery guy. Um, I think to either give him the papers or to have the conversation. I can't remember at which beat in the story that comes, but that's a combination of I was told by the courts I had to do it and I'm going to try to turn this into good YouTube content.

>> So again, the nuisance streaming, YouTubing, that whole element of this is going to be a part of the conversation. This is not me going to bat for the methods that YouTube Ben is using. Yeah. Um, but this is me saying I'm far less skeved out by YouTube Ben uh pretending to be a UPS delivery guy to get him the papers or to have the conversation than I am out by somebody who calls the cops and says uh a bunch of lies to try to get this kid arrested and then the cops actually work with him even after they know that the lawsuit is real. That's where I'm like, yo, that is [ __ ] wild.

>> Yeah. Well, in chatter to clarify on the stalking thing, um, it's more so the I I mean like I'm with Reckless Ben on this. He his dad's Legos were basically stolen from him, right? And

>> Not Reckless Ben's dad, but this guy's dad.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So to me, I'm like, you know, I like you said, the methods might be extreme, but I get what pushes you to that that point with this type of situation because Yeah. This like civil suits like this get messy. Not only do they get messy, but these guys can bury this kind of thing. Like imagine pre-internet, no one ever finds out about this. They just absconded with the $200,000 in his Lego stuff. And by the way, just part of the way that these guys are behaving, the I think they're both owners of the store because two guys have been fired, Josh and somebody else. Got

>> Uh, and by Bricks and Minifigs. And they would have just gotten away with it. And the internet's the only thing that allowed Reckless Ben to play the Scooby-Doo role. And we've got the "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for you pesky kids." Like, that's really what this moment has ended up being. And I think that the world is basically just a whole bunch of that. And listen, I know that anybody that was old enough to understand what was actually happening during COVID is going to respond more like the way that I'm responding now. My level of paranoia around the government was magnified a thousandfold living through that. I still remember watching the news, like just being totally glued to it, being the good boy who was like staying in the house, doing everything I was told, and then they were like, "Um, the masks don't work, so make sure you don't wear them and save them for the medical professionals." And I was like, "Wait, do the masks not work or I need to save them for the medical professionals? Both statements cannot be true." And so that's when I was like, "Hold on." And then obviously it just [ __ ] spirals. I was like, "Listen, this is a free country. I get that you want us to do the right thing, but you have to convince us to do the right thing. You can't just lie and manipulate." And so, we live in that world where people we right now way more at least it's way more apparent than when I was young. The bureaucracies are used to bludgeon people. They talk about the process being the punishment. That's it's too gnarly. I'm not prepared to live in that world.

>> Well, and these stories also hit so close to home for some people as well because I mean Legos are expensive. I actually in my hometown there was a Bricks and Minifigs and I shopped at it. And so it's like when you are, you know, giving your money to a company or you are, you know, supporting a business just to find out this is how they behave, it's like that sucks. Like that sucks that you, you know, you're sitting there and you're like, "Wow, I kind of I mean you didn't know, but you kind of feed into that and then that sits with you and you're like, okay." Yeah. It's just it's an intense story overall.

>> It's an intense story. Yeah. It's wild. And um, high trust is a thing that's really getting lost. And understanding that when you live in a high trust society, which is pre-tribal, okay, we're in a populist tribal moment. High trust does not exist in that very tribal moment. But when you have a high trust society, the amount of things that you can get done is really incredible. I'm reading more and more about Japan because just discovering uh the role that they played in um the global economy post World War II is utterly fascinating. Uh, the 80s in their like bubble buildout. At one point, Japan had half of the world's cash. Japan only has 130 million people. They had half the world's cash. That is so crazy. It's considered the greatest wealth transfer in human history. Basically going from wealth existing in America to sending it to Japan. Uh, and the Japanese, their big complaint was, "You guys just aren't competing well enough." And the really bad news is, I think it's true. And I think that the way that we ended up disarming Japan economically was through economic uh, black magic, like sort of somewhat sinister tricks. And we said like, "Hey, uh, we're going to really put our two countries together from a trade perspective. We're going to let give you access to our market, us access to your market. It's going to be incredible." And then America just started crying foul because Japan was doing a much better job. And when asked, the Japanese were like, "Yo, what are you guys talking about? We don't have any barriers that we're putting up. You guys will send your executives over here to Japan. They won't learn the language. We learn the language. You guys build products that make sense for a Western audience but do not make sense for a Japanese audience. You try to sell us cars where the [ __ ] steering wheel is on the wrong side of the car. Like what the [ __ ] are you actually doing?" They would talk about the fact that we US people would manufacture chopsticks, but they would sell them in packets of six, but Japan was in the middle of a birth crisis. And so for them, it was like they didn't have six people in a household. And so they didn't want to buy like a wasteful amount of this stuff. And on and on and on and on. And it's one of those where it's like, listen, you got to do what's in your national best interest, but at the same time, that is admittedly like pretty gnarly. They were just legitimately outcompeting us. It's like China with cars right now. From what I can tell, if we went into open competition with China on cars, well, okay, this is a bit this this is why we push back. China is basically subsidizing their car market, so they're [ __ ] cheap. But the actual quality of the cars is pretty dope. And for what you pay, like I'm seeing now BYD all over the UK.

>> You saw the BYD thing about the they're also paying for any damage in a in a car crash.

>> Dude, how wild is that?

>> It's like that's how into cars they are right now. Like this is our market. And it's smart cuz like America doesn't make cars. We had uh Detroit and then we screwed that up.

>> Well, so knowing why we screwed that up is very important. So part of the reason that we screwed that up is A, when we were going head-to-head with Japan, we just did not innovate with another huge market that we should have been innovating. They understood that we were like price sensitive around gas and quality. And so they gave us an insanely high quality vehicle because their manufacturing techniques were so dope. They gave an insanely high um quality car. They made it more compact so that it was more gas efficient. And that's what the American market was like interested in at that time. And so they really understood the market and they were able to deliver exactly what the market wanted. Now when you start getting into China, it gets a little bit more complicated because the government is not creating an equal playing field. And so then the reaction is going to be to be um exclusionary to stop them, use tariffs and keep them out. But uh all so that's beat one is Japan. Beat two is just globalization. So, we're not innovating as hard as Japan. That's already hurting the car market. Then we are just completely eroding our own manufacturing base. And so, now we just don't have that kind of knowledge. It's scary. Like, as a game developer, I think about this. Um, Asmongold did a whole thing on this. I should have [ __ ] pulled it, but uh he showed this video game that was from like 2009. It looked unbelievable. It looked It had the same kind of draw distance that Crimson Desert has.

>> Might be Crisis.

>> Insane, dude. So beautiful. And uh he was like, "How the [ __ ] is this something from that long ago?" And now as a game developer, I'm like, "Finding people that know how to do this kind of stuff is just hard because we've stopped doing it." And so once you realize knowledge evaporates faster than you think it does and having people that are truly gifted at the thing like really matters. And so in doing the globalism thing, it's like um Destiny was uh thinking he was clapping back on me hard when he was like, "Tom, surely you understand comparative advantage." It's like, "Yes, motherfucker." But at some point you go, "We just outsourced it and so now we're just forever not going to be good at manufacturing." Is that your punchline? Like you have to go, yeah, we've got to invest in this. We put ourselves in a position where for 30 years we let them earn that competitive advantage. But now we're in a position where that competitive advantage matters. We're coming into the era where we're now competing elites and all of a sudden they control some of our most important uh economic and um supply chain choke points. Like what the [ __ ] It it's so mind-boggling to me that people don't go, "Oh, oh, that thing that matters to my life is being manufactured somewhere else that could at any time become hostile to my interests." And now, much like Iran is choking us out in the Strait of Hormuz, these guys could just be like, "No rare earth metals for you." And now I literally just can't make these things. And so, oh, I don't want to give up my comparative advantage, so I'm just going to let them do it. What? It's it's so crazy. And yet that's the logic that people have is that oh no no no like things will be friendly forever. That's not the world you live in. That's not the world. It was a brief moment in time. That moment in time passed. It was obvious that it was going to pass because such is human nature. And so here we are.

>> It's like shower valves. You know, you have the hot and the cold. You turn up too much isolationist. Not fun. You turn up too much globalization. Not fun. You need both at a happy medium.

>> Yes. Yes. [ __ ] we've got a a Jenzir here we can believe in. But what we do instead is we go all the way [ __ ] hot. And as we pass through the like we're going from freezing cold to hot. It feels awesome. And so people keep doing it. Then all of a sudden they realize they're getting third-degree burns and their skin is bubbling. They're like, "Fuck, we've got to swing back." So now we swing back cold. But it feels so good as you pass back through that appropriately warm stage. You're like, "Yeah, see this is working." You swing it all the way to [ __ ] cold. Now you're freezing to and you just go back and forth and back and forth. And it there's something in the human mind that makes that unavoidable.

>> Mhm.

>> And that's why, man, the fact that we're coming into the era of AI and brain computer interfaces and gene editing because I've always said, well, you're arguing with God. There's nothing we can do. But every time I say that, I think that's not

necessarily true. We will be able to edit our not only like our genes, we'll be able to edit the germ line, which means now we may try to stop it, but it means that we could pass that on to our kids with permanent changes forever. Oh [ __ ] Ozimpic.

So, boys and girls, please, I get it. From a health perspective, you may may be better off on Osimpic than being fat. That might actually be a real thing, but what it turns down is your desire. Now, many times when I'm teaching entrepreneurs, I will get asked, Tom, how do you like fight through when it gets boring or scary or whatever? And I always say, it's because I really want my goals. Like I really want them with a ferocity that is hard to explain. And so I'm like there's a what I call the loop of desire. There is a way to build interest in something and you can go down that path of reinforcing the the desire. Ozimic is the exact opposite. Ozimic just dials down desireful stop. And so now good luck getting anything you want.

Now you may think, oh that's kind of rad. Like I I want to like turn that down a little bit. I don't want to be as obsessed whether it's um food, gambling, sex, video games, whatever. I don't want to want these things that much. This is ultimately a good thing. One, that's numbing out. It is a [ __ ] terrible self-destructive idea. Avoid at all costs. Learn to point your desires at things that uplift your life. Do not try to numb out and not want anything. That that is not how the human animal is wired. you're going to end up in a very dark place. It'll actually be a gray place, just be a flat place. So, be very careful on that. And then, and then and then and then, [ __ ] you're in a competitive world. And there is going to be a culture that believes in itself, that isn't numbing out, that is very aggressive, and they're going to maul you. So if you've ever thought, "Fuck, I'm on stolen land." Think about what it will feel like to have your land stolen. That's where shit's going to get real. And it will be a question of who's going to believe in themselves enough. China seems to believe in themselves. Islam believes in itself. We're going to have to contend with it. So watching people numb the [ __ ] out is the wildest [ __ ] ever. That is wild.

>> I'm curious now since we're kind of going back to AI shortly. Are you the type of person who if they made a chip for your brain, you'd get it? Cuz I think I'm of the mind that I will never get it. I will get the most chips.

>> Really?

>> Yes.

>> What's your reasoning? Because I guess for me, I get scared of the idea that a company or a government could have the potential to manage my brain cuz already they're basically managing our brains, right? They control what we see. Everything that we see every day, advertising, marketing, all that is manufactured. I'm I guess so. What's your reasoning for wanting to do it?

>> I won't be an early adopter. So, that's the important part. For that very reason, I want to see how this settles out. I want to see what happens. I want to see what the second and third order consequences are. I want to watch how this plays out. So when I say yes, I'll get the most chips. What I'm saying is I don't have some philosophical thing where um I believe that well there's a sanctity of biology that should never be um disrupted. [ __ ] that. Like if there is something, keep in mind when I say I would do it, it's safe. Like it's proven to be safe. Long track record. We're feeling good about it. Um, it's proven to be safe. I'm not being manipulated. I'm not being hacked. Uh, we've solved those problems and now I'm able to effectively jack into the matrix and effectively become superhuman compared to what I am today. A thousand% I would do that. To me, it's like being asked, a magic genie comes up to you and says, there will be no negative uh consequences to you physically. Would you like the ability to fly, have super strength, super intelligence, you know, whatever? Yes, obviously. So, I'm sure some people are like, "No, I would never do that. I would do that a thousand%." I have wanted that genie to show up my entire life.

>> And technology is the first thing that's like, "Yo, I might really be that genie. I might really be him."

>> Can I play devil's advocate,

>> please?

>> So, you mentioned the genie analogy. What happens if the genie is a jin? If the genie is a what?

>> A jin. So a jin is an evil version.

>> Oh. Oh. Oh. A demon.

>> Yeah. Well, not even that, but like the whole thing with the jin is it's like the monkeykey's paw, right? You make a wish. They're very enticing. They're like, nothing's going to go wrong. And you phrase it a certain way, and suddenly >> now you have physical chips in your brain. You're like, I'm going to give you a chip in your brain. You're like, love it. There's a bag of lace chips in there now. You know what I mean? That kind of thing, right? So do you think there's a world where that idea of safety even if it's promised doesn't come about?

>> Of course. That's why I'm not an early adopter. So there are second and third order consequences to everything. People have got to be careful. I am not running out. Uh Peter Diamandis and I just talked about this. So he was on the podcast. I think he might be next week's episode though. Don't hold me to that. Um, and he we were talking about BCI, brain computer interface, and we both agreed we're going to get it, but I'm like, I'm not going to be an early adopter like you. He already has two RFID chips inside of him. I'm like, [ __ ] that. So, uh, yeah, that way too early for that ship. But like over the next 30 or 40 years, especially as I'm pushing the end of my life and I'm like, I'm dying at this point. But if said chip can help me avoid that [ __ ] in an instant, as long as we've already seen it play out, we know what it is. Like, I don't know if we have any uh Cyberpunk 2077 fans in the house, but it's like, yeah, I'm not doing that where I'm like at some [ __ ] grimy shop and they're jacking me in and halfway through I start hallucinating and freaking out and No. Yeah, >> like that. That's not the angle. But um yeah, I think that ultimately this will get safer and as it does, it'll probably get less invasive. There's already um a new system that doesn't require the implantation of the um connection points in your brain. It like broadcasts into your brain. So anyway, stuff like that. I think it will get better and better over time. And yes, 100%. Like I want to see how far that this shell can be pushed >> safely.

>> Speaking of getting better with time, uh Hunter Biden's saga right now.

>> Bro, this is wild.

>> has been I feel like one of the craziest 180s I've seen in politics in a minute.

>> This is wild. You've got to pull up that tweet that I pulled. Uh do you see which line it is? So this is in our Friday's funny section. Yeah. So it's 66. So, this one, this is but one of many tweets that he's done that are absolute bangers. Uh, so, uh, here is the tweet. Th this is from Hunter Biden, and it is so in keeping with everything else that he's been tweeting out that I have no reason to believe this is not actually him. He says, "I know this may sound petty, but I can't stand it when people photoshop a meth pipe in my mouth. A crackpipe doesn't have that little bowl at the end. This is why we can't trust AI. Please make the appropriate edit. Thank you for your attention to this matter. That is so gangster on so many levels. He's had so many bangers like um he's posted himself looking like he's cracked out. Uh and he was like, "Do I really look like part of the oligarch to you?" He's had other ones where he lists like all the corrupt things that the um Trump admin and family are doing and he's like, "Yeah, yeah, but again complain about my paintings." Now, for me, this does not let Hunter Biden off the hook for anything. I am merely impressed by this man's command of social media. It it is very very impressive. He's self-deprecating. He's making fun of himself. He's like somehow flipped around a crack addiction and made it like a point of chuckling to yourself like it. Yes, it's very impressive. Either him or somebody on his social team likely that but he's obviously willing to do it all. really understands how to make X work. I haven't seen him on other platforms, so I don't know if he's sort of as uh in line with the brand of like the actual platform, but on X, holy [ __ ] Like, he's really got something. It's hilarious.

>> I just like his rise because when he was on Candace, that's like the one Candace Owens thing I've ever watched. And it was because it was one of the first times in a long time I felt like this is the bipartisanship we at least need. Candace Owens and Hunter Biden. Holy [ __ ]

>> I haven't seen the episode, but that that is a wild statement. It may be true.

>> It's beautiful. It starts with cuz I think chat knows I'm not the biggest Candace fan, but it was such a beautiful thing on her end to be like, >> I'm not going to sit here and [ __ ] talk your father to you. I just want to talk about your experience coming out of an addiction. And I don't know, it was just so grounding because it's like Drew was saying last episode, you know, people who yell at us and chat all the time. It's like we'd go see him in the streets and we'd talk about something, right? But then the minute politics comes up, we kind of all collapse. And so I liked it cuz it was such a grounding moment and then now it's led into more funny jokes from him on Twitter and stuff.

>> So interesting.

>> But you should watch it.

>> That was that the bipartisan conversation you were looking for or was that just a grounded conversation between two people who has historically been rivals?

>> Both. I say bipartisan on the grounds of like you just said the rival part. It's like these are two people who everyone in chat, everyone on the internet would be like these two could never get along. These two would never talk because they're on such opposite sides of the I guess the fighting. And so to me I'm like this is just a representation of like Massie and Roana. We can work together. People just choose not to.

>> You're being scoped

>> for real. I really mean that. So here's the important thing to understand about Massie and Roana about Candice and Hunter. they are not able to have a conversation with somebody about a thing that they don't share values on. These are people coming together because all of a sudden they're finding, oh, our values are actually aligned on a thing that we care most deeply about. Now, I certainly know more about Roana and Thomas Massie than I know about um Candace and Hunter, but I'd be willing to bet sight unseen that that is true. Candace does not know how to reach across the aisle. Uh she is an inflamer. Her mission in life is to whip up drama and she is unbelievably talented at it. Um so the second he says something that touches on one of her core beliefs and she doesn't believe in, she is going to lose her [ __ ] mind. So, um, reaching across the aisle would be me talking to Bernie about tax policy. That's across the aisle. Like, if he and I were like, "Okay, we really [ __ ] despise each other's take on this, but let's sit down. Let's have a civil discourse about this. We're not going to twig. We're not going to yell. And no matter what, even if I get passionate, Bernie, I'm not going to do personal attacks on you, and I hope that you'll respect the same." That would be across the aisle. Which by the way, Bernie, I'm [ __ ] open if you want to do it. I'm not an ad hominemm guy. You will never get that from me. Uh so at least not live face to face. I may occasionally for good clips. Uh let a little bit of that out. But in terms of I really would sit down with him. I would sit down with mom Donnie. It would be incredibly polite. I would try to map out cause and effect. I would try to let their my thinking when I go into something like that is I'm going to map your base assumptions, your beliefs, the things you actually want to do. And then I'm going to let that stand. I'm not going to sit there and attack you for it. I'm not going to tell you what an evil [ __ ] you are. Uh I'm not going to say that I don't sometimes get animated. I do. But it isn't me trying to browbeat somebody. Now, I may or may not be gifted at that. I'm just saying that would be an example of people who really they're not sharing values and they're coming to talk about the thing that they don't share values on. Um, I think there the weird horseshoe effect of what's going on on the right is why you're seeing people on the left and the right sort of wrapping back around on each other.

>> Um, I think we we're going to jump into super chats, I think. Sorry, I was trying to read a comment from one of the commenters and they're just kind of all saying the same thing is that we're all just people at the end of the day and I think it's a good thing to remember when it >> is a good thing to remember. Um, however, I will say that this really isn't that moment. Um, in fact, there's uh something in the spreadsheet that we should play really fast and we'll get to super chats. But, um, Nick Shirley, it's line 57. Nick Shirley bumped into a guy in New York City and they don't know each other and the guy just starts screaming at him. And the reason that that is happening now, I would say far more than it used to happen because this is on the street. This is not content. In fact, while it looks like Nick Shirley is filming, as far as I can tell, if you watch the video to the end, this is actually just a guy that starts filming that's walking behind Nick Shirley and he starts filming because this guy was yelling at him. So, hold on a second, then we'll start playing it. And um so Nick isn't filming. This guy isn't filming. The only person filming is a a guy that happens to be behind Nick. He's later gonna ask Nick for a photo, which is why I think this is or other people start asking for a photo, and you hear him talk about like, "Oh, yeah, [ __ ] this is really Nick Shirley." Um, so that's what I think is is the setup. So, this is people meeting in real life, not being civil at all. And the reason is that you've got two value systems that each think they're existential. And if my side doesn't win, bad things are going to happen. So I'm willing to fight, die, and kill for my belief system. And so the person who said we're all just people in the end, or the people that have said that may just be very rational, grounded people that have not gotten sucked up into uh the tribaless of it all, but don't fail to see this moment for what it is. That argument, somebody might even say, "Of course, obviously I agree." But the part that they won't say out loud is however this moment is life and death and we must act accordingly.

>> Wait, I missed I think the first.

>> So you might be able to go up to somebody and say we're all just people. And let's say that person is across the aisle from you. Yeah. And then they say, "Yes, you're right. We're all just people and we really should be able to get alone."

>> The way that society is acting >> is not in accordance with that belief at all. Yeah,

>> it is only in accordance with the belief that this is a life and death existential moment for insert whatever that person's belief system is. And so I'll fight, lie, kill, cheat, steal to make sure that my thing gets across and so that will have high predictive validity if you assume that the person is running that operating system. Uh so anyway, while it is a true statement, you will not feel it reflected back to you if that's how you try to engage with the world. Much to my dismay.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. So with that set up now, let's take a look at this clip. Nick Shirley on the streets of New York.

>> So it's a little hard to hear in the beginning, but Nick is saying, "Why? Why do you think I'm racist?"

>> Yes, you have. Yes, you have. I've seen your videos. I've seen your videos. So he's saying like what? Show me a post.

>> Thank you. How did I frame it as [ __ ]

>> There's a bunch of [ __ ] racists over here. Bunch of [ __ ] racists over here. [ __ ] you.

>> Did I say silence be quiet?

>> Yeah, that's what they want. What do you want to talk about? What do you want to say?

>> What do you want to say? I'm listening.

>> Hey, how am I racist or long?

>> Dude, what do I got to pull up 90 clips of you?

>> Uh, me saving taxpayer dollars.

>> Saving taxpayer dollars. You know what, man? [ __ ] you. And get out of New York, man.

>> Stay in Florida. Where you from? Where do you live?

>> America. Pause it for a second. That That's one of the more distressing things that I thought about from this clip is that we really are breaking along geographic lines and that's going to start getting way way more dangerous.

>> Like civil war. Yeah.

>> Yeah. Like as you start saying like, "Hey, you don't belong in New York. New York has an ideology. It is not welcoming to actual viewpoint diversity. Uh so anybody that doesn't think our way, we would like you to leave now.

>> And I can identify where you should go."

>> Yeah. you should go to Florida, go to Texas. Those are the places for you. New York is not a place for you. And unfortunately, it's becoming more and more true. I certainly feel alienated in California. And so, it is um that's that's not good. That does not end up anywhere great.

>> I also find this one interesting, and I'll preface this with the guy who is doing this to Nick, total [ __ ] Totally in the wrong piece of [ __ ] 100%. I I find it interesting though because it's almost as though Nick is and this is maybe a double advocate take, but Nick is almost getting a taste of his own medicine in a way because this is a complaint I always have and um chat knows this complaint, but Nick Shirley does not do real journalism. He himself, while not as bad as that guy, Nick Shirley does just kind of go around and shove cameras in people's faces or like, "Let me in, let me in. I want to see this." Right? And so like in in a way it's like both of them are in the wrong. this guy more so because he's just being a dick to his face like outright. But it's just interesting. I don't know. It's an interesting dynamic in this specific case.

>> Um I get why you say that and it's interesting. We all have a frame of reference, myself included. And so of course I despise fraud and want to see fraud uncovered at every turn. And so I'm sure that I'm numb to a certain level of the way that Nick behaves is problematic. Uh we would certainly be better off in an era where journalists are hyper high integrity, though I'm not sure if we've ever actually lived through that era. Um we've had yellow journalism, as they used to call it, as long as this has existed, but it certainly did seem like there was at least internal pressure amongst journalists and external pressure for people to present the facts and not just their own spin. Um, the thing that I find interesting about Nick's form of I don't care whether people call it journalism or not. That doesn't matter to me at all. Yeah. The thing that I find interesting about what Nick does is that he makes visceral these things that we're being told don't happen. This isn't real, but now you can see it. Like I really think Nick owes his entire career to a typo. And if it had been called the learning center,

>> Mhm.

>> it never would have gone viral. It was the fact that they were getting money to educate our youth and it was called the Learing Center. And that just made it go [ __ ] haywire.

>> And so now you've got this kid that doesn't really have the eloquence to think, oh, this is the guy that rose to prominence. The reason he's risen to prominence is he either is just completely fearless. Like even if you watch in this video, you've got a guy, he's bigger than Nick. Um, and he is being very threatening and like literally sort of moving towards him in an aggressive fashion. He's not like he's, you know, cocking his hand back or anything, but he's moving towards him in in an aggressive fashion. And Nick's impulses always move towards him, not to move away.

>> Yeah. And certainly most people when they get into a confrontation like this, you can tell that their blood pressure, like even the guy that he's talking to, that guy's getting agitated. Nick is just super calm. And so the very thing that makes Nick valuable is that he'll go into these incredibly uncomfortable situations. He's not in the least bit bothered by confrontation. And so he'll just go in, point the camera at the thing, ask the questions. I don't read Nick in the way that you presented him, but I get why people would be uh would think, hey, this is a bit of a nuisance. Tommy, you were talking earlier about YouTubers as a nuisance. Like, this feels like that to me. But I think it's far more likely that it entirely breaks along the lines of whether you think the thing that they're trying to go after is rightly gone after or not. Because I don't think anybody would have beef if somebody did what Nick did to Epstein people, right? Everybody be like, "Yeah, uncover that shit." Uh, if a corporation did something evil, I don't think anybody would have a beef with you putting a camera in their face. I mean, and to really drive my point home, there's a lot of people that are completely celebratory of the fact that a CEO got shot to death in the back. Yeah. So, >> putting a camera in their face is a far cry from that. So, I think it's going to break along those lines of do I think this is a just pursuit or not.

>> I guess for me it's the examples you gave. I have no problem with like it's not the camera getting in your face specifically thing. It's with Nick Shirley's case, he did not find any fraud. What he did is he shown a flashlight onto the broader topic of fraud, which we do need to tackle. There's a ton of fraud, but these specific places he went to were not fraud places.

>> You don't think the Larrying Center was fraud?

>> No, I think it's a very like condemning thing of of the place itself, but I don't think that place was a fraud because the fraud that was uncovered there was not related to anything Nick Shirley did. But what Nick Shirley did, which I commend him for, is shining a light on a topic that needs to be addressed. Right. So, I think where my problem comes in is he's going up to these like the daycare one for example. I watched the video. He'll go up there to like an actual daycare and he'll be like, "Well, can I see all the kids?" And it's like, you can't really walk up to a daycare with a camera where a bunch of children are and being like, "Show me the kids." That's just it's weird to me. Right. So, while what he's doing is important, I think the methodology was not smart. I think

>> How do you feel about the Dr. Oz stuff?

>> Which Dr. Oz stuff? Um,

>> so he basically was driving around the city, not putting a camera in people's faces, but documenting everything, talking about what he's finding. um obviously uncovering a ton of fraud which they're now prosecuting. Does that feel like the right way?

>> So, I really don't know the whole Dr. Oz thing, so I don't know if I can appropriately comment on it. Um because I think the reason I comment on the Nick Shirley stuff is it bugs me that he's gotten a pedestal in this way and like been given a badge to kind of do whatever he wants, right? Like when he went to Cuba, he stayed in a hotel that was on the ban list from America, faced no repercussions. I think that's more my problem is just

>> that one I get like if you're gonna hold Hassan accountable to not being in a hotel on a ban list and then you go on the band list that now we're just naked partisanship. Uh but the reason that I bring that up is I think right now in this day and age you're going to need people that know how to get attention to actually get attention for the things that matter.

>> And uh there's a line that can clearly be crossed and if it's crossed then that's a problem unto itself and it needs to be shut down. But um I for me and again this is my own bias shining through. I don't see a problem with I haven't seen anything where I thought Nick really crossed a line there. The fact that they don't take him back to see the kids. Yeah, I don't have any beef with that whatsoever. The fact that they won't give him him an application, the fact that they won't talk to him, like that kind of stuff, I think starts to be a bad look on them. Um, the fact that I have a default assumption that we're going to uncover billions, tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud has me on the side of, yeah, I would like somebody who can actually get attention for this to get attention because it's telling to me that you know Nick Shirley, but you don't know what Dr. Oz is up to.

>> Yeah.

>> And so that's like, yeah, because Dr. Oz doesn't know how to cut through the noise. Nick does. And so anyway, I get why there's going to be friction there.

>> Well, I also I'll give him credit. I'm sure him as a person's a great guy. Um, he's better than like a Tyler Olivivera. Like that's a real YouTuber. Like the thing you were talking about earlier with YouTubers doing the youtuby [ __ ] right? That's Tyler Olivera saw Nick Shirley's popularity, started doing the same thing and now he's kind of just a slop tuber, right? So, I'll give Nick this is he is trying to do something. He has a purpose versus someone like Tyler who's just doing it for the money.

>> Yeah, fair. I don't know Tyler so I can't speak either way, but I certainly get the type.

>> But super chats?

>> Yes.

>> And do you want to do a Friday funny after that?

>> Uh, if we have time. Yeah, let's go through.

>> How many super chats do we have?

>> Uh, a good amount, but some of these are thank yous. Shake Power 678, good morning, Tom and crew. Appreciate what you do with the show. What are your thoughts about the California CEO arrested for allegedly supplying equipment to an Iran Iranian nuclear program, which I only know about because this show turned me onto ground news.

>> Yeah. So, um, from if what is being claimed is true, [ __ ] that kid. Like you, yeah, you cannot, unfortunately, you can't do that [ __ ] That is wild. So, uh, it needs to play out in the fullness of time. We need to see it go through the court system. It's he's being alleged of something. We don't know that he necessarily did it. Uh, always be paranoid that the government is being weaponized against you or somebody else. Uh, but yeah, if he was actively violating our sanctions, that [ __ ] is crazy.

>> Chaos Ballads says, "You don't have to make me paranoid of AI, Tom. A channel called Upper Echelon does that sufficiently enough. Honestly, with how much you two disagree, being in the same room would be interesting.

>> Interesting. Uh, I don't know upper echelon, but I am certainly happy to check them out.

>> Field finesser, does you want me to send you that, by the way? I can send you.

>> Yeah, please.

>> Field finesser, does the birth rate and more only one child households affect the country's mentality? My 14-year-old daughter noticed her friends take more than offered and don't share back.

>> Oh, that's wild. Uh, I don't think that has to do with I I don't think that is being caused by the fact that we have single children. That's probably being caused by the same thing that led us to have uh only one kid in families. Um, so people passing on their values to their kid, it shouldn't matter how many kids you have. Like if you teach them to share, they're going to share. If you teach them to only take uh their amount, they're only going to take their amount. though, especially when they're young, they're only going to do things that they've been taught to do. So, the fact that people aren't taking the time to teach that is pretty crazy. Uh, it is very interesting how basically the vast majority of parenting is instilling cultural beliefs in your kids and we're instilling some crazy cultural norms. Crazy.

>> Patrick Writson. So, I definitely think SpaceX is in a different category than the others. It having a different asset fundamentals and ROI logistics. long term. Uh I'm thinking a solid early retail investment to make.

>> Yeah, I I think I fair point. I understand that you see it that way. Uh I think I laid out my case uh in detail and I will lay it out in more detail in Tuesday's upcoming deep dive. So make sure that you check that out.

>> BB says, "I got lucky and got 100k settlement. I make 28 an hour and have no safety net outside of this. What would you do with the money in the current unpredictable unpredictable economic climate to maximize returns?

>> So that money is declining every passing day. So I would be dollar cost averaging into um a very broad basket of things in uh the land of assets. Um so you you're trying to avoid being overindexed on any one economic force. So don't go all into tech for instance. Even if you go into tech in a whole bunch of different ways, that's still tech. Uh and tech is going to if AI takes a hit, the whole tech sector is just going to get obliterated. So for some period of time, like I said, I believe it will bounce back. But anyway, you want to be across economic forces. So, uh, you're going to be in bonds, you're going to be in stocks, you're going to be in different areas of stocks, you're going to be in emerging markets, you're going to be in tech, you're going to be in things that aren't tech, you're going to be in treasuries, money markets, like you're going to be gold, Bitcoin. You're going to be as uh diversified against economic forces as you can get and do it in a dollar cost average way. I wouldn't just go all in over the next, you know, 15 days um to get your money in. But yes, I would deploy and then obviously keep enough for a year uh should something go wrong, you lose your job or whatever. So keep that in mind. But then I would deploy the rest as I just said. Patrick Writson and man, why can't the kiddos seem to grasp the whole socialism is not your friend. It's not the direction you actually want to go regardless of how alluring it might be thing. Like what explains the phenomenon?

>> So that that one's actually pretty easy to explain. So um when you have 30 to 40 years of people in education um telling you that the capitalism is unjust um it gives these perverted outcomes. It is evil wealthy people um that are stealing your money. You don't understand wealth creation. So you don't understand that the pie can actually get bigger if you make the right regulations and things like that. um you think that wealth is a law of nature that it just happens and so it's just a question of how you distribute it fairly and if you have that one belief alone that uh wealth is always going to exist and so now it's just about who do we give it to then that would make sense but alas there are a select number of people that create that wealth remember only 50% of people in America pay tax uh so you've got a complete breakdown of cause and effect because they don't understand how the economy actually works because they don't understand that wealth is one of the hardest things in the world to create and it's very fragile. Um, and they believe that they've been taught to believe that this is just greedy people trying to steal what is rightfully theirs and that we need to distribute it in a more equitable fashion. What other conclusion could they draw? Luke Adam Miller says, "Tom, please detail your mediainformation diet. Favorite Substacks, YouTube channels, newspapers, magazines, think tanks, thought leaders, etc. Thanks. By the way, you might like Noah Smith in Tybor Rutar on Substack. Stay legendary."

>> I think I know the name Noah Smith. I think they must come across my X feed. Uh, so X and YouTube are the ways that I get the vast majority of my information uh in terms of things that are time-sensitive. Everything else I get in books. Um, so I'm constantly reading about economics and history, often the history of economics. Um, so that's a big part of the way that I get my information there. And then in terms of who I follow on YouTube, I try to keep it as broad as possible. Um, so God, I'm gonna be listening to everything from um you've got Philip DeFranco, Destiny, uh, Hassan to and obviously many more, but just to keep the list relatively brief to, um, Victor Davis Hansen, uh, Fox News, um, who else do I have on the right? Uh, and more. Oh god, there's the Stanford think tank. What are they called? Heritage Foundation.

>> Oh, Heritage. Yeah, there's also Heritage. Yeah, there's Yeah, there's a lot.

>> Thomas Soul, he's not quite as active as he used to be. Um, but yeah, I could probably put together a far more The problem is on X, I often don't know the person's name, so I just >> I look at their stuff enough that the algorithm just shows it to me. Uh, but I do try to always be pulling from both sides of the spectrum. So, uh, Nuome is on my feed. Mom Donnie is on my feed. Um Bernie's on my feed. Um who else now? Steve Hilton. Uh what's his name? Pratt is on my feed. Um so yeah, I try to get things from both sides of the fence. And then my feed also is full of people that are going to be more incendiary uh as it makes good content. So there's also that. So I'm also getting quite extreme views. I consume everything, but my big three outside of Impact Theory that I would recommend would be Philip DeFranco, BBC, and AP. They're all pretty straight down the middle. No, like, you know, extra fluff on it. They just tell you the news how it is, and if they have an opinion, they'll say it's an opinion. So, that's usually my starter.

>> I will say all three of those have a default left lean.

>> No, AP is, if you go look on the thing, AP is pretty middle of the road. Like AP is the quintessential AP and BBC specifically. maybe Philly, but

>> the BBC you're going to say is unbiased. That's insane.

>> It's not unbiased in the sense that like it's still telling you the news. There's less fluff that a Fox News or an MSNBC, if that makes sense.

>> It does. I mean, I understand the words coming out of your mouth. That seems patently insane.

>> But I'm not watching those. I am reading those. I don't I don't know if AP does video. I don't know if BBC does. I

>> AP is the only one in your stack that I don't encounter a lot really.

>> But BBC definitely biased. Philip DeFranco leans left in the same way that I lean right. Yeah, he's not crazy. I think he's a great show for people to watch, but he definitely like to watch me and not understand that I have a slightly right-leaning personality would be bizarre. To watch him and not realize he has a slightly left-leaning personality would be bizarre. But I think he is pretty middle of the road. I I don't think he is um has a predetermined narrative that he's trying to cram down your throat. I think he's sincere.

>> Yeah.

>> Um so yeah, I mean he's a great one. Definitely definitely not. Well, I think the real thing is someone said there's no unbiased news. Ultimately,

>> there's no unbiased human. It's not how we exist. Uh even if you just try to present the facts, you're still going to be putting it through a perception. And so, yes, it is extraordinarily important to remember that.

>> Uh and last super chat for the day. Hunter Emily Moore says, "Bite me. Thank you for your content. So far, you have changed my mind. Starting to change my actions. Still disagree from time to time, but I love the sincere approach. We need more of this these days." All right. It did start with bite me, right? I didn't miss hearing.

>> Yeah. I don't know. Start with that. Well, thank you. That means a lot and I appreciate you being here. And of course, there are going to be things that all well-intentioned people are going to disagree on from time to time. I think that is very good. I think it's super healthy. I don't think people should surround themselves only with people that think the way that they think. I think people should want to be challenged so that their ideas can get more crisp. I do not think that people should tie their sense of self into their ideas. your ideas can and will and should change and evolve over time as you get new information and build a closer map of cause and effect to what's actually happening. Um, so yeah, I love it. The the fact be nervous if you and I merge too completely from a thought perspective.

>> Uh, last minute $100 super chat.

>> Damn,

>> Hunter Emily again.

>> Oh [ __ ] Let's go, Hunter Emily. Thank you. I've been listening late for like at least a year now and many times I've wanted to donate but I work every day. Have a couple weeks off now. Just welcomed our fourth into the world. Hey, congratulations.

>> Well, congratulations and thank you, by the way, for your service. I do not say that with any sort of uh wink. I do mean that. Thank you for having children. Thank you for raising them well. I'll make the default assumption that you're at least doing your best to do that. I'm extremely grateful to you. Uh so yeah, as somebody who has not carried his end of the bargain with children, I'm very grateful for the people that do. So thank you.

>> And they said, "Hoping I can teach them well how to think and thank you for teaching me." God bless you guys.

>> That's awesome. That's dope. I love it. And thank you for the super chats. Extraordinarily generous. Uh I'm very grateful for your patronage. So thank you. All right. We're overtime here a lot. Damn. All right. Love you guys. You're amazing. Uh we will be back on Monday. Have a wonderful weekend. uh love something, engage with things that you love. It really is rad. And if you love getting ahead in life, make sure that you join me on Thursday, June 11th at 1 p.m. Pacific. It is a free master class where I'm going to show you guys how to use AI to start a company. Never been a better time. This is very powerful. It's very free. So, make sure you check it out. And if you want to stay healthy, you want to talk about things that I'm grateful for. I mean this to the core of my existence. First of all, Paleo Valley, you've helped my wife so much. I will never be able to thank you enough. And the fact that I'm able to eat these, especially when I'm on the go, is huge. Appreciate it. We give them also to our staff here, as Ryan was saying earlier. So, I'm very grateful. They have no junk, no fillers, natural ingredients. These guys are amazing. The QR code should be on the screen right now, but you can also click the link in the show notes. You can get 30 of these bad boys for just $36. They are awesome. My wife has such a limited number of things that she can eat, and the fact that she can eat these tells you everything you need to know about the quality of the ingredients. All right, with that I will bid you adul have a wonderful weekend. See you guys Monday. Peace.

Get Our Mobile App

You're Not an Investor in the SpaceX IPO — You're the Exit

Transcription