PBD Podcast - House Passes Housing Bill, Daily Wire $2B IPO, Knicks Trash Can Lady Fired | PBD Podcast #823

Episode Date: June 24, 2026

Tech markets are getting crushed as a brutal Nasdaq sell-off wipes out trillions in AI and chip stock gains, and SpaceX’s post-IPO valuation takes a major hit after a three-day losing streak. We break down what’s really driving the tech bloodbath, why SpaceX is suddenly under pressure, and how Lucid’s decision to slash 18% of its U.S. workforce exposes the harsh reality facing EV makers in 2026.------🧑‍🧑‍🧒‍🧒 HOW TO RAISE STRONG KIDS: FREE LIVE WEBINARhttps://bit.ly/4fRBuik⚽️ SHOP THE USA 250 COLLECTIONhttps://bit.ly/4g0bfWY🦁 THE VAULT 2026: AUG 31ST TO SEPT 1SThttps://bit.ly/4mZdLhD😆 CHECK OUT VENTING WITH VINNIEhttps://youtube.com/live/XTIx7FCjl_8📕 BUY BRET BAIER'S CASE FOR AMERICAhttps://bit.ly/4emcm24🦁 SPONSOR THE VAULT 2026https://bit.ly/4mFBPpwⓂ️ CONNECT ON MINNECThttps://bit.ly/4kSVksoⓂ️ PBD PODCAST CIRCLEShttps://bit.ly/4mAWQAP👔 BET-DAVID CONSULTINGhttps://bit.ly/4lzQph2🥃 BOARDROOM CIGAR LOUNGEhttps://bit.ly/4pzLEXj🇰 KALSHIhttp://kalshi.com/pbdSUBSCRIBE TO:@VALUETAINMENT@ValuetainmentComedyABOUT US:Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal Bestseller “Your Next Five Moves” (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Did you ever think you would make it? I feel I'm supposed to take sweetly bit of dough me. I know this life's meant for me. Adam, what's your point? The future looks bright. My handshake is better than anything I ever size. Right here. You are a one of one?

My son's right there. I don't think I've ever said this before. When did it go out of the house? Yeah, but it made it come back. It never laughed. Yeah. Anyways, you don't want to know what we were just. talking about. Arkansas with broads

today. But Tom wants to bring you back. Anyways, gas prices. 70-50 today. 70-50 today, gallon, right? $70.50. That's West Texas oil. And 395. If I say 70-50 for gas prices, people will be freaking out.

No, no, you're fine. It's going down. But I think it's going to take two to six weeks because all the people that own the oil that they bought at a high price, they got to sell that off because before they can catch up. So the president is not happy. And these guys that bought the oil, they're like, what do you want me to do about it? I bought expensive oil. I got to sell through it.

But anyways. But National Gas did touch $3.95. Yes, it did. Yes, it did. So that's good. Homberto's happy. He's been furious for a few weeks. Slightly happier.

Yes. So we got to go a few different stories that we got here. One, daily wire, back at it again. You know, one minute, it's going out of business. Next minute, they're raising $100 million at a valuation of $2 billion, I believe it was all over the internet yesterday and the numbers came out that have 776,000 active subscribers. I believe that's the number. I know, Elon, you got some thoughts on that. We'll get into it. Aside from that, Google decides to invest into this A24 production company, which becomes

a big story because isn't that the one that was part of backrooms? Was A25 part of backrooms or obsession? One of the two, right? Backrooms. So Google's not getting into it. Is that a lot of money or not, who knows, but look, it is something that people are getting interested in. Billionaires fighting their heirs. This is a Bloomberg story. Can you imagine the story says billionaires are fighting their errors for control beyond the grave? Like, hey, what's going to happen to our money that you made, Daddy, but what's going to happen

to our money? Who the hell are you? Where were you when we were building a company, buddy, buddy? So anyways, it's going to be interesting conversation. Humberto's got some insight on what he wants to do with his billions when transitions out to the kids. I want you to give that insight. He's got Chillion money. By the way, Chilean money, they're low-key. They don't want people to know they're wealthy. They keep it very down low. They don't want you to know the amount of wealth.

Quiet luxury. Yeah, quiet luxury is what it is. So maybe give us some insight on that. Housing affordability passed yesterday. You'd be surprised. Well, maybe some of you guys wouldn't be surprised. Which senators were against it, limiting the number, I think, is 350 units or more, which we will get into. This is targeting specifically Black Rock and some of these guys. guys that are buying up a ton of properties and impacting rent prices. You know, a bit of a lot of people are celebrating. It was a popular bill, but you'd be surprised some of the people that were not for libertarian mindset type of guys.

Tucker said he will never vote Republican again. After saying that 24 hours later, he practically endorsed J.D. Vance with Alex Jones. So some people are saying, wait a minute, why did it take that long? But maybe we'll address him. Maybe he doesn't want to vote Republican anymore. And then you got billionaires tax that was. it's on the ballot, the 5% billionaire tax that they were talking about, it's actually making it through. So it is going to be something that the vote on.

Let's see what happens. Their lucid is cutting 18% of their workforce. There's another article that came up by Inc. Explaining what Microsoft and some of these other companies are doing HR. Some of them are even shutting down HR. I think that's a mistake, but we'll talk about it. And then aside from that, you have Social Security. For some of the people that you're not following the Social Security store, it's a pretty big story.

I mean, if you're above 60 years old, 65 years old, guess what you're thinking about, Social Security. But not if you're not 65, and guess who had a birthday yesterday and not 65 years old. We're not going to say his birthday. Thomas Ellsworth had a happy birthday yesterday. Happy birthday. Thank you to the studio. And thank you to the studio and everybody at the Valatimic and BDC companies. You were all so gracious yesterday.

I thank you. And so for everybody that's watching, wish him a happy birthday on Menecht. Send him a manette and send him some love. Yesterday, I don't know where I was at all. The soccer, they're doing a soccer camp on our property. One of the fathers came and says, hey, is Tom here? I said Tom's always there, but he just took a guy out to dinner because we're recruiting somebody, interviewing somebody as a pretty heavy position for us.

He says, can you please tell him? He's my favorite. I love Tom. So if you love Tom, send him a neck, give him a message. So Social Security had nothing to do with Tom. I don't know why the guys kind of directed it that way. I don't appreciate it. In real estate terms, I'm Social Security adjacent.

Yes, that's what it is. Anyways, and then, you know, for some of you guys that have fancy trash cans, don't leave them outside. Don't leave them outside. Especially if you're in New York, don't leave them outside. Because somebody who was like the DEI, she was the lead, the DEI head. And you know what she ends up doing? Can you imagine she walks out, throws the trash out, likes the trash because it's got the NICS logo, brings it in, gets fired. Now her pictures plastered all over the place.

Imagine you go for a job interview. So can we call your previous job? job to get a reference? No, why not? Well, there's this picture online of me stealing a trash cat. How do you overcome that objection in future interviews? I'm just curious. What do you say to that? It was a bad day. We all have bad days. That was my bad day. I don't know if that's going to be the bad day. You get a reference from the sanitation. She's going to blame the NBA. The souvenir T-shirt was 50 bucks. The trash can was free. Yeah. So she wanted a Nick souvenir. And by the way, we haven't hit this one story that I've been wanting to it for two weeks. You know,

Russell Crowe comments on Gladiator 2. I really hated Gladiator 2. Like passionately hated the movie. And I loved Anzel. I couldn't stand the movie. It was so horrible. We will react to that. And then to all the Ronaldo fans,

you guys are so angry. I cannot believe Messi scored 3. And then 2 on the second game, Holland and Mboppe both scored 2 goals. Rinaldo scored 2 goals yesterday. They were really trying to help him get a hat-trake. I love the fact that he scored 2 goals. but there was a post-game interview where they asked him about what you think about Messi.

He redirected the question very quickly. Why? I don't know. Maybe we'll talk about it. Of course, we got a bunch of FIFA experts here, analysts, that we will give our insight on that. And maybe we've got a couple other stories we'll get into as well. So having said that before we get into it, fathers, July 1st, 6 p.m. We're hosting a webinar on the specific topic of fatherhood.

It's funny. One of the most popular basketball college coaches text me yesterday. And he's so funny. His expertise is raising great young men. This is a man I admire in a big way. And he does some of the best interviews. He texts me, he says, hey, is that something I can get on as well? I said, of course you can get on.

He says, I'd love to be on. I'm like, do you want to say anything? He says, no, I just want to be on and listen to the content because I always want to find a way to become a better father. So if you're somebody that also wants to find a way to become a better father, I want you to watch this video. Go for it. 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

I'm hosting a free webinar to talk about six different types of fathers at a time like this, with everything that's going on, it is very difficult to raise strong kids in a weak culture. If you, you may want your husband to get on. Your husband may be like, babe, I'm too busy. You and your husband may want to jump on the webinar to talk about the strategies on how to raise strong kids in today's culture.

It's very confusing for kids. Kids are more confused than ever before. I want to share some of the strategies that's working for us. Okay, July 1st, 6 p.m. If you haven't yet registered, go register. It's exactly a week from. today where we will do this. And at the end, I'm going to give you a resource guide. One of them is 10 conversations you should have with each of your kids. Another one is every father,

books every father should read on how to get better, but make sure you register you and your family, sit there and watch it together. Let's just become better fathers. And you know, one of the things that's growing on our social media platforms is our VT Gen Z account. It's growing. People are like, what are we doing a father's son event? When are we doing an event with parents and kids? I said, stay tuned. We'll do something here together. So till then, register, go to to vtwebinar.com, again, vtwebinar.com to register for the webinar. With that being said, let's get right into it. The first thing I want to talk about is the big passing, the bill that they talked about yesterday, House approves major housing affordability bill, sending bipartisan

measure to Trump. This is important for a lot of people that are sitting there saying, how can I control housing? They're trying to do that in a different way, but let me read it to you. The House on Tuesday passed a landmark housing affordability bill, marking a raid bipartisan legislative accomplishment as lawmakers seek to address rising costs ahead of midterm election. Tim Scott, Republican, Elizabeth Warren, Democrat, maybe progressive socialist. House GOP leaders fast-track the legislation after the Senate approved it with overwhelming support to pass the House in a 358 to 32 vote. And now heads to President Trump to sign.

By the way, some of the House that didn't vote against it, that voted against it, I think one is Massey, one is Donald's. there's a few people that are not for the like, I don't know if I like this. This question's free market capitalism, leave it alone. And I think even on the Senate side when they went through it, there was a handful of people. Rick Scott is one. Who else am I missing on the Senate side?

Rick Scott was one. Mike Lee's another one. There was a couple of the big names. Oh, Rand Paul was one of them. Rand Paul was one of them as well. So these are some popular names that are saying, I don't know about it, but it was a majority that went through. And so I'll pause it right here.

And the main thing with this, if I can share this side before I come to you guys, Tom Snyder and Elon, is the following one. So this is the vision, home for people, not for corporation. This provision legally bars large institution corporate investors from expanding their portfolios to own more than 350 single family homes nationwide. Now, you may say, man, that's a lot. That must not, that's not a lot. When you're doing billions on top of billions, $3.50 is nothing. Some of these guys got tens of thousands that they're dealing with. Lawmakers designed this cap to explicitly curb corporate competition

in suburban markets, wild housing advocates, argue has artificially inflated home values and squeezed that middle class families during the ongoing cost of living crisis. California, New York has a lowest percentage of homeownership. I think it's a 47, 48%. California, the average home price, if I'm not mistaken, is $906,000. But you kidding me, like, I'm getting out of college. I'm getting married and having kids' first house.

I want to buy a million-dollar home? How the hell am I going to do it on an $80,000 salary, $120,000 salary? So, Jeff, how important is this bill here? It's good because they're finally recognizing that this is a huge problem. I think that people have realized it for quite some time. But I'm not sure that it actually accomplishes what they wanted to accomplish because what really happened here, this is the legacy of the 2008 crisis, is that after 2008 banks pulled back

and they didn't want to give mortgages to regular folks for a lot of really good reasons because, you know, the Ninja loans and everything that happened in subprime and middle 2000s, they pulled back, but they never came back. So in the 2010s and it got even worse in the early 2020s, the only people who could get financing were big Wall Street firms.

So if you have no lending and no liquidity for regular folks to be able to buy houses, by the way, they didn't have jobs either, so they weren't going to qualify for a market. mortgage and the only people in the marketplace are large Wall Street firms. BlackRock did what BlackRock's going to do. They essentially bought up huge chunks. You talk to 350 limit, they're buying 10,000 houses at a time in single transactions because they were the only people in the marketplace. Money flowed to Wall Street rather than Main Street. And because it didn't flow

to Main Street, Main Street was essentially increasingly priced out of the market to the point we got to the 2020s where a flood of money went on Wall Street. Wall Street went crazy buying up properties in 21 and 22 and to a certain extent of 23. which, of course, housing prices absolutely soared ahead, pricing people, regular folks out of the market even further. So in one sense, it's recognizing that there's an imbalance here. Wall Street has money, has the ability to buy, and therefore, to some people, make them rent slave for the rest of their lives. And they have no hope of actually getting into a home home home. Tom. So the part of this bill that I wasn't sure about was the limit on corporate purchase, because whenever you give the government a knob,

they kind of turn it and they'll always turn it the wrong way. So I think that's a well-intended thing to say, hey, the supply of housing is being constrained because they can buy so many houses at once. And then when they price the rent on those houses, they're able to price the rent higher because they themselves, through the purchase of those houses, have now constricted who controls the supply.

So I agree that that hurts a little guy. But why are they able to do it? Where's the rest of it? The rest of the bill has got some things I think are going in the right direction, but we really need the states to do it, such as manufacture homes relief. There are some standards for manufactured homes that they've changed to match the market, and then financing on their – they want the FHA to increase limits on multifamily. Well, that to match the market.

Well, that's the purpose of FHA. And so if the FHA, you know, sits there and just says, well, you know, the average American is 141 pounds, and that's the average from 1930, that's not the average today. So over time, you know what I mean? Pat, that average goes up. Same thing happened to the FHA with the limits on mortgages. Hey, with the limit that we will back and everything is here. So moving those limits up are good.

What I also want to see is keep the inspection requirements on the builders so that Toll Brothers and Lanier can't build a bunch of really cheap bad houses. Keep the inspection requirements on the builders, but lower the permitting time so that they can find tracks of land and they can actually build. that will build the supply and able to do it. Additionally, where you have downtown Dallas that we saw or areas where warehouses went down and townhouses and condos went up, now people could afford a townhouse or a condo in downtown Dallas and actually work there as a 30-year-old person.

So I think more needs to be happening on the supply, but I think the FHA part of this inspection efficiencies, what they did for manufactured homes, is good. but I don't want the governments have a long-term knob over who can buy what. Yeah, I agree with Tom on that. I agree with you most importantly on the permitting delays because that destroys the supply. And, you know, anecdotally for my own time trying to build homes and be in the real estate market, it's a massive setback when you have to sit there and wait months and months, it increases costs and then homes become more expensive based on that.

I did read that only a very small percentage of rental homes are owned by these big investment firms. It's something like 3% of the rental market. from what I read online. So I think that, again, the big problem here is coming back to making it possible for people to get the homes through these loans, making it more affordable, driving down costs. But that all comes from reducing regulation, in my view. So I think that's the big thing. Who disagrees with this? That's what I want to know. Is the disagreement of what? Just purely get out the way, let the free market do whatever they want to do? Is that the argument? The thing is... This is Massey. This is Byron Donald's. This is Rick Scott. This is Mike Lee. This is Ron. These are people that have followings that are saying, I don't like this idea. Even Ted Cruz had voted for it wasn't happy with the bill, right? He said it falls short of the bill. This bill would really test how much you love the free market. You know what I mean?

Because the thing is nobody wants more regulations, right? Like if you absolutely believe in the free market, you think anyone should be able to buy anything, including big corporations. You know what I mean? Then again, this is a crisis, Pat. We've read the news this week. one in three people under 35 still live with their parents. That's great. It is crazy.

We have a shortage of around 2 to 3 million homes in America. The median age of a first-time homebuyer, according to NER, is 40. 40. That's absolutely ridiculous. That tells you that Americans cannot forward a home. Yeah, I saw that. And by the way, when you go a little bit deeper with this, this is even a bigger concern. My worry is, do I want, like right now, if you look at the average home size, I'm going

1970 to today. The average home size in America, 1970, was 1,600 square feet. It went to 2,600 square feet. Why do we need that additional 1,000 square feet? We don't. So starter homes. A starter home, if you're going to, I'm going to incentivize, like, if these Black Rock guys come in and they want to put money into building a smaller 1,500 score for condos, for young folks, guess what? Go, go into that space. I think that part needs to flow. I think there needs to be an incentive for the people to build three twos instead of four threes, maybe even two-toes, you know, that they're building. And then the other part when you look at this, which is a concern, is the following. In 1970, do you know the average home, average income, average median household

income was $99.00? Let me give you the exact number so you have it. The average, the average, the median household income was $99,000. The median home price was $23,000 at 2.3 times. Then in 80, we went three times. Then in 90s, we went four times. Then today we're at, in 2020, we were five times. So you make $80,000 to buy something, it's $400,000. $80,000, yeah, $400,000, five times. Do you know in some markets like Miami, L.A., New York, that number is seven to 13 times your salary? How in the hell are they supposed to do that? So if the incentive opens up and you're building something I can afford, I'd like to see the Black Rocks going to that. But if you're going and picking up everything and then you're making rent control to these five corporations that now own

it almost, it becomes like a oligopoly, oligopery, you know, by five like centralized these. That's a challenge for the average individual. Here's the process here. And it's a, you hit the nail on the head here, Pat. What you said was that where are the starter homes? The starter homes are marketed to people who can't afford. They can't qualify for a mortgage. So the starter business is completely disappeared.

BlackRock has no financial incentive in getting in the starter. Let's make that. Let's give them the incentive. So that's, that's, so what happens is what normally happened back in 19. or 1970 or 1980 or 1990 before the housing crisis is that you started with a starter home. You built up equity and then you moved to the three, two, and the four, three. Yeah. But if you don't have the ability to get a mortgage to get to the starter home, you're stuck renting for the rest of your life.

Tom, how old were you the first time you bought a house? I paid two. I know exactly. I was 24. 24 years old. By the way, that's normal. And I'm back. But I'll tell you what year it was.

you know, it was 1986 because I was born in 62. And so, that's how I was 24. I had just gotten out of college. I paid $205,000 for a home on Lopez Street just off of Topanga Canyon,

south of the Boulevard, and Woodland Hills. You know that area, Pat, right? Of course, they do. And by the way, guess how big the house was? Fourteen hundred score. Exactly right. Yeah. Because that's when that neighborhood was all built. And the people had retired. I had to put windows in it.

So I had to do some of that, and that's what I did. But that's 1986. Okay, so do me favor. Can you ask the following question in chat? Ask what is the average age of first-time homeowners from 1970, 1980, 1990 to today? Watch this number here, okay, till today. It tells me, I just ran it, 1981, the average age of first-time homeowner was 29. In 1991, for whatever reason, it dropped down to 28, then 32.

in 2030, 30, in 2010, 33, 35, 38. You know what that number is today? He just said it. 40 years old. Yeah. And eventually it'll be no one. Eventually, it's just going to be a rental market except for mega-rith. That's not good.

You can't have that. You cannot have. That's a very big problem. I know. Well, we have to break a code. And here's the code. We all celebrate when mom and dad retire and the equity of their house has gone up. They sell that.

They put that in the bank. They have that along with maybe some small pension, and our Social Security, and now we celebrate that mom and dad retired and won't be a burden on the rest of the family because they were responsible. So you celebrate that on one hand, but now what happens to the house? That house is now unaffordable for the next generation to do the next trick. That's, to me, that's the issue. If housing is a long-term investable asset, which it is because it's real estate and it's scarce,

then you have to do one of two things. Keep building rings of the wheel farther and farther from the center of the old city and move businesses further and further from the center of the old city, so the jobs are out there. So I don't have to live in Lancaster, Palmdale, and drive an hour and a half to Burbank because I work in the motion picture. And people do that today. We know people in L.A., right? They live in Palmdale. They drive all the way out to Burbank. Palmdale blew up the last 40 years for that specific reason. You could buy a place in Palmdale, a three, two, for $40,000 30 years ago. And now, what is the average home price in Palmdale? Can you pull up? What is the average home price in Palmdale, California?

If you pull up, just what is the average home price in Palmdale, California today? Again, you could buy three, two, 30 years ago for $40,000 in Palmdale. It was a desert. Palmdale, I think, had a military base. Edwards Air Force Base. The skunk works. Yeah. And so now, if you look at Palmdale, oh, holy, yeah, thousand.

Look at this. Look at this. The average median home was at $70,000 to $80,000, low end. You could buy a place for $40,000. It's $5.20. So you can't even afford to buy house in Palmdale. Bill. Pat, let's do this.

Let's stay on this and do it. Wait. Let's stay on and do it. Do the same thing for Sherman Oaks and Encino or Northridge. Get it? That's where people used to live. Do the same question except run Encino. Right.

And that's where people would live in Encino and go work in Burbank. Their children now are out here in Palmdale driving all the way into Burbank and Glendale where there's a lot of jobs, especially in media and entertainment. Now look. That's what happened to mom and dad's. house. And the kids are living for a house one-third that, 500 out in Palmdale. Yeah, and it'll just keep spreading further and further out. Well, they did. Until they actually live in Las Vegas. Then you move to all these other cities. Now all of a sudden, you're buying a house for people that

know California on Zizzix's exit. If you don't know Zizek's exit, if you know Zizek's exit, you partied in Vegas a little too much. It's a very small elite group of people know that exit. But we can transition to the next story on what we have. The whole reality here is we got to find a way for people to have incentive to build smaller homes. Hopefully we will. Let me get into the next story. Next one I'm going to get into it. While we're on this conversation,

Dave Ramsey and his organization did a survey, surveying 10,167 wealthy Americans, the career that produced the most millionaires. The career that produced the most millionaires isn't what you think it is. Dave Ramsey told a 22-year-old caller, Mark something, most new graduates never here. We did the largest server of millionaires ever done, on millionaires ever done.

One of the things we researched was what occupation showed up the most amongst millionaires. Number one occupation among millionaires, engineer. We did Mark calling in June 15 after landing his first electric engineer job in Lincoln, Nebraska, making $89,000 a year, was asking about career advice, the verdict. The job title is a clue to behavior. Ramsey's claim is accurate, but easy to misread. engineer was the most frequently occurring occupation in his national study of millionaires, detailed in baby steps millionaires.

The full stop five in order were engineer, accountant, teacher, business, and sales. Let me say that one more time. The full top five, in order, engineer one, accountant, two, teachers, three, teachers, millionaires, teachers, three, business, four, sales, five. And then you have attorneys that they wanted to put them in there in sixth place. Medical doctors did not even make it in the top five. Can you imagine you go become a medical doctor? You don't make it in the top five.

Their teacher entry is the giveaway. Teaching is not a high-income field, yet it outranks medicine that only makes sense once you accept the study's own conclusion. Roughly one-third of millionaire surveyed never earned a six-figure income in a single year. Consistent behavior did the heavy lifting. The mechanic underneath is boring and powerful, a high savings rate compounded for a long time. Mark's $89,000 a year salary. sits well above the 3753 an hour average for total private workers in May 2026,

roughly double the 1235 median weekly earnings for full-time workers in Q1 of 2026. The income gives them room. The behavior decides whether that room becomes wealth or evaporates into lifestyle. So, Tom, when you read some like this, and at the end he says, 25% of your take-home pay or less on rent alone pushed them lower, saying the least possible rent that you can get by is the best number, but 25% is your max. What do you think about the study here with the top five?

Well, he's looking at people who are millionaires today, so it took time to get there. So you kind of have to look at where they started. With the house. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. So a teacher, you know, you could say, well, teachers have the summers off. Maybe they have a side hustle.

Maybe. Or just maybe some of these people, I think, are prudent living. And the other people on here, I think, are, was like an engineer and accountant. and sales, I think those were just good professions that allowed you to scale your income. But I think there's two things going on in the survey. I don't have any quarrel with the survey. But I think if you really pulled out the cross tabs, as we say during election year, what you would find is some people that were very prudent in how they lived and grew up at a time

where that house equity, I bet you, is a part of this. And then other people were in the professions that they were leverage over time. Yeah, I agree with that. And by the way, is this the clip by Dave? If you want to play the clip, Watch us clip together. Go for it. Real millionaires, 10 freaking thousand of them, who they are where they come from. And one of the many conclusions we drew from this was the top 10 career fields that we found according to frequency within the study. So what career field did we find most often,

second most often, and so on? The most often we found was engineer. The second was an accountant or We want to know what the top ten is because I registered a five. The fourth was management. The fifth was attorney. So not even making the top five is medical doctor. By the way, there were six. Okay, so medical doctor is worth six. Yeah, what do you think about this?

I was very surprised by this study to see teachers running there. My mom was a teacher. Is she a millionaire, by the way? No. Did she get close with her pension, with everything that she got, the 457, the TSA, tax-sheltered annuities, all the stuff? My father is, you know, he's successful. So, you know, my family are millionaires, but it didn't come from the teaching.

So she didn't have to rely. Yeah, she could teach that. Did she do 40 years? Did she teach 40 years? Yes. So even after 40 years, the pension wasn't over a million bucks? Or you don't know? That I really don't know.

So that would be the thing, though. So I was just at IMG at a soccer camp with the family. And one of the guys comes up to me, he owes me a video about that. the way. He's got to send the game because it was a very good game, but he knows who he is. He comes to me. He says, oh my God, what's so we start to come from? Big guy. He looked like a linebacker. His son is a big boy, playing very good. And he says, hey, you know, I said, so what do you do for a living? And he says, nothing. I said, what do mean you don't do anything? So I'm telling you nothing. I was in the Marines and the

Army for 20 years. I just retired last year. I'm getting my pension and all I want to do for the rest of my life right now, spend time my kids. I said, what job did you have in a military? He says, I was a military police. I said, seriously. So how would he? How would He says, I'm 38. I said, you're 38. You gave the 20 years. Now he says, Pat, I'm doing nothing. He says, at first when I joined the military,

you have no idea how much I wanted to get out, all this other stuff. Now I realize the value of having a pension plan that they give you an income for the rest of your life. And I get to choose if I want to work or not. So when you're making certain amount of money, like you're making $50 grand a year and you don't really pay attention to the pension,

you realize the value of a pension because we get old like this. I can see how this could apply when you're putting the money over and over and over again and that compounds. But you're telling me that doctors wouldn't have any type of, you know, plan for... It's funny. You say that. The guy that was next to me who my kids roomed with his two sons from Houston, phenomenal guy. He's a doctor. His wife's a doctor. This guy's kind of a big deal of a doctor, so he's very wealthy. But he's going back to get an MBA today at 45, 46 years old.

Why is he going back to get an MBA? He said, I just realized, I need to know what's going out with money. I said, you know what's the problem? As a financial advisor, we've sold. sold a million insurance policies over the last 20 years in our insurance company, 16 years, give or take. And every time you go sit with doctors, you know what the doctors typically would say? You know what's the biggest thing with doctors? Most people don't want to talk to doctors about finances because psychologically you think they already know what to do with their money.

Yes. And doctors know nothing. By the way, out of all the people I sat with financially, as a financial advisor series 766, 366, 31, 26, life and health, doctors were in the shittiest situation financially. because they had no clue what they were doing. And specifically because people were intimidated of talking to them because this guy went in NYU and this guy went to UC Irvine and he became a doctor and he knows what he's got.

They have no idea what's going on with their finance. They just take that $600,000 a year salary or $800,000 of your salary or whatever the income they're making and they spend it all. That's a great point. And I want to drag doctors a little bit more. You know what I mean? They get lost 2% of our audience.

All right, good. They get too much credit. I went to high school with a bunch of kids that became doctors. They're unbearable, all right? And one of the things, if you think of all the factors, first of all, they can't handle money. The second thing is they have a lot of debt for a long time. That is true. Because becoming a doctor is very expensive.

It's very long. You drug a lot of further education. You have the first six years and then two more years for specialization. Supplies for running your own business are very expensive. Licenses are very expensive. So it's, and then, and then if you see the first expectations, right? A doctor feels they have to, I mean, peer pressure and. So I'm not surprised they're at number six at all.

Yeah. I'm sorry, the takeaway here is about personality, right? Accountants and what was the first, engineers, analytical, disciplined, patient, lack of impulsivity. Do you relate to this? Absolutely. You know, saw it in the clients that I manage money for. You're a multimillionaire.

So, you're a multi-millionaire. So, you're a. Patience and perseverance are huge. You have done wealth financially. You've made good money for yourself. Okay, what traits? Give me traits that are transferable to somebody else. Give me specific traits of somebody that accumulates wealth.

The biggest mistake in building wealth is having a big down year. So that's usually impulsivity and risk taking that's not... Big down year. Big down turn. Great feedback. Okay. So the idea is slow and steady. If you're not going to make a huge bet on something big, you know,

bet everything on something. huge. You want slow and steady. And most people, a lot of people, I don't say most people, but a lot of people don't have the personality to do that. But an accountant, an engineer, those are people who have the ability to make small, steady decisions and stick with their plans. That compound over time.

Can you pull up, Dow Jones? Can you pull up the Dowell and go to, go to 10 years? Go to Dow Jones. Go to 10 years. Go to, go to, no, no, you're right there. No, no, you're right there. So just go on that chart and type in five years.

Go to five years. Right there says five years, right next to not five days, five years. There you go. Okay. So, well, it doesn't go all the way back to COVID. Can you put max? Do me if you ever put max. And go down to COVID, which is right before that drop right there, all the way to the bottom, see if you can catch it.

One more. I don't know if you can catch it or not. It's a very short-term drop. So one day, this thing went all the way down to 19. thousand is what I remember. 19,000 ish. One of the guys that was working in my office, okay, very wealthy,

they've done very well for themselves in their 60s. He decides to take everything out of the market. At the down. At the down. That's panic. Yeah, but that's what most retail people do. That's what he's talking about. Yeah.

He takes everything out of the market. I'm like, dude, don't, you can't afford this. He says, I think it's going to go even lower. I'm like, I'm telling you, based on history of what happens to pandemics, nine out of ten pandemics recovered a hundred percent six months later. Do you know what's the only pandemic that the market didn't recover for 12 months? It's the epidemic. It's the only one is AIDS.

AIDS recovered 12 months later. But everything else six months later, the market recovered. Well, you know how much this guy ended up losing? I don't even want to say the number. He lost millions on top of millions in his mid-60s to early 60s. in his mid to early 60s. It is such great feedback, Tom, for you, where you're at, right?

When it comes on to this, I think about, you know, Dave Ramsey is the guy that's the millionaire next door. Many, many years ago, Dave Ramsey worked with a guy named Art Williams. So a lot of his philosophies comes specifically for man named Art Williams. Art ended up becoming a billionaire. He founded a company called A.L. Williams That ended up becoming Prime America that was bought by Sandy Wilde and Jamie Diamond.

They bought it from him. I think at his peak it was worth $1.6 billion. This guy's given one of the greatest speeches any man's ever given. He's raised so many great young men that became successful. And he gets very little credit. Most people don't even know who this guy is, Art Williams, right? And the thing that he would talk about is long-term investing. Put the money and set it aside.

There was an old book that was titled, Is it Millionaire Next Door? Am I saying it correctly? Is it Millionaire Next Door? Have you heard about this book? The Millionaire Next Door. That's the name of the book. Yeah, can you type in Millionaire Next Door book right there? And you know what they did?

they measured in this book, they said, let's find out what the average millionaire drives. Do you know what they found that was the average millionaire? A Toyota or a hundred or something. It was a truck. The average millionaire had a truck. So the habits of what you buy, what you wear, how much you save, how you set the money aside. So if you've never read the book Millionaire Next Door, do yourself a favor right now. Go to Amazon, order this book.

Who wrote Thomas J. Stanley? It's a phenomenal, phenomenal book to read. Tom, I'll give you the final thoughts before we move on to the next story. Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDM and Game Sense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor. Free of charge. That MDM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. Long-term patience.

You know, you go take a look at QQQ and SPY. Now, I'm not endorsing either one, but I'm saying you can look at the S&P 500, and then you can look at the NASDAQ-100 QQ, and you just go take a look at it. And I did something on the number of scream last week, Pat, 72% of fund managers, professional fund managers, cannot beat QQQ or SPY over a five-year period indexes. That's surprising to hear.

The indexing, yeah. I wouldn't have guessed that. Yes. The indexes always win. Now, that does mean the 28% of them do beat it. And you get your- But you can't afford those. Yeah, you can't afford those guys.

Those are the top. They want two and a half percent of year. They only take a billionaires. But the long-term steady responsibility usually wins. Yeah, I agree. The buying hold patience when the stuff happens. If you can do it, my advisor called me. I said, say, when the market, shit hit the fan of war, all this stuff I was happening. He says, hey, how you doing? I said, look, call me last.

Call all your other clients that are panicking. Call me last. He says, I've been in the business for 20 years. Call me at the end. Let's have a call to get. He called me. He said, how you feel? And I said, nothing. It's just a bad day. I mean, I'm not in this for one month. But I tell you, some of the stuff that we bought with, you know, anyways, we'll get into, ended up being very, very successful, short term. But this is just the beginning. If you have the focus of long term, you don't have much to worry about. We did a poll, and this was the poll which was interesting, our audience, when did you buy your first home? You ready?

20 to 30 years old, first bracket, 42%. 42% of our audience bought their first home between 20 to 30. 24% bought at 31 to 40. 6% bought their first home above 41. 27% of the audience listening doesn't own a home right now. So that kind of gives you an idea. Our audience, 42% of our audience are homeowners, and our audience is all over the world. By the way, do you know our merch?

Ran a report the other day? It's interesting what our audience is. How many countries do you think have ordered merch on our VTmerch.com website? How many countries do you think have ordered merch? How many countries? Act. Act. Act. I want you to guess.

Have ordered a hat. Have ordered a shirt. Have ordered a shoe. How many countries? The reach of the podcast. 80? That's a lot. It's more than 80?

80 is a lot of countries. What do you think the numbers? Yeah, I was going to say, 100 at least. 116 countries. Whoa, that's significantly. 116 countries have bought merch that we've shipped all over the world. Future looks bright. So our audience that you're looking at here is also not only U.S.

This is, I think Canada's number two, Australia is three. You got UK, Germany, you got all these other places that. Netherlands is in our top seven. I had no idea of people on Netherlands. Interesting to this podcast. But hey, wherever you are, if you support the merch, I love it. I think next week I'll actually give the actual states that are in the top 20 ranking. But, okay, sounds good.

Let's go to the next story. Next story I want to get to is, while we're on this thing here, let me see which one I want to get to next. Let's get into the story about, let's do billionaire tax. Let's go into the billionaire tax story, page 16. So billionaire tax in California looks like it's going to make it on the ballot of what they want to do. Is that the billionaire tax says to the ballot? Yes.

So when they first announced this, Tom, if you remember where we were at, We were in Aspen. When they first announced that they want to do this 5%. It was a massive debate back and forth. Well, the billionaire tax officially heads to November 3rd ballot. This is zero hedge. The controversial union-backed billionaire tax in California is officially hit to the November 3rd ballot.

Secretary of State, Shirley Weber announced the California billionaire tax exceeded a number of signatures they need it to qualify the initiative aims to impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on Golden State billionaires to generate $100 billion in real. revenue, as if Newsom knows what to do with the money that he gets anyways. The tax would apply to assets like art, stocks, and bonds. That money would be used to help backfill reductions in federal funding to K-12 health services provided by Medi-Cal and aid from the Supplemental Nutrition System Program

known as the California. According to previous reporting by Senator Scott, Representative from the Advocacy Group, billionaire tax now and the union backing the tax service employees international union. A bunch of different organizations here that are for it. If you want a budget deficit in perpetuity past this, said Senator Tony Strickland, Republican Huntington Beach. What happens is these folks are now going to Florida and everywhere else, and not only are they leaving,

but they are the ones investing in a lot of these jobs. Those jobs now are fleeing California, and we're going to lose them dramatically moving forward. Tom, thoughts? Well, guess what? California strikes again. Before we talk about this, I take you back. I have graduated school.

I've graduated college. And it's 1984. And they're going to have a lottery in California. And I went back and I found it, Pat. Let me read it to you. Passage of the lottery will provide discretionary funding for our schools. What? What did you just read?

This billionaire tax will provide for our schools. The bullet that the Democrats fire whenever they want to do this, It's for the children, except the ones that we aborted nine months ago. Now, what's really interesting about all this is that this is coming and this is going to go. And this is another example of they are not willing to look at spending. They will promise everything to everybody. They'll promise a free lunch. They effectively buy votes.

You know, like the way that they went out last week and said, well, if we were to take $1.7 trillion from Elon. Musk. We could give $7,500 to every person. You, you, you, you, you and you, oh, really, you're not buying votes. You're not kind of painting those pictures. So I think this is going. You'll notice that now, even Zero Hedge was talking about this. It's being called the union-backed bill. And I believe it's because Gavin Newsom and other politicians are running from it. When is the last time we've heard Gavin Newsom actually say something super supportive about this. He has gone from enthusiast to measured, and from measured to silent.

That's what he has done because he realized what's going on. They rolled the snowball downhill, and it's about to roll on top of them. I'm talking about the Dems and the unions that put this out there. Have you seen this clip with Rokane of Collin-out Newsom? Like, there's almost something going on there with, did you see this? That's what I'm saying. Can you play this clip? Play this clip real quick.

And they both might be on stage someday. is pushing one-time 5% well tax on people who have more than a billion dollars worth of assets in order to keep millions of people from losing their health care coverage. You have been an outspoken proponent of this. Governor Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat, has been an outspoken opponent of this. What do you make of his opposition to this? I don't get the governor's decision from an economic, moral, or political perspective. And this is not a attack on him.

But it's just from a matter of philosophy, why would you want to side with 250 billionaires in California over the working class in California? And the only reason, in my view, to not be taxed. Rokana dirty was good move. Because you care about these 250 people's contributions to the political system. And by the way, so you know, who do you think is going to probably cave in this? Rokana or Newsom? Look what he just said. Why are you protecting these 250 bills?

The average person watches this. How does the average person react to someone? Yeah, he's all of a sudden he's protecting billionaires. What people don't know is, do you know what Rokana's word? Can you pull up Rokana's network? I cannot believe I'm defending Newsome. Can you pull up Rokana's network versus Newsom? And if you can find a chart over the last 10 years. Just go to Rokana's net worth last 10 years. It's gone up. If you look at Rokana's net worth, if I'm not mistaken, the guy's worth $230 million-ish, compare Rokana's network to get. Gavin Newsom. Rokana's network tied to Gavin Usum. So when you see something like this,

when you see something like this with the taxes that's passing, going into California, and you see what happened yesterday to New York City with Mamdani. Mamdani's three people that he endorsed, they all won. And by the way, these are,

if you think Mamdani's an extremist, these guys were like extremists on a whole different level. You see some of the stuff that they said in the past, you wouldn't even believe it on some stuff that's being said about them. Right there. Yeah, Rokana, Common Public. estimates $25 to $30 million.

Open Secrets-based analysis have places median network at $232 million. And by the way, if you guys follow Open Secrets, they do a very, very good job at identifying these types of things. So we give them credibility for $2.32. And Newsom's worth $20 to $30 million. Don't get me wrong. These guys are buddy-buddy off camera. They'd probably go at dinner at the same places. But I think

Rokana is trying to make a run for office, and I think he wants to run for president. And he's liking what's going on with Mamdani. He keeps saying good things about Mamdani. Something's going on there. But if this well tax goes, Humberto, families like yours, billionaire families, Chile, right? If this goes, if this goes, if we were thinking about Google people that left, oh, they left California. Some of the guys are sitting there saying there's no way this is going to pass.

What do you think is the likelihood of this passing? It's only 250 people that are going to be voting against it. It's over. They've rolled the snowball downhill. If it's on the ballot, it's done. Oh, my God. The states would take to 250. Pat, the president this will set is unbelievable.

This is an actual wealth tax, all right? This is not an income tax. This is a one-time asset seizure. It's a one-time asset. Also, how are the billing? Confiscation. Yeah. And we're talking about California.

Karl Marx is celebrating and is great saying, my book, it's doing his job. California. That's why they're doing it. I have a question on this. So let's say they're tied up in assets and they have to pay the five percent. Where does the money come from? Like, where do they obligate it? They're obligated to sell.

You have to sell. You have to sell. So you've got a billion dollars. These people think like if you're worth a billion dollars, it's a billion dollars in cash. If you're worth a billion dollars, how much cash you actually think you're sitting on? Very little, actually. What do you think the number is? Jeff, if a person's worth a billion dollars, Tom, if a person's worth a billion dollars, how much cash you think they're sitting on?

Zero. I know the investment habits of billionaires, and it would shock me if they had more than 50 million in cash. I agree. So check this out. Do you know what that is? You're a billion dollars. You're sitting on less than $50 million of cash. You're taxed 5% on your wealth.

$250 million. That $50 million is gone with cash. Yes. So if you now have a hundred, if you live in a state of California, you need to come up with $50 million. You need to sell $100 million worth of new stocks or properties or art or bonds to get half of it

to pay taxes to the state. And then to take the other $50 million. Did you understand what just happened? It's crazy. It's worse than that, though. percent tax. It's a 10 percent tax. Yes, because you're paying tax on your capital. When you pull out, you're paying capital gains tax.

16 percent to the city of California capital gains, 23 percent to the federal government. And now you're sitting on 40, now you're sitting on 48 percent. They take five out of that. You're holding 41. Well, because it is, you're right. It's not a tax. It's a confiscation. It's confiscation.

It's confiscation. So you still have to pay tax before the confiscation. It's unbelievable. I don't know how this is passing. I don't know how nobody's talking about this. That's the bigger issue. That's a big. issue because this passes in California, they're going to try to do it somewhere else,

a little bit more like in disguise, a little smaller, but they're going to use this school somewhere else. If they get it in California, this is going to be openly embraced in states like New York and But people will run. People will run before it comes into effect. But if enough states do it, by the way, a lot of this is symbolic anyway. It's not really about the taxes. It's about, you know, they call it the Overton window. It's shifting the Overton window to what is now acceptable. It's now acceptable to demonize people who are successful in billionaires. That's the main message here.

It's not about the taxes. It's about $250 billion. We hate these $250 billion. They've stolen from you. They've stolen your life. The left has been playing that game for a very long time. It has taken a darker turn, yes, it's taken a turn from rhetoric into action,

which is where it's very scary. They'll start off with billionaires. Then they'll go to $100 million plus, and they'll stop out $100 million. You know why they'll stop out $100 million? Because most politicians are all just under that level. Right where they're safe, they'll stop.

Did you see, I think it was a tweet from Grover Norquist, you know, the tax guy. He tweeted, I think it was Roe Cannon, said, I will help you fill out the tax forms to donate 5% of your 200 million. You first, basically, was the... Was there a video? I think it was on Twitter.

What's this clip here? Is this it? It was a tweet that's saying, if you... I will help you fill out. And this is the guy who thinks that nobody should ever pay any taxes, Grover Norquist from the... You know what? He said, I will help you fill out the tax form to donate your 5%.

You start it. A lot of liberals don't understand also that when they say, oh, if we just took Elon Musk's money and SpaceX's money, we could give everyone this money. They don't realize that the next year, there would be no money. You would have no more Elon Musk. You would have no more SpaceX. Well, there is no money.

It's a business. That's exactly what Elizabeth Warren did a week ago, remember? What if she said? If we took this, we could pay for child care for everybody in the USA. And I posted that and I said, if you took everything from Elon Musk, you could only fund the federal government for 91 days. Yes.

And if you took that, it would not cover the difference between tax receipts and government spending this year. Okay, well, who are the trillionaires in line next year? To steal all their money and then... Yeah, but it's not money. It's SpaceX is a business. You're not taxing money. Again, it's the misconception. What is the capital?

Double down, but it's coming to a city near you and you know who's going to pay price for it? California. So here's a question. Of the 250 billionaires that they have, how many things will leave? on the 5% deal. Well, what do you think the over under is, Tom? Of the 250 billionaires that California has, okay, how many, I think the number is more 223,

Rokana said 250, but let's just use the number 250. How many billionaires do you think will leave the state of California? I believe 50 of them will. 50% to 20%. Correct. So the other guys will stay there. Well, or they'll start taking other measures. Such as they're listening, Tom.

You may want to give them some insight. So it hasn't passed the ballot yet, number one. It's going to be on the ballot this year. Who wouldn't vote for this? Then it has to get implemented. So depending on what deadline you put on it, I don't think you can do things like this retroactively. Now we're going to go back to your grandfather, his own too.

I don't think you can retroactive. So I think you have a window now to move your ownership of assets. And I think some people will attempt to do that. Yeah. You know, can you move it to a came? and trust? Can you do things because they can't go back in time and say, unless, yeah,

they can't go back. They can try. They can try, but I know, I mean, they'll tie, that would tie everything up in courts forever, but yes, you can't go backwards in the, no bill of a retroactive starting point. Let's go to next story. Let's go to next story. Daily Wire, it's been getting stomped on by everybody left and right

the last 30, 60, 90 days. They're losing people, people are quitting, they're doing this, they're doing that, and then yesterday's story comes out that Daily Wire, under pressure, seeks strategic investors, targets IPO. I think they raised $100 million yesterday at a valuation of $2 billion, if I'm not mistaken. And the numbers came out, if you want to go a little bit lower on these numbers, showing the fact that they have. Yeah, let me just read this. In talks, we take at least $100 million investment, the initial public offering in a few years.

The company, which was founded by Ben Shapiro on 2015, has been in talks with high-mount capital to lead a funding round that would be, value the company at, I'm sorry, it's $750 million, according to documents reviewed by Semaphore. The Daily Wire, which is trying to take on New York Times from the right, privately disclosed that it notched $48 million in EBITA last year, but it just failed to grow its subscriber base and to keep ones in. It has paying and documents show go a little bit lower. The bankers said, the company banker said it has fielded buyout offers above a billion dollars,

but the Daily Wire founders prefer to take minority, align investment to grow the business according to the documents. Those bankers set of $2 billion IPO could be achievable within 18 months. So $750 million valuation, and then they go to $2 billion when they go public. The company part of ways with Jeremy Boring. We just had them on a couple weeks ago.

We had a great conversation. So, Elon, what are you out with this? Is this said, by the way, subscribership? Let's just look at this real quick. Revenue has slowed or contracted. This is subscriptions. In 2021, they grew 151%. In 2022, they went up 80%,

20%, 23, 8%, 2024, 10%. 25 down 26 they're down 16% advertising up 22 22 down 17 down 3 down 5 up 14 is there any other data that you want to show outside of that and what is this day we are subscribership from 257 in 2020 to 558 I think that 558 to a million that's I what is a woman of a which was huge which was massive Matt Walsh to million million two million 20s 260,000 852 771 some would say 771 771 is 771 is 7771 is 7701 is still a solid number to have today. Elon, your thoughts on the story? One thing that Daily Wire did, which is very smart, is it always focused heavily on its subscription model.

I think the trend is what matters. We don't yet know if it's going to continue trending down. I think when you look there, you see they go from $1.26 million to $852,000 to $171,000. There's clearly a decline from their peak, which is worrisome. But again, they have a very strong business because they've always put resources behind the subscription model. I do think there's trends to things. I think DailyWire has lost a lot of its kind of, you know, that flare that it used to have.

I think now they're starting to get to a foundational base. So if that can stay steady, I don't know how they're going to grow it from there. That's my concern with DailyWire. I don't imagine that this is suddenly going to trend upward. So if you're trying to value a company, listen, $50 million on Ibita on a subscription-based model, what are you going to give? What kind of valuation do you give on a company like that with expectations that they give 5x on- First of all, 50 billion on EBITA is respectable.

It's incredible. That's what I'm saying. It's amazing. $20 billion dollar EBTA. No, I'm saying. This is what I would do if I had daily wire. So we were approached at one point by a $20 billion fund to do a roll up and buy five of them. And they had interest of me running the entire roll up at the top.

And Tom, we had extensive. When was this, by the way, the conversations that we had? I think it was exactly two years ago at four seasons on the beach on the conference. Something like that. When we had these meetings, this was, yeah, something like that. Exactly two years ago. But I'm talking about the other fund guys that came here that we sat down in the kitchen. and we had the conversations.

You know what I'm talking about upstairs. That's what I'm talking about. And I think that was like 12 months ago or nine months ago, something like that. But let me tell you what's going to happen. What they need is a real operator. That's what they need. They need a real operator. If they get a real operator that's willing to come and operate this,

not advertising, not interested, all I'm saying is if they get a real operator that comes in and is willing to operate this, has the experience, knows how to handle being under fire, and they come up with some good ideas. Remember, this story is going to lead into the next one of Google putting the money into 824. So there is that possibility. The market's looking for something like that.

The market would like a second option to Fox as a competitor, specifically for conservatives. But if they don't bring the right people and they're going to have a challenge there, Humberto, your thoughts. Can I disagree a little bit? We saw, I mean, you see people I was driving down the street the other day, and I saw a guy driving a Tesla. All right? He's driving the car and he has a sticker on the back. It's like, I bought this before Elon was there, all right? The guy, the Daily Wire, relies on Ben Shapiro as a head of the company.

So, Elon can say things and can sell other things at the same time. When you are selling what you're saying, it's very difficult to keep the company afloat. You know what I mean? If you, Tom, you will remember the BuzzFeed IPO case. Like, I think they went public through SPAC. And it was an absolute disaster. So it plummeted. So keeping this content outfit, especially when you're in the political space,

I wouldn't put my money on it. You know what I mean? No disrespect. I respect to Daily Wire. I think they do a tremendous job. I think their business model works for them. But is it enough to go public? I don't know, Pat.

Well, I think there's two, okay, sorry, I'm just going to finish this with this. There's two problems. Number one, Ben Shapiro is heavily connected to the value of the company. So you have an individual who, if they, for any reason, goes. How much of it do you think? What percentage do you think is tight? From what I know from people, I would say he's responsible for the overwhelming

majority of the subscription. Ben Shapiro stops creating content next three. years. What happened? It's decimated. You think so? Absolutely. I don't think so.

I 100% believe that. I think a percentage will be decimated. I think a percentage will be decimated. I don't know if it'll be, I don't know if it's going to be out, period. And by the way, that is the challenge today. When I had Jeremy Boringkear two weeks ago, it's a different era to be an operator and a talent, but we're in that era. Yeah.

Like, you know, a lot of guys back in the days, Ted Turner. was not a talent. Ted Turner was a what? Just an operator. He was a guy on the back end. So you didn't hear his opinion. You were hearing the news. And he and his book, if you've ever read the book, they call me Ted, which I think, I think Shapiro needs to read if he hasn't already. When you read that book, you'll see how different it was the way they built it. I do think they have a chance, but we'll see. They have a lot of enemies. And a lot of times when you have have enemies, you know who's going to get tested? The individual is going to get tested. The part that you've got to respect about what they're doing here,

is the following. I like that they're just wanting to take minority positions. I like that it's only minority positions. Because when you're taking minority positions, what are you saying to the market? We're going to survive. We believe that it's going to succeed. Yes.

If they came in and they're like, no, hey, you know, get us out. We want out. That's a different story. Snyder, your thoughts. That's exactly where I was going to go. The fact that they're only soliciting minority minority investors tells me that they think that there's a pathway forward here.

they just need some liquidity, get through the rough patch, and that maybe there's some growth someplace else. But I also agree with you guys. It is top heavy, extremely top heavy. Who else do you know from the Daily Wire? I mean, Matt Walsh. Yeah, but how-M-M-M-Moggles and who are good? Not comparatively to Matt Walsh.

Nowhere near. In terms of this, like, if you look at the amount of views that Ben Shapiro commands and commanded, in terms of even Matt Walsh's and Michael Noles' views exist as a byproduct of Ben-C-Priar. I don't think you realize the impact and the following that Ben Shapiro has it. What case study would you give to this, Tom?

Compared to a case study. Mr. Beast, who just brought up the former CEO, is it SoftBank? Not SoftBank. Who was Mr. Beest's brand CEO? Can you go pull that up to see Mr. Bees' company's new CEO? He brought the new CEO. Yeah, that guy right there.

Jeffrey Housenhold, who came former tech executive, venture capitalist, previous CEO of Shutterfly, was brought on board to help scale Mr. Bees' business. By the way, last year they did 400 million. This, 2025, they did 882 million. Yesterday, Forbes put on a list the top 40 biggest content creator earners. Do you know how much Mr. Bees made last year?

Did you guys see the number? Can you pull that up? Forbes top content creator earners. Mr. Beast made $300 million. That's bonkers. From creating content. He was number one on that list. No, that's not true.

That's 2025. He was number one on that list right there. There you go. He was number one on that list. Go to number one. Go a little bit lower so we can see the ranking. Zoom in a little bit if you could to see Mr. Beast at $300 million. He ended up first at $300 million.

Anyways, it's all over the place. If you look for it, you'll find it. But to me is what Mr. Beast did is, they went and got a real CEO. If Daily Wire is going to do anything, they need to spend the money and get a real CEO. So when Jeremy Boring stepped down, they brought another guy named, Caleb, who's one of the three partners, co-founders of Daily Wire. And then the current CEO, I believe, is there, that's the guy, Mike Richards, who's the Jeopardy guy that just came in.

I don't know how good this guy's. Maybe he is a good guy, but you need a real operator's CEO to come in and get things done. Tom, final thoughts to you before we move on. So this is what I look at. People look at the value. $2 billion valuation? Oh, my gosh. You know, the nominal, let's see, $50 million in EBITA, nominal values in digital media are 15.

I checked that on dealbook this morning. And then for high growth, Pat, top 20% high growth, you know what the range is? 20 to 35x. Wow, that's crazy. So that's the, but that's, you know who that is? High growth. They're on trending down. That's the problem.

So guess what? When you see that the multiples in market do not add up to the deal here, and I hear the word minority, I said, oh, guess what they did? They got $100 million from somebody on a venture business. based valuation, which is the kind of valuations, thank you, Jeff for nodding. It's the kind of valuations that we were seeing in perplexity and we were seeing an anthropic last Christmas where they go $200, $200 billion, $250 billion, $500, remember those valuations? Those are venture. So they went out and they did a venture round. This won't make sense on a P.E. basis because it's not. The economics

are if you want to come in, it's a $2 billion valuation. Yeah, with $50 in EBITA, that sounds like 40x, but this is venture value. Pat, would you like a minority position or would you not? Well, actually, I'd like a minority position. That's my terms. Are you still driving it? Yes, I'm still driving it. Okay, I'll go in. I'll, I'll do 100 on 2B. Okay. So why we do this, let's play a game. Let's play a game. Yeah, right here. Go to the top of it, Mr. Beast at the top. Leads Forbes 226 creator list with $300 million in earnings. Okay. So 100% of Mr. Beast brand is tied to who? To Mr. Beast? Okay, 100%.

What percentage of a daily wire thing is tied to Ben Shapiro? Percentage. Percentage. 60. I would have put it higher. I would have put it at 70. I'm at 50. You're at 60.

We're about the same place. You're putting at 80? 75. Where are you at with it? 80%. 80% is same. Okay. So what do you think happens to daily wire in five years?

Go. What do you think? What do you think happens with daily wire? Let's play prediction game. With current trending, I think they get to a lower foundational base. The subscriber count doesn't keep expanding. I think if they figure out their production, then they'll at least have a model that works there. I think they screwed up heavily there.

I'll give you a case study. ABC prepares for Oprah to be leaving for her own network and has to make Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz into bigger, into bigger assets. And if I'm on the board with that $100 million, I'm going to be like, okay, let's assume Ben loses his popularity over the next five years. And it's just maybe small Ben. like what happened to Howard Stern. Let's say something like that happens. What are we doing with the rest of these brand assets that we have?

Michael knows, you know, do you have another idea, Mr. Walsh, another content thing? And I would be encouraging that, just like ABC made a screaming hit out of Dr. Phil and out of Dr. Oz, and then Oprah left and took her show somewhere else. Is it going to equal Ben Shapiro and the drive he has? I don't think so. But that's what I think. That's the bet they're making. The bet they're making is that in five years, they can recover some of the subscription,

go to conservatism and build the assets that are here. That's very plainly on the table. So what's your prediction, Tom? My prediction, I think they're going to be able to pull it off because... So where are they at in five years? That still is not an answer. In five years, what do you think they're going to be in five years? I don't think they're going to be around.

You don't know that be around in five years. Okay. So you're saying they won't be around. Why won't they be around in five years? The thing is that, and if I had to put money on Mr. Beast's IPO or the daily wire they're not in the same league I will put on... No, no, they're not in the same league. Why, Pat, the formula, all right?

Commenting on political news is a well that is running is running dry lately. You know what I mean? It's on the decline. So I'm not saying like, there's a warning. Like, if they don't invest in thinking about a formula that can take them to the next level, they're not going to be around. So I think the future... That's what their shows are. That's what their shows and movies are.

They tried to move away and it didn't work. Yeah. For a reason. For a reason. They'll be out. you're saying in five years? Five years, it's either they're going to be done or they're going to be extremely successful because they caught lightning in a bottle. It's almost like a binary. It's one of those two. Okay, then we'll see what it happens. So, I think about bikes. I think they just have a smaller base and they kind of shrivel up. All let me go to the next story. Next time I'm going to get into is Google invest in A24. A24 is the one that you're starting to see in a lot of different

places and they did backrooms and backroom was obviously incredibly successful. So this story came out about Google wants to put $75 million into a film company. Wait, what? Google? Yeah, they're going into it. You know what $75 million is to Google? Is what $5 is to the average person, just so you know. They spent that much on coffee filters this morning. And by the way, as much as people think that's a joke, that's not a joke. They literally, $75 million to them is what $5 is to the average person, maybe $50 is to the average person. It's like, yeah, let me just try it out and see what happens. So let me read this to you. Google is investing in an independent A24 as part of a new AI research partnership between the two companies.

The giant has given him $75 million into the recent hits backrooms and Marty Supreme. According to people familiar with the Matter Do Alphabet Unit, Google is a major player in online entertainment through YouTube. The deal marks the first time it has taken a stake in a studio. Google's DeepMind AI unit and A24 are aiming to create new tools for movie production and distribution. Disney signed a partnership with Open AI last year that abruptly ended with the tech company shut down. SORA video tool in March. Netflix recently acquired AI startup founded by Ben Affleck that can

tweak scenes without reshoots, but by and large, mainstream Hollywood has done little with AI thus far. Scott Belski, an A24 partner who oversees this technology and innovation works said this is because developers have pushed AI as a way to make movies faster and cheaper, which doesn't appeal to filmmakers. We think there are better uses that preserve creative control and support risk-taking. And new tools won't. to look anything like the prompted generation type of AI that people feel uncomfortable with. Their multi-year non-exclusive deal doesn't give Google access to 824 data, including its film and television library. Elon, why is so important? So number one, I think it just really,

it's a smart move from Google to go to 824 because 824 is very respected as as filmmakers. They're a company that makes really unique, high-quality, artistic films. So bringing AI into that sector is really, really smart. That's a good way to do it. I also think, We're starting to very, very quickly, you know, they're saying that AI is not a huge part of Hollywood yet. This year was the first year where you're really starting to see the major integration of AI into film. There's multiple studios that have dedicated, big studios that have dedicated exclusive AI projects. There were two film festivals this year. Sundance, I believe, and TIF, I believe it might have been, had full AI films.

So Google going into this space to normalize the use of AI in film is a very smart move doing it through 824, in my opinion. And I think that AI is going to be heavily normalized in the next three years in AI. We're going to start seeing a lot of projects that are almost made entirely in AI, but even just as a supplemental tool, it has tremendous value. Will it erase some jobs? 100%. Obviously, we know that's coming. But it does do an incredible job at certain things when it comes to filmmaking.

You have to look at the background of the people that are speaking when you're in Silicon Valley. And Scott Belski wrote a book. It's actually on your shelf, a bright yellow book called The Messy Middle. Yep. And he wrote that when he was at Adobe. And at Adobe, he was working on building all kinds of tools for all kinds of uses. That is the DNA structure of Scott, who is a partner at A24. So when I hear that voice talking, and I know his preset mind on building tools and making tools better, I believe that this is an investment. Thrive Capital also made an investment in A24. So I believe, What we are seeing here is what's going to come out of here is not a studio in what we think. I think they are a studio. But I think you're going to see tools and you're going to see a lot of things coming out of it as opposed to what I first reaction was, I dove into it because I said, $75 million.

That won't even fund a small biopic about two, you know, freedom-loving entrepreneurs that create a search company. You know, you can't make that movie for $75 million. That movie was made. It's called Intern. And it was a horrible movie. Exactly. But you see my point? So I'm like, this isn't about a movie.

This isn't about content. And then I hear the voice of Scott Belski, who is a tools guy and also founded Bhance. And I say to myself, guess what? I think this is all about tools because I see the Google money and I see the Thrive Capital money about a year ago. Snyder. Proof of concept. They've proved the concept that this is not only doable, it's also sellable. That's really what everybody's been waiting for.

So Google backing this is basically saying, okay, we've seen enough. We see the future here. We see potential. So we're going to put a little bit of money in it and see where it can go. Why wouldn't Hollywood embrace the technology? Why wouldn't they? But what's interesting is you said $75 million doesn't make you a movie. What we are saying with AI is that $7 million now makes you a movie that used to cost $100 million.

This also will inevitably down the road give a lot more power to independent filmmakers. Where you used to need a $300 million budget to make a good film, you're now going to see really, really high-quality films made from people in their homes as a group of people. I have friends who are recording stuff on iPhones and AI can change the entire environment, change the costume, do the lighting, do everything, but they're still allowing creative input. So as long as we don't lose that aspect where we don't destroy creativity entirely,

I think people don't realize just how far you're going to be able to go with very little money. It unlocks creativity in the same way that social media and YouTube unlock creativity for news and for podcasts and things like that. So that's what AI can potentially do. And if you're a studio, and it's so expensive maintaining a rouster of filmmakers

who have high big names big budget, why wouldn't you say I'm going to use AI with somebody who's proven, I'm going to get 10 people who have the potential to be creative, I'm going to load them up as much AI tech as I possibly can and see which one of them comes up with some some gold. Why wouldn't you do that? That's what,

it's from a business standpoint, it only makes sense. And from a content creation standpoint, with creativity standpoint. Yeah, let me get to the next story. So we're talking Daily Wire, and if the market were to say who the DailyWire, Ben Shapiro's enemy is, it would be Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson comes out and says there's no chance he'll support the Republican

party. I think he said this a couple days ago. If you got the clip, go ahead and play it. I don't support the Republican Party. There's no chance I would support the Republican Party. I'm not going to support the Democratic Party. I don't know what I'm going to do. But at this point, you know, how could you support, how could I or any American voter support a political party that's not loyal to the

United States that puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens? Like, that's, you know, it's not possible to vote for people like that. And I'm not going to. And I think I voted Republican in my entire. life. I worked at Fox News, CNN, MSNBC. I've been a consistent defender for 35 years of the Republican party. I mean, very consistent defender. But there's no defending this because it's immoral. And it's exactly the opposite of what a political party in a democracy is charged with doing, which is representing its own voters, its own citizens, its own nation. And they're not doing that. So no, he says that. And if I'm out. And I think a clip yesterday.

goes with him and Alex Jones when asked about J.D. Vance, and here's what Tucker out to say, I think 24 hours later. Well, will you support J.D. Vance? I think he's great compared to Rubio. In Toronto, every arrival is a statement, and nothing says it better than this. Cadillac Optic was the number one selling luxury EV in Canada for 2025.

Find your rhythm across a seamless 33-inch display and an immersive 19-speaker AKG surround audio system. This city demands agility, and Optic delivers with precision to make every drive extraordinary. Let's take the Cadillac. Find out more at Cadillac Canada.ca. Luxury sales claim based on S&P Global Mobility, Canadian new vehicle total registrations for calendar year 2025

for the Cadillac definition of luxury. Obviously, he's great compared to Rubio. Obviously. Look, I'll support the best person. I always have, like, J.D. Vance enormously, I think he's really smart. He's in an impossible situation. I think he's doing his best.

I strongly disapprove of, obviously, as I've said, 100 times of this war and of what's... Oh, I love how Trump and... Others have been blaming Vance when he's volunteering to go stop it, when internally it's confirmed, he tried to stop it. So, Elon, what do you have with this with Tucker? With Tucker going from Republican, not Republican, I won't vote, J.D. Vance. What do you think he's doing?

I'm going to have to control myself. I'm going to Tucker Carlson today. Number one, him jumping up to 10% on the polymarket is scary. I don't trust anything Tucker Carlson says. And I think when he says, you know, I don't know who I'm going to vote for, but I know I'm not voting Republican. I won't vote for Democrats. He's telling you to let the Democrats win.

because if you're a Republican and you don't vote Republican, you're essentially giving a vote to Democrats. And I think that's the goal of this new coalition to destabilize. And it's also just an insane premise, number one, to create this false narrative that somehow you can't vote Republican because they're secretly loyal to Israel or to a foreign country. Therefore, you have to destroy all your foundational beliefs and allow the Democrats to win because of this great conspiracy.

The guy doesn't talk about the trillion dollars coming in from Qatar. He doesn't talk about the Air Force One Katari flight over our White House on July 4th. He doesn't talk about, he said Iran would be better with nuclear missiles. The Middle East would be safer with nuclear missiles in Iran. This is the moment. I'm just going to end with this. I'm not going to go through the vast list of him promoting Sharia law, all the weird McDonald's video in Russia, where he was talking about how tasty McDonald's is in Russia,

all the propaganda. Look at their beautiful subway turmoil. Yeah, and how cheap their groceries are. I mean, it's like straight up propaganda out of like if you were to make a video. But the moment I really lost respect for Tucker Carlson, despite all of this, is when he had Nick Fuentes on, forget the Hitler stuff, forget the Stalin stuff. He claims to love Charlie Kirk and he was very close with Charlie Kirk. Yet he has a guy there who said the most disgusting things about Charlie Kirk's organization

and Charlie Kirk himself. And he didn't once really call him out in that interview. And if I just, if I was there with someone who said the most disgusting things about my friend who was assassinated. And they were in front of me, and I'm interviewing them. And I can't even call them out about that. What kind of integrity do I have? So this guy has no integrity.

He shifts his opinion on anything based on whatever narrative he's trying to push. And I really don't have a lot of... And I, you know, it's sad. I was interviewed by him. I looked up to him in the past. And to just see the massive... You were interviewed by him. Yeah, he's the one who gave me the Patriot Award.

Oh, really? My Fox Patriot Award. How long ago was that? 2022. Really? Yeah. Wow. So from there to here now?

It's such a shit. What do you think changed, though? Homberto, how about yourself? Where are you at with this? Look, I think the carrot and stick strategy, I heard Dave Smith talking about this yesterday, and I think he was, he's sticking to his gun. Dave Smith sticking to his gun.

He's not going to support, because he felt cheated after supporting Donald Trump. He's going to support them the next election, and he's clear on that he's going to let them lose. And that's his line. What Tucker is doing is like, I'm not supporting them, and then 24 hours later he goes and supports J.D. Vance on the same day. Personally, having worked in politics before, I think when parties in general,

and I'm not talking about talking about, when parties are not faced with carrot and stick strategies, like when they have unconditional support, any party, like could be something you agree with, disagree with, when they have unconditional support and they don't get the stick from their voters, things get out of whack. And the worst situations I've seen in South America working in politics is when, people start playing team sports and they always support the same party no matter what they do. Democrats do it, like vote blue, no matter who. Republicans do it.

I think America needs to find a place in the middle, a place of understanding. And I don't think this is a way to do it. But I think there's conversations that need to be conversations, like stop the this attacks from one side to the other side. This guy is this, this guy is that. I think people need to sit down. What do you think Tucker believes in? I think he believes in, it's very hard to tell. That's pretty bad.

I mean, but again, what do you think Tucker believes in? I think he's a Christian. I think he's generally conservative at heart. I think his ideas, you know, like they lead more towards this America first trend, like Marjorie Taylor Green, Thomas Massey. He lends very libertarian in some things, very conservative, some other things, and he dwells with socialism, not socialism, but with things that are not free market and some things, you know?

Where are you all with this? Look, what you were saying is absolutely true. We don't want one party states that are, you know, everybody's just sycophanding and vote blue no matter who. So there's always, it's always good when there's disagreements within a particular party or particular political persuasion. However, if Tucker was saying, I can't support the Republican Party because, you know, I once supported the Iraq War, this is a theme that he's come back. time and time again. He regrets supporting the Iraq war. And so if he says, you know, I can't

support Republicans nowadays because they're doing to Iran what I think they did to Iraq and that's wrong. That would be morally defensible. But then he pivots always to Israel. It's an obsession. Right. And that's what gets me is if he was honest and saying, look, this is like the Iraq war, I don't like this. All the wrong, all the mistakes that Bush made, Trump started. That would be one thing. That would be criticism. It would be genuine. It would be honest. But pivoting to Israel, I mean, making it always about Israel. That's the thing that gets me. Because I, first of I don't think Trump is, this has anything to do with Israel, or at least not much to do with Israel. I think this is all about China to begin with.

So making this all about Israel just raises all kinds of red flags. You know, it's a perfect example. He said, you said Tucker Carlson's a Christian, right? How much time has Tucker Carlson talked about the hundreds of millions of Christians persecuted across the Middle East and Africa? But he will talk all day about Christians persecuted in Israel. It's like, it's literally. I'm going by general vibes here. I don't know the guy.

I didn't get it. No, but I'm just saying that there's, there's such a, so. So if you're going to be logically consistent and ethically consistent, you can't spend a hundred hours a week talking about Christians persecuted in Gaza, Christians persecuted in the West Bank. And then ignore literally hundreds of millions of Christians persecuted in the Middle East and Africa and never mention it. He came across and he said that what was happening in Nigeria is not necessarily targeting of Christians. It could be tribal. He's made all kinds of defenses of Sharia law. There's just such an extreme shift in his narrative and behavior.

I see what you're saying. And last Friday, Topat, he lost me. All right? We had the deal ready. Everything was good. I'm pro peace. I'm openly pro peace. The deal was done. It's being signed. You see the video. He's so bitter about it. All right? Are we pro peace here? Or are we just blaming Israel for everything? And by the way, when he said he is voted Republican his entire life, I think he's a registered Democrat from 2006 to 2022. I don't know if you know that or not. Oh, I didn't know that. Yeah, he's a registered Democrat. Can you verify that? I think he was a registered Democrat. I think he was a registered Democrat. Democrat from 06 to 2020 in D.C., I could be wrong. Fact-checked me. I'm very comfortable if I'm wrong or not.

It doesn't have any impact on my life. Also, he was a registered Democrat. Nothing he says is true. You notice that? Wait a minute. Was he really a registered Democrat? Let me read this. Yes, Todd Carson was a registered Democrat.

Mr. Carson addressed him on multiple interviews. He said he was a registered Democrat because of Washington, D.C. is over among Democratic and meaningful local elections in the Democratic primary. He argued that registering as a Democrat allowed him to vote a mayor. public. He said he sincerely despises the Democratic Party and claims he often voted for the establishment candidates to slow progressives, registered

everyone with six. All right, there you go. So Tom, your final thoughts on this. Yeah. He's been a moving target and in much the same way that Roecona. Rochano was on this podcast and on certain things I found him be an agreeable guy. I don't recognize what I'm seeing from Rocana

right now and you may say, well, he's getting ready to run for office. That's what he's doing and he's following the wind on his sailboat that's being blown by Mandami and the social and, you know, the social, the social, liberal socialists that are on that line. Okay, but I don't really get it. And I did, and I don't really recognize the Rokane I first met. In the same way, I don't really recognize Tucker from what I saw. I saw him leave that. We went up there. You did a great interview with him up in Maine. We visited with him and his team. And the things I'm seeing now, I don't really recognize.

You know, I could see that underneath it, he's like, well, look, underneath it, I got this feeling about Israel, this, this, this, this, and this. But then the awkwardness with Qatar and describing his purchase and the things that are there, I don't know what to think. Were you really a libertarian, centrist, almost even a little socialist down underneath? Is that what's showing up? There's no bread from trail, right, Tom? I don't really. Tom, five things. Very simple for me, with every personality.

concerns, what are his motives, assumptions, fears, and asks, what do you know about what his motives are? What are his motives? So let's go through possibility of motives of every individual. Very clearly to, in a very objective way, to limit the relationship between Israel and the United States. That's his primary motive.

So let's say that's one motive. What are the motives you think he has? Is there a possibility of running for office one day? 100%. So I think, I've been saying, this since 2022. I said Tucker's going to run for president since 2022, and I said he's going to want to get into it. I don't know how he's going to do it. The alliance as he creates. I don't know where that's going to go. The original alliance was with Musk and Trump is the original alliance.

And that kind of fell out. I don't know if even Musk is now Tucker Carlson, because Musk for the first 50 interviews Tucker did, he would retweet and put interesting. Haven't seen that for a while. Yeah. I see a lot of Musk retweetin Gatsad, you know, and I don't see a lot of retweets of Tucker Carlson anymore lately. So I don't know. I don't know who the alliance is going to be. Maybe it is still there. Maybe it's not. Is it business? I know the chewing thing that he does. They just did a commercial with Connor McGregor. I actually like that because to me, the most honest motive is what? Capitalism. Money. Yeah. Money. If you got something you're building, that's good. I like that a person has, you know, I like that Medellon is now running a small media company. I like that the guy that I

talked to yesterday, Steve King from Australia, that we got into a biggest fight. The first 30 minutes of this interview, super uncomfortable. The audience is going to love it. It was super. It was super. Super, super uncomfortable with the guy I talked to yesterday. Economist from Australia, right? Steve Keene. And, you know, I said a couple things about Karl Marx, and he lost his shit. It's great for TV. It'll come out soon.

But you want to know what his motives are. Money? Great. Politics? I don't know. You know, motives of defending what his father believed in, and maybe he left him something as a CIA that, hey, Israel is really the bad guy. And if your father tells you that, the loyalty is to your father, who knows? Who knows?

But the reality of it is, I think Daily Wire and, you know, the Republicans while they're fighting like this with each other, and you've got all these kids that are all so confused. Everybody's like, what the hell is going on? The Democrats behind closed doors are like, dude, let's go. Mamdani picked up three more. A Senate seat. Do you know one of the girls that beat a four or five-term senator, a Democratic senator that bumped her out? Do you know Mamdani winning how big of a deal this is for?

Democrats, because Democrats are now sitting there asking a following question. They're like, holy shit, how the hell do I get the moderate right to vote for me? How do I get the moderate right? We're losing people to socialism. If we go full-on socialism, do we gain, do we win any major elections? And on the other side, Trump's trying to get this voter ID thing passed by, what's his name, that's working with him? The guy that, Thune, is his name Thune? John Thune, am I saying it correctly?

Because he thinks Republicans will never win an election again if they lose the voter ID, Trump does? There's a lot of things going on, but this right here. Bradlander, New York District 10, abolished ICE, forgive all student loans, almost $2 trillion of war, expand the Supreme Court. Mamdani gets a clean sweep and a bad night for Joachim Jeffreys. A book question for the Democrat Party heading into midterms. What are they going to be doing? And by the way, some of the videos, if you hear what these two girls have to say,

you will lose your mind on what these people have to say. So politically, it would be interesting, but that's kind of where Tucker's that. Let me get to the next door here. Next one is maybe the most important story, folks, out of everything we talked about. You got to protect your trash cans moving forward. Can you imagine with everything that's going on, a lady with this, I mean, you almost can't believe it. This lady right here dumps the trash, play the clip please, dumps the trash just to walk away with the trash can. I saw this video a few times on X.

I didn't even know what the hell was going on. I'm like, why is this such a big deal? Okay, so I skip past it. Women who emptied Nick's trash can on street, then stole it, fired from J.P. Morgan Chase. She was a D.I. Executive. What? Yes. This lady right here.

That's going to be her resume for the rest of her life. Every time she goes to a job interview, they're going to say, why did you get fired from J.P. Morgan Chase? Well, because of political differences. Because of racial, whatever, discrimination, because of, you know, because I'm gay, because I'm lesbian, because I'm – she's going to make all these stories up. But the reality of it is, who is interested in hiring somebody like this that's going to the public stealing trash cans and their job was DEI? Can you imagine that? So this lady's name is what?

I want to give her proper credit. What is her name? So she gets Angie Baez, 40 years old, was promoted to executive director of community and industry engagement for Card and Connected Commerce at JPMorgan Chase more than a year ago. According to her LinkedIn profile, she previously served as the executive director for Diodic. diversity, equity and inclusion at New York Best-based review website, the infatuation, which Chase acquired as part of the broader push into a lifestyle on experimental, experiential content. You know, she previously, and then sources say in her bio on the infatuation

webbed up bias described as someone whose dedication to making a positive impact shines through in every aspect of her work. How do you view this story? I mean, what is this all about, Humberg? This is the dumbest thing I heard in my, you know how much, How much executive makes, idea, executive makes a couple hundred thousand dollars here in change. Between $250,000 to $450,000, all right? You just need to keep quiet and not steal trash cans.

That's all you need to do. Angie's going to be fine. The reason why Angie's going to be fine is because there are thousands of nonprofit organizations in New York City that are going to say, I want to hire her. She's exactly what I'm looking for. Plus, she's kind of famous as a Nick Trash Lady, so Angie's going to be fine. Tom. Should we hire her?

Are you saying like, are you thinking? We bring her as the I of Vaitainment. You'll get a ton of views. You know what? This is basically your life is public everywhere. And if you want to be a numbschool, a knucklehead. And those are the only words I'll use. I won't use anything that you could accuse me of any other thing.

I'm just going to say, that is such a knucklehead move. You wanted a Nick souvenir. You saw it. You dumped out the trash on the streets of New York, which a pile of trash. on the street of New York under the Menomie administration is called normal. That's Tuesday. It just kind of sits there. But this, you've permanently done it.

Can you see what Jamie Diamond was thinking? Why did she work for us? I don't understand. We're bringing this. Sir, we bought a website to help us with DEI. It was called the infatuation. I think it was called, sir. Wait, we bought that shit?

Yeah, we did. She came with it. Yep. All right, we're done here. But can you just see, honestly, sitting back. She just launched a queer. and bi-P-O-C-owned talent agency. So if anybody out there from our audience that's watching

that wants to be part of a talent agency and you're queer, or bi-poc? Or bi-pac? You just launched a Bipak? What does Bipoc? Person of color. What does Bipok mean?

Like, two colors? Bisexual person of color. Is that seriously? Is that you're joking? I think it's indigenous. I'm not joking. Isn't the bisexual person of color? No, I think.

Black, indigenous, and people of color. No, no, no, black indigenous and people of color. Should I qualify for that? Right? People of color. I mean, listen, we are kind of colorful here. We should join our agency. Oh, my God.

Who are you represented by Elon? I am represented by... The Nix Tras, lady. Listen, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this story. We just get past it and go to the next story. Next door I want to get into is the Russell Cloe Gladiator 2. Gladiator 1. I watch it from 43 minutes on.

Every quarter I have to watch that movie. there's something very special about that movie. Gladiator 2 comes out horrible. I sat through it. I was, it's just too much. It breaks my heart because Denzel was in it, and I'm supportive of anything that Denzel does. But here's what Russell Crowe had to say about Gladiator 2,

which, by the way, he wasn't even in it. Nothing. There was nothing. Can you imagine the emotional, the way it ends, the scene. Show your face, Gladiator. He turns around. How dare you turn your back against me? Gladiator turns around.

Who are you? And it's, you know, the famous line that he says, you know which ones I'm talking about. Here is Russell Crowe talking about gladi or two. Go for it. This is a story about a man who's avenging the death of his wife and his child. There cannot be a moment on that journey where he stops and has sex with somebody. Doesn't make any sense.

Because then that destroys the journey. And they fought me and they're like, you know, sending something. He said me in there's a bed and everything. And I just stuck to my guns. And luckily for me, Ridley, even though he would have loved it why they're sexing with me and Connie Nilsom. He agreed with me back then that that was the moral core of the film. So for then, the second movie, to destroy that moral sense.

very interesting because the second movie barely took the same box office that the first movie took but that's 20 years later and when you apply how much of a change there's been on the value of a dollar they failed and they failed because they didn't understand why it was successful it was successful because that had a moral call and he's the thing he's getting choked up yeah Clarkson with Wayfair. Ever order furniture online and wonder what if? Like, what if it doesn't hold up? That sofa was four days old. You should have ordered from Wayfair. With Wayfair, there's no what if. Just style you love and quality you can trust. Visit Wayfair.com. Wayfair, every style, every home.

Most people work on the surface. They'll go for entertainment. I love something and keep up with them forever. Wow. What? Tonight, anywhere you, I'll be able to find you somewhere in the world. That film, 26 years later, is on primetime television. It's available on stream. Why? Because the love for that thing is because of its moral call. You can pause it right there.

What a freaking powerful breakdown. Ilan. Well, I mean, look at how when you talked about Gladiator, the emotional connection you have to. And that's what he's touching on. He's touching on something much deeper than the film. He's touching on a directionality of things in general, which is as much as Hollywood may try and engineer films

that push a certain narrative our foundational beliefs, our desire, tend to come back to these ancient archetypes that are repeated throughout all of history over and over and over. And that's why he's emotional about it because he created something that connects to that. And people don't want to watch a movie

where someone's fighting. They want to watch a movie where someone is fighting for something. And if you corrupt it, then they're not only not going to be interested, they're going to be offended by it. And no matter what people try and do to us, look at the heroes that we still put in Marvel films.

Look at these movies that still do extremely well. They aren't. anti-heroes. Yes, 100%. They have to stand for something and that thing can never be corrupted. Because once it is, they stand for nothing. And part of us is always seeking that, especially men. Men nowadays are seeking for purpose, identity, value. And we look to films as our archetypes for how we're going to feel about those things. So Gladiator in these older Hollywood films really did touch on that. I tell you, I don't normally say this. This is very hard for me to say this. Gladiator 2 is one of the worst movies I've seen in my life. It's horrible.

that's how bad it is. And the reason why it's horrible, if there was never a gladiator one, maybe I would have ranked it higher. But because there was a gladiator one, and gladiator won exactly the way he put it together was about a moral compass of a man protecting his wife and his kids and his family,

that pride. And you take me from that level of tension to just how sloppy the second one was? Yeah. It is so disappointing to see. I'm so glad he broke it down because the entire time I'm sitting there wondering, What does Russell think about this movie?

All I thought about is, what does Russell Pro think about Gladiator 2? That's all I kept asking myself. It was that horrible of a movie. I love Gladiator so much that I couldn't watch a second movie. And this is not me. Like a lot of the market feels like this.

Everything that they touch, they've ruined. If you look at the streaming numbers, I think it's 3 to 1 catalog to new release on streaming movies. And I think 75% of catalog, like old music, compared to new releases, Pat. The thing is, like, I saw the movie coming.

I love that movie. I probably watched it once a year. I couldn't do it to the original movie. Like, cheating on your wife or, I don't know, stealing something from the story. Interestingly enough, that's what he's talking about. Very meta. Tom thoughts. So the great art of Hollywood, and you and I lived out there,

grew up out there around great storytellers. And I knew so many people that were just great. storytellers and they couldn't get their project forward because of the industry that is Hollywood. I once read an article about what Ben Affleck had to go through to get Argo done, which was a passion project of his. And it was a beautiful story. It was done so well, the rescue of the hostages and things. But even Ben Affleck, with his juice, couldn't get it done because the machine that was Hollywood says, no, we're doing this and this and this in front of it. And you have to get, You can get a movie done out of your own pocket.

You just can't get distribution. And distribution is everything. And right along with distribution, you have to almost double the movie budget and to put that much marketing. So if you spend 50 making a movie, you got to put 50 on marketing and get distribution. And you can't do it. And when they lose the core, because what do they stay in? They get, Hollywood gets stuck in ruts. They'll do sequel upon sequel upon sequel, even if all the test audience screening and the sequel says there's a problem with it,

They're betting on the sequel and they're going down, who's the next character in Marvel? It's a guy called the silver sponge. Okay. Then we're doing it next. You know, it doesn't matter. And it's just they've lost the storytelling. And that's what I think. Toy Story 5.

Do we really need a Toy Story 5? It's exactly what you're saying. Is that Hollywood as, and see what you said, Alon, something has changed. You know, the golden age of films, 70s, 80s, and certainly the 90s. And then what happened? Something changed in the 2000s. It stopped being about storytellers and talent and how to make a good movie

that has an emotional center that people connect with. And it started becoming, we need to push a message. Either we need to push a message or we're going to be lazy and just set up a franchise. It'll come back. It will come back. It will come back. This connects to the 824 story.

That's right, yeah. Because now we're seeing a rebirth of the industry with new creators. Listen, favorites memories of me and my dad, we would go to Winette Catea Theater and we would sit there and watch it. watch a movie. It was amazing. In Iran, we're in Iran. We would get movies, okay, in Iran, because you couldn't get it. You're living under Khomeini, and we would watch it translated in

Farsi. So, Rocky spoke to me in Farsi, Gremlins in Farsi, Gounis and Farsi. You would watch these movies, Pinocchio in Farsi, all of these things in Farsi, and you would just enjoy that moment with that individual, right? So let me, let me, I have to read this scene with, you know, the movie Gladiator where he says, my name is Maximus Decemius. Meridius, commander of the armies of the North, General of Felix Legion's loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius, father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife, and I will have my vengeance in this life or the next.

Oh, my God. It's crazy. It's crazy. The scene where he says, I want to be free as well one day, the owner that is, and he says to him, win the crowd, win your freedom. all these small death the one line about death I don't know if you remember the one line about death

where he says death smiles at us all all a man can do is smile back you imagine how great these are just a beautiful set of lines in this movie so anyways

maybe the next thing was a second watching gladiator time when we go the music oh with Hans Zimmer right is it Hans Zimmer dead the one song

yeah it's great it's great anyways let's go to next story I'm going to get to So next story I'm going to get to, which is kind of interesting. I want to know what angle you guys going to take with this is billionaires are fighting their heirs for control beyond the grave. This is a Bloomberg story. They're fighting their kids on what's going to happen with the money that they made

that's going to the kids or not going to the kids. They're having fights. So what does this mean? A growing number of billionaires are using trust not to just pass on wealth, but to control how their empires operate long after they're gone. what founders view as protection is often viewed by errors as restriction as family office advisor Kirby Rosplog puts it what one generation might see as protection the next generation experiences as restriction the pier castle case the 99 year old founder of a drinks empire

word roughly $10 billion spent more than three decades constructing an elaborate succession structure he consolidated ownership through Gibraltar created a foundation in Liechtenstein establish a trust in Singapore. That is some technical shit right there. The goal was to minimize taxes, preserve the business, and prevent the future family conflict. Instead, the succession plan itself

has become the source of conflict. The family is fighting the system. Earlier this year, Castle's daughter, Romney and his nephew, Alain, attempted to remove the CEO chosen by Pierre Castle. The dispute has now reached Singapore's Supreme Court. At the center of the fight is the question, who actually controls the empire,

the family or the trust structure created to constrain the family. Number two, separating ownership from control. One of the key features of modern billionaire succession planning is the separation of economic ownership from decision-making power. Family members may receive dividend and inherit wealth while being denied meaningful control over the business itself. Number three, last but not least, the real fight is controlled.

Romney Castle argues that CEO Gregory Clerk has accumulated excessive influence and is attempting to take control. The opposing side argues that the trust structure is functioning. exactly as intended, and that management should remain independent from family politics, Tom. You know, this is a headline because people, Bloomberg said, the errors control from beyond the grave and they try to create clicks in a headline. But really, it's a very, very simple issue. The little greedy bastards in the next generation want to go grab the money and have fun. Yeah. And the previous generation built it, and he took a few steps here because of taxes that

were legal and we would say he's stretching. No, he's not. He did what was legal to create entities for tax purposes. It was legal. You don't want him to do it anymore. Take those off the books. Those are no longer valid tax options and he doesn't do it. But the real issue here is the spoiled brats of billionaires. And I'll get and put two sides on this. One, they're giving into their human desires just to get the money from dad. But number two, if you raise kids that are going to be spoiled brats and you have a lot of money, you can expect this. behavior. You need to raise kids that respect what's going on and understand how this game is going to be played. And you need to be the kind of father and the kind of, you know, a sion of the family office that says, this is how we're going to do it. This is how it will be laid out. If you raise enabled spoiled brats, Pat, you can expect them after you're gone to go get lawyers and try to manipulate things and get there. But the story here that Bloomberg misses, and I'm not surprised that Bloomberg missed it, is that what about the family offices that somehow raised great kids and the feelings and the desires

and the impact points of the family Sion was maintained? I believe in education. Long after I'm gone, I want the following things to happen and this is the way we're going to do it. You know, they're leaving out that part. Snyder. One sense, you're kind of saying, I'm setting this up because I know I'm a terrible father. I don't trust my children to take over the family business, and maybe they know their kids well.

But what Tom says is exactly right. But even if you do raise good children, there's still going to be conflict. Say you groom your son to be or your daughter to take over your family empire. They're going to have their own ideas anyway. There's always going to be a clash. The trust in the lawyer are the rudder. They should be. But you can also make the other argument that when you have a beneficial economic interest,

but you don't have active control, you're just a passive control. you're just a passive investor, there's always going to be legal and natural tension there. So I think the thrust of the story is you're inviting trouble, but there is no good solution to this other than to be a better father. Yeah, what's the alternative? The alternative is pretty much allowing everyone to fight over the money, destroy the business. How many generations? Let's be honest, they're going to fight anyway.

They're going to do it anyway. But, you know, so how many generations there's a study? It takes like three generations. Three to four. Yeah. So it's proven. It's proven its studies. I saw it to lose everything.

I managed money for wealthy people. We made it for two. Yeah, and I wouldn't be. Medici's did it right. Rockefellers did it right. There's a few families that did it right. Medici's, I think they're on seventh or eight generation. There's a lot of families that you look at on how they set them up.

A lot of them have done it the right way. There's a book, everybody who is concerned about this topic should buy. It's by a guy named Jonathan Kurtz. It's called Leave a Legacy. And he breaks down one of the studies that studies, a study from Oxford that looked at families in UK that had a lot of wealth that the money kept for over 1,000 years, for a thousand. That's a long time to keep within a family, right?

And in America right now, if you have slats that are set up in slats in some states, allow you to keep the wealth and pass it down for 1,000 years. I think some of them are limited to 1,000. I think you need to look at this. I think this is a very serious decision that you need to make as an individual. It's funny because the Murdoch family, when Succession the Show came out, I don't know if you guys have, I love that show. I've never seen it, but I, the Succession to Show,

show is based on the Murdoch family, and the family apparently sees the show, and they're like, wait a minute, this is about our family. Holy shit, let's get it together. So there's a documentary that came out about the Murdoch family. Can you type in Murdoch family documentary Fox News? It just came out a few months ago. If you've not seen it, yeah, the Dinus. Oh, I'm going to have to watch. Oh, you've never seen it? No, and I love Succession. And it's full on showing everything that's going on and where they are now, what happened to the younger son because typically in these types of families, you have different types of kids. One kid's going to be the playboy.

One kid's going to be the stable, the guy that you can rely on on all this stuff. Then the girl, you have to worry who she marries if you got boys and girls. So there's a lot of different elements to it. So I think if anybody wants to take this thing really seriously, order the book, leave a legacy, watch the documentary, leave a legacy. And last but not least, do go watch the movie Joe Black. In a movie Joe Black, if you, I don't know if you've seen a movie Joe Black, Meet Joe Black with Brad Pitt and Anthony Hopkins.

Phenomenal. That girl in a movie at one point was every guy wanted to be with the Gras. I don't know what she's doing now. But in the movie, Meet Joe Black. You know, Joe Black is death. So he comes to Anthony Hopkins. Anthony Hopkins is having chest pains. And it's a very interesting scene.

Somebody's at the front door. He comes and they have the conversation together. But if you watch the movie, he has two daughters. One of them loves her. He can't do anything wrong. wrong in her eyes. The other one is trying to be him to run the business, the legacy business.

His right-hand guy that gets into business starts having so much influence over the company and the board that he flips the board against him. And there's a very good scene in this movie. So I do believe when I'm reading this story in this article about the fact that the kids are like, wait a minute,

this CEO is getting a little bit too much power and is pinning us. I agree with them. That can happen. And you have to be aware. You have to watch that. You have to see what's going on there. Because, again, everybody has different motives. So for anybody that want, this has been a part of our discussion for the last few years as a family, one recommendation I would give to any father and their family is openly talk about it. Openly talk about it.

Get them involved. Ask them, what do you think should happen? Let them agree on it. Let them decide on some of the stuff. Not the whole thing. You're a shot caller. You decide, of course, if they're going to be like, well, give us all the money now, bullshit. But allow them to be involved in some of the decision-making process with the ability to,

to reason and let them say, you came up with this decision. You guys voted on this. You guys wanted to set up this way. You guys made this decision together to make sure that because the last thing you want as a father, but I know you want to say something I'll come to you here in a minute. The last thing you want as a father, we had a lady, part of our family in Iran. Her name was Shirin and her husband was a doctor and they made good money. One day my mother told me one thing they did, which was very interesting.

Their son Ali, I think, ended up becoming a doctor, pretty successful one. and their daughter, I don't know what the daughter's name was Shabnam. I don't know what her daughters then were. Very good family. One of our favorite families we used to like to hang out with. The father made a decision that the money that was going to the kids, he gave it to them while they were alive. And he says, everything we're keeping, we're going to keep and we're going to give to charity.

But the money that you were going to get after we died, we're giving it to you now. Why? Because we don't want you to be counting the days of when we're dying. So I actually really like that setup as well to say, look, don't be like, My mom dies. When my dad dies. Well, my dad dies. We're going to get him.

My dad, oh, my God. When is he done? Did he die? So there's an element of like that business life settlement, which I never wanted to get into. Life settlement is a business that you're hoping for the clients. The sooner the client dies, the more money that you make. So it's a very technical and complicated thing. I can talk about this for hours because we've been dealing with us, Umberto.

I want to have the other perspective. As a victim of the, of this, you know, my family, four, five generations ago, they were in charge of all that before the Panama Canal was. built, they were in charge of all the trade that went through the bottom of South America. All right, we still have a museum there and a cemetery. But in three generations, they drunk, traveled, and spent all the money. This happened to your family. This happened to my family.

You know what I mean? Like, you can still go. So you were supposed to get some of the money that comes to you? I don't even, the money was gone on the third generation. You know what I mean? But the museum. How strong was the family in Chile five generations ago? How popular were you guys?

Probably, well, not that properly. We can talk that off air. because there's a few things. But they were a huge family. You know what I mean? Well known, though. Well known. Very well known.

Like, it's the biggest family in the south of Kono, of South America. And in three generations, because they didn't put any rules on how the vision was said, how to spend the money. They didn't put any protections. In three generations, it's gone. You see it affect average American families all the time even. I do think it's something that you have to be intentional about. I do think you have to, you know, take this very seriously. I do think you have to involve the kids.

I do think you and the wife needs to talk early. Every one of these conversations that we have, like one of the things my wife and I, we argue about a lot of different things if we have arguments over things. You know what? So one thing we don't argue about, and we haven't for over 14 years.

We've been together. Shit, my anniversary's in two days. Oh, my God. I think you brought that up. You were about to argue about something, Pat. Literally, in two days, it would be 17 years. We've been together, right? If you ask my wife how many financial arguments we've had

She would tell you I don't think we've had any for 15 years Everything got set up So we eliminated a lot of the financial arguments early To say here's where we are As of right now we could have a financial argument tonight Over the gas prices or whatever we could have But I'm just saying if you set it up properly And accordingly you can eliminate a lot of these future arguments

It's very important to do so by the way this kind of takes me back to The whole father's fatherhood webinar that we're doing July first. This is part of that. So if you haven't yet registered, go to vtwebinar.com, VTWebinar.com, register for the webinar that we'll have a week from today. This is one of the things that we'll be talking about next week as well. All right, last but not least, let's go into one of these stories that we haven't covered yet. Do we, I'll give you guys the opportunity. Do you want to do Rinaldo, Social Security, or Lucid? Which one do you want to go into Snyder? I know one. We got to do Lucid. Let's do Lucid. Let's go to Lucid.

So Lucid is cutting 18% of their workforce. Why the EV maker is struggling. This is a Barron's story, baron's story on this topic. So high in electric vehicle maker, Lucid is slashing staff for the second time. This year as part of its path towards profitability. The company said Monday morning in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the stock was down more than 4% on the news and has fallen more than 50% in 2020. while rivals, Rivian and Tesla have also fallen by 20 and 9% respectively.

Lusa decline has been far steeper. Lusa said it would cut 18% of its workforce, including employees and contractors, for an estimated annual savings of $158 million a year. While the company declined to provide the exact number of affected workers, it reported 9,000 employees globally at the end of 2025, up from $6,800 at the end of 2024. Humberto, your thoughts on the story? Making cars is hard, and especially in mass production. You burn through money, like putting cards together, like nothing ever before.

They had a lot of Saudi money in the start. They became an IPO. Everyone was very hot on this. I think I can be fact-checked, but I think they were evaluated over Ford, Pat. These guys were putting out 20,000 cars a year when the whole like EV bubble was going on. and their target was 60,000 units, and I think they managed to hit 20,000 units, and they started burning through money.

They, in simple, I think they released a wrong car at the wrong time. What Americans won is a $60,000-ish dollar SUV where they can put the whole family, and they're offering a super luxury S-class competitor that is $100,000. So I don't know. Like, it was a very hot product, and I think bad,

decisions, they have repercussions. That's the story here. They had a $1.35 billion dollar revenue, so it's not like this was a small little thing. Oh, they were so. It was huge bad. It was huge. Can you pull up the cars to see what they look like? Actually, want to know what it looks like. They're nice. They're nice-looking cars, but they did have some mixed reviews. You know what this reminds me? It reminds me of Fisker Karma. You guys remember the karma? He owned a Fisker. The first, the carma is a beautiful car. Yeah, the second one was very nice. Fisca Karma, they sold the assets of General Motors at the garage sale. And then Fisker Tom was an investor in Fisker.

Tom was on the... Fisker Curetado. The second, yeah, the second round. You know, they're both beautiful car. You can buy an original Fisker for like 25K right now. But you don't have anywhere to get the parts. There's no servicing and they use unique parts. Yeah.

It was a beautiful, beautiful call when it first came out. And that's a big deal. Pat, if you think about the economics of this, since they're so software heavy and the parts are very complicated and maintenance is very complicated, it's not like a 1985 F-F-150 that you can make parts in your in your garage. Like you need constant service

from this EV companies to make the car run. Batteries, they have a lot, you know, like they don't last forever. You need to replace them every certain amount of charges. You know what I mean? So Lucid is facing the modern era of EVs. Subsidies are expiring.

So you have to actually pay for the car based on some sort of cost, not on a government subsidy. And thanks to President Trump, states that were forcing EV mandates or reeling those back. And by the way, in one of, I think, example number 61 of where Gavin Newsom has never used a spreadsheet, when he mandates everybody uses EVs and forgets to look at what is the total power output possibility over a 10-year period of the California electric grid and find out that one doesn't equal the other.

And he says, I don't know what the problem is. We do deficits all the time in government. Yeah, well, you can't print electricity. And so Lucid finds itself with an aging early entrant. Lucid finds itself with consumers not getting the discounts, Pat. And Lucid finds itself moving forward so it's doing what everybody else did. Hey, they went back to PIF, Saudi PIF. You know what part of Lucid Saudi owns now with additionally the 550 million that they,

in February of 2026? 57% of the company. It's a Saudi electric car company that happens to be public on the U.S. Stock Exchange, and they're going, wait for it, Pat, electric robotaxies, because they could do volume and deploy them all around the world. And they're going to delay the coming out of the midsize. So guess what? Market factors are causing them to pivot. Will they be able to pivot to robotaxies and their midsize? will Saudi Arabia be able to, you know, hold that 57% and see what goes on. Tune in tomorrow for the next exciting episode of EVs in transition.

Look, this is a simple story, like you said, Tom. It's the business never showed up. Everybody had pie in the sky predictions about where EV adoption was going to be, and it just never happened. I mean, look at all the big carmakers, the legacy car makers that made billions of dollars of investments in EV that this last year they've been writing off because the business, business just wasn't there. I had a friend who sold cars used to sell Honda's. And he told me that every time gas prices would go up, his business would be, everybody would be there. Everybody

wanted a Honda when gas was high. And then as soon as gas came back down, they all came in to sell their hondas because they wanted to go back to their big pickup trucks. Like you said, people want, they don't want what EVs have today. So either Lucid is just too early and that the adoption curve is further out into the future or there just is not a marketplace for EV, other than what the cheap Chinese cars are going to be. In awkward news, I just bought a Tesla. You just going to throw that out there. I bought it last week. Beautiful car. I saw outside.

And the self-driving is incredible. We may buy a Tesla cyber truck and wrap the hell out of it and make you like a company car for people to drive around to go out there because it just looks good when it's wrapped. Yeah, it's very cool wrap. But if you haven't experienced the full self-driving, it's nuts. I did the other day with Aaron Mont. We go in the car. We're at this place, this arcade place. And I said, Aaron, you want to let's you and I just get away because this is a little bit too much for me.

I'm hungry. So we leave. We go to our taco spot and we had very good lunch together. and he says, Pat, you got to buy Tesla. I said, what do you mean? He says, watch what it does. First time of my life, he says he just presses it and it goes. Now, for my speed, it would drive me insane how careful it drives.

But you know what it did? Without touching anything, it got to the restaurant. He did nothing. I could not believe what it did. You have Mad Max mode. It'll go 90 on the highway. There's Mad Max mode. Not only that.

I don't even touch. I would use the Mad Max mode. I'm always on Mad Max. I got you. I got you. And it says, if you get a ticket, it's your fault. By the way, they will get you arrested in Florida. It will get me right?

No, 100. Above 100 is a felon. You're going to jail. All right. I mean, listen, nobody in the right mind would drive 185 miles in an SF 90 on the freeway here on 95. Who would ever do such a thing? You don't ever do things like that. So be responsible, folks, right?

You've got to be very responsible when you're driving around in places like this. The blood of dead dinosaurs is good stuff. Yeah. Last but not least. I'm hitting this story no matter what. I don't want to spend a lot of time on it, but just want to spend a lot of time on it, but just want to wrap up with this. Rinaldo scored two goals yesterday,

which is great because the Rinaldo fans desperately needed this. Mbapé scored four goals, Holland scored four goals, Messi scored five goals, Rinaldo scored two goals. By the way, this is what's exciting. Do you realize if Portugal wins the World Cup? If Portugal wins the World Cup, you know what debate is coming back? Rinaldo versus Messi, and it would be so heated. But if Messi wins the World Cup, you know what happens?

He'll be in a level of himself that no, like every, Every converse, already people are saying, even if Ronaldo wins, that debate doesn't exist because Messi is superior playmaker than Ronaldo is. But, you know, Ronaldo is loved by a lot of people. Let me just read something to you have a possibility. And then we'll go to this interview. Sports gets exciting when there's animosity. It's exciting.

Like what made San Antonio Spurs? You need some animosity, right? You need like some people that don't like each other. It's like, I cannot believe you're saying this in a comment section right now. If you're Team Messi or Ronaldo, post your comments below. You know, it gets pretty feisty. Make your argument on why you think Rinaldo is better or Messi's better or Pelle is better or Mardona or anybody else.

But let me read you something that's very exciting. You know, there's a 10 to 15% chance that U.S. could face Iran. That's a good matchup. That's a way. I have to turn it to that. Oh, boy. You know, there's a 20 to 30% chance that there's going to be a France-Argentina rematch. That'll be their third time facing each other.

You know, there's a 10 to 20% chance Portugal could face Argentina. Now, that's a matchup. Whoever, if they match up against each other, Portugal bumps Argentina out. Argentina bumps Portugal out. Talk about the amount of stories that will create. But here's Rinaldo. After the match, it's asked about

Messi and watch his immediate reaction. Go forward. Ayer, Lionel Messi, Marco, Marco de Gilles. Oh, my God. No desire to talk about it. So I think they're facing Colombia this Saturday. We should be a good game.

Saturday, 7.30 or something like that. So where are you at with this? Who do you think's going to win it? What do you think about Rinald? I have... I have no idea. I just go for Portugal because I love Portugal and I have a home in Portugal. So you have to kind of support it. But we're making a shoe that's coming. I can't tell anybody. It's

sneakers that is coming. And we're making them in Portugal and the shoes are ridiculous. They make the best tennis shoes in the world in Portugal. The best. They make incredible stuff in Portugal. Humberto. You know, we talked about Morris and Tucker and Ben and this is going to get me in trouble, right?

This right here is going to get trouble. Messi's never going to be loved. People love Christiano Ronaldo. They love them. Messi can get another World Cup. He can get 300 goals. He's never going to be Maradona. Maradona was loved.

They have shrines with him with his face, T-shirts. Why do you think that is? Do you think because he's got Asperger's? Do you think it's because he's not a personality? Jake is pissed off already getting up. The hand of God. Yeah.

But it doesn't matter how much he scored. The same thing goes with the F-1. You know, people used to love. Schumacher, but it's not the same as Senna. You know, Sena is a trust. They loved them. You know what I mean? Let me tell you, though, as much as Senna, I name my daughter after Senna, but Schumacher's, Schumacher, he's the greatest of all time.

Was he a loved, though? Was he, no, not at all. So you have the comparison there. You know what I was not, he was not loved like Senna. He was respected. You know what I will tell you Schumacher was loved? When he got his 41st race, Tom showed this to me, a 41st victory, and they asked him the question.

The other guy he was racing again was another racing. legend. He says, why don't you go away from it? Can you see his breaking down crying? I think that's when Schumacher became human when he started crying after passing up Senna, broke his son. So, where are you at? Do you have any opinion on this, Jeff? None. Any thoughts with you. I do. I think it would be very interesting

if the Iranians are losing to the Americans and they start whispering to the Americans take us hostage, please. But you know, you do have to have a little bit of imperfection to be loved. I agree. That's an interesting point. I agree. You do. And Messi if Messi, if Messi,

learned to speak English better and did more interviews and slightly more, you know, vulnerable, it would be a different story. That's just not him. It's not his personality. But maybe is it better to be loved and not be the best

or be the best and not be loved? You know what that becomes? That becomes the movie The Rush. Remember Rush with James Hunt and Nikki Lauda? Nicky Lauda's a better racer, but James Hunt was loved. And James Hunt was loved multiple at a time.

If you know the story, you know what I'm talking. We'll finish on that. Rush. I thought it was with Chris Hensworth for some reason. We'll finish on that. All right.

So we got a lot of stuff that's going on with games. We'll do that. And then Friday, we'll be back at it with the home team again. Gang, if you haven't yet gone to vTwebinar.com, register fatherhood July 1st next week

on the first 6 p.m. We'll see you guys there. God bless everybody. Take care. Bye bye, bye, bye.