PBD Podcast - Warner Bros Bidding War & Musk’s Retirement Warning | PBD #741

Episode Date: February 18, 2026

Patrick Bet-David, Anthony Pompliano, Jeff Snider and Brandon Aceto break down Zohran Mamdani’s $127B NYC budget proposal, Warner Bros. Discovery leadership turmoil and Hollywood shakeups, and Elon Musk’s retirement warning tied to AI automation, Tesla, and the future of the workforce.------♟️ SALES LEADERSHIP SUMMIT 2026: https://bit.ly/45Evtj4📺 JEFF SNIDER'S EURODOLLAR UNIVERSITY: https://bit.ly/4i5uz3W💻 ANTHONY POMPLIANO'S CFO SILVIA: https://bit.ly/3OltsCuⓂ️ MINNECT WITH JEFF SNIDER: https://bit.ly/4c27s9xⓂ️ MINNECT WITH ANTHONY POMPLIANO: https://bit.ly/4aBgFTUⓂ️ MINNECT WITH BRANDON ACETO: https://bit.ly/4anHnR3

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

My son's right there. I don't think I've ever said this before. This is what you missed. The podcast has already started. A big fight broke out over Disney, Paramount, or YouTube where Time Warner should go to. Jeff got angry because Tom's not here today. And shout out to Tom who's in Vegas,

representing the Future Looks Bright Shoes at the Magic Show. And then we're going to Italy at the Micaham Show as well, which is going to be great, exciting. We'll give you an update on that. But we've got a lot of stories to talk about today. We got three brilliant minds again with us, Palm Snyder, and Asetto is in the house. With the stories that we have,

we may go with the first one. Elon Musk says retirement may be a thing that we have to get rid of. Like I don't even think if retirement is a real thing we're not. And there's a clip on it. Mom, Donnie, this noble man, this sweetheart of a man, pomp wrote a long email to him, wrong, long tweet to him. And I'm going to come to you because you're a New York guy. He said they are forced, forced in New York,

because Hocco's not working with them to tap into the defined. the retirement plan of the New York City. Can you imagine the word he was because of everything that's going on our hands? We're forced. We would never do this, but we're forced. You got to love communist. So I mean he's on the same page as Elon Musk. They're just going to eliminate retirement together.

Two different ways. Yeah. But, you know, you love communists because when they campaign, they talk about, you know, how bad force is. And then when they win elections, all they want to do is force. So it is what it is. Jesse Jackson, charismatic, of Civil Rights, died at 84.

May he rest in peace. The whole thing with CBS and Stephen Colbert, they took the interview down. They didn't want it to be up. Is it a true story or was it a, you know, spectacle? Because maybe Colbert doesn't like the fact that Jimmy Kimmel got all that love from the hate and the backlash. Maybe he's trying to create it.

Maybe he's watching what happened with Donald Lemon having record-breaking followership and his, what do you call it, substack, you know, subscribers going up. He's like, man, I want to get some hate. Can you cancel me so I can come out and say you can't cancel me? And then an email comes out saying CBS said, you just have to make sure you give the right amount of time to the other side. But that's not what he wanted you to see. And we'll talk about that. Side note, we won't get into this, but apparently there's a fight going on with Rondo Razi and Gina Karano. We'll see how that goes. We will talk about Mamdani. We will talk about Palantir

moving its headquarters to them from Denver to Miami. That's a lot of engineers coming this way. Trump says Japan to invest in energy industrial projects in Ohio, Texas, and Georgia. Berkshire Hathaway. We can't talk about this in the back. I don't know what Palm's position is going to be with this. Berkshire Hathaway invests in New York Times and trims Apple. So they're more pro New York Times and less Apple. Very weird. You would go this way, but not Apple. I'm curious to know what you guys are thinking about that. Vicks surges 18% to 20% 20.82 as inflation surprise and fed the transition sparks market reassessment. Vance lit a concern about what's going on with Anthropic. Obviously, Elon made some comments about it.

So did Hexed. So Elon Hexed and Vance, they're kind of on the same page when it comes on to Anthropic. We'll talk about that. Logan Paul sells a record-breaking card for $16.4 million. This Pikachu Illustrator sold for more than any Mickey Mantle card. ever, which, by the way, you know what that means, and it's not good. But it's great if you own the cards. That means the market just, the comps went up like this a little bit, right? So you can't go and negotiate a deal right now because anybody who had a card, guess what they're going to say?

Well, did you see how the Pikachu's? That means this card is worth this, and they're going to make those kinds of arguments. So we'll see. We'll see what happened there. McDonald's, folks, some good news for some of you guys, very small percentage of the audience that consumes this content is testing GLP-1-friendly menus. As Ozmpic patients seek out protein-packed meals, weird because McDonald's had a record-breaking quarter, apparently. They were up 8.6% or 6.8% while Wendy's is shutting places down.

Don't know why. Maybe we'll find out here from some folks on why that is. So then Gen Z locked out of home buying, puts in money in the market. This new video, did you guys see the Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise video? Jeff, did you see this video? Have you seen this video yet or not? No. Have you seen a pop?

No. I love the fact that you haven't seen it. Uh-oh. Because you're going to see it for the first time. Okay? It is so real. Then there's another movie that they made. Did you see the movie they made a $200 million production movie that they made in a day all because of AI?

This is a very different direction that we're going to be going. We'll talk about obviously Paramount. And then we got a few other things. You know, China, Alibaba and B.D have links to Chinese military. U.S. concludes. A shout out to Horme's CEO. A lot of people are getting criticized right now for being on the U. Epstein files. I think there's a good story here that we should give respect to a CEO that did it

right. And then let me see what else we got here. We'll cover that. This one story, farmers are aging and their kids don't want to be in a family business. A little scary, but we may hit up that story as well. And then Waymo is paying DoorDash gig workers to close the Robo taxi doors. Can you imagine? Hey, can you close that door? We'll give you five bucks. Uber gets out. Yeah, boom. All right, you got paid five bucks. Why you have to get out? You don't know what?

Just drive by, roll down the window. That is wild that that is happening. But anyways, with that being said, gang, before we get into the stories, we have our annual sales leadership summit that is coming up. This year we're doing it at the Trump to Rale. I went to the property the other day. Unbelievably beautiful property. And if you're a sales person or a sales leader or a CEO that wants to drive sales and find

superstars and develop superstars, Rob, play that clip that you have. I think Alicia send it to you. Go right, head buddy. I got a question for you. Which of these two skill sets guarantee success more? You being able to recruit rock stars, eight and nine, coming in, talented, and they changed the company overnight. Or two, you knowing how to develop rock stars.

Which of these two guarantees success? From my experience, when I was not a rock star and I got lucky and I recruited a rock star, I could never keep the rock star. Eventually, I obsessed over developing people to succeed in sales. Once I did that, all the rock stars started knocking on the doors because they wanted to work with me. This is why once a year I host an event called the Sales Leadership Summit. This year we're doing in March 25th through to 27th at Trump Doral. If you want to find out how you and your team can attend this event to learn how to become better sales leaders,

click on a link below, fill out your information. One of our consultants will get a hold of you. there you go rob that's the QR code and we're going to put the link below rob if you can put the link below as well for people to go learn more about it and fill out the information one of our representatives will call you and answer any questions you may have about the event and hopefully we'll see you there march 25 to the 27 at the trump dera Having said that, let's get right into it. Okay, so Paramount, you know, we're seeing stories about who's supposed to buy Time Warner. Paramount is out, right? Oh, Paramount's not going to be getting it. It's probably going to be Netflix.

And then these stories start coming. Paramount grows more confident. Warner Brothers and Discovery will drop Netflix bid. And a lot of people, Tom has texted me all night. He said, let me tell you what's going on here. I said, I'm going to go to Snyder first on this. and then pump and see what we do. So confidence is growing inside Paramount Skydance

and Warner Brothers Discovery. It's deal with Netflix in a matter of days and reopen a months-long bidding war of the company. If Warner Brothers does reopen the process, it will have less to do with the recent barely enhanced offer by Paramount where it didn't increase its all-cash-deal of $78 billion bid other than agreeing to cover a backup fee to walk away from Netflix,

then the worries about valuation and the regulatory uncertainty at the post reporter last week, the firm known as WBD Warner Bros. That controls the iconic Warner Bros. studio, HBO Max Screamin and cable properties like CNN, Discovery has been under massive pressure to consider the sweetened offer from Paramount Skydance. Increasingly Warner Brothers investors

believed in nearly sealed $72 billion deal from Netflix for the studio and the streaming service is facing insurmountable regulatory hurdles while they also are questioning the valuation of the Netflix offer. Jeff, what do you stand with this? Again, I think that it's an admission that the industry as it was is failing, that there's enough technological change in evolution that they're trying their best to keep the horse alive as long as they possibly can.

And the only way to do that is to create streaming libraries that are big enough to survive the fact that they have all just junk. But why do you think this happened, though? You know, it's going this way, and the market's like, yeah, I don't, I don't think they're going to pick it up. I don't think Paramount's going to pick it up. And then all of a sudden, oh, come back here. No, we should look at Paramount. Why do you think that happened?

There's stuff going on behind the scenes because this has become such a hot button thing. You know, the government's getting involved. I mean, we've got lawyers involved. There's a lot at stake for all parties involved, which means it's too much to just simply say, oh, Netflix, you take it. We'll be fine. We'll go someplace else. It's, again, the competition issue is really what's driving. everything the fact that social media um i specifically say youtube but it's not just youtube you would

rather have it go to youtube no i'm saying youtube is eating their lunch social media is eating their lunch the idea of appointment television uh that kind of it's you know baby boomers do that most young people appointment television that's what they call it that's what they call that's not my term they call appointment television the idea that somebody sits down 76 million boomers out there you just pissed off i know i'm sorry but to all the younger people who have like for example now never seen a nightly news report. They're not going to sit down at 6.30 p.m. and watch CBS News.

Yeah. That debt property is dead. What do you think? What do you think? You think it's going to end up going to Paramount? You think it's going to go on Netflix? What are your thoughts? I think that all the numbers, everything everyone's focused on, the wrong thing to focus on.

There's only one thing that matters. Tell me. Who are the people? You going to bet against the Ellison's? They got Netflix's market cap is $325 billion. Larry Ellison personally is worth $220. $25 billion. His net worth is almost as much as the entire Netflix business.

So they got the money. The second thing is you got people running Netflix who aren't the founders. You have basically professional CEOs who have come in. So you're in a dog. Are you talking about Ted? Yeah, they're not the founders. They're not. But Reed is still involved, right?

That's fine. But you're in a dog fight. You need people who know how to fight. It's like taking somebody who is like a bodybuilder at the gym. They look real and the good, right? They've got the big muscles and stuff. Fight a UFC guy. You fight a street fighter.

They don't have the muscle. But they whoop your ass, right? And so same thing here is you basically have very entrepreneurial family that is just going to keep fighting. And you see it. Every time you see a headline come across, what they talk about? Let me ask you guys. We're going to go red alert. We're going to go real hard at this.

Here's a question for you. How much does diplomacy and building relationship with the current administration matter and deals this size? 10 out of 10. Do you think so? Yeah. Tell me why. I think that's the entire reason why this is happening. Look at the Kouchi odds.

I think they were up like 60% that Netflix is. going to win a week or two ago and now it totally flipped and now they're saying paramounts. Really, Rob, do you have the updated Calciades? Yeah, now it says Paramount is the favorite. And I think, is that it? Yeah. Yeah. Who will successfully take with Warner Brothers?

So red is who? Red is Netflix? No, none before July, 2027 is red at 15%. Netflix at 36.4% Paramount and 49.8%. Can you go to the peak of Netflix blue, whatever that was in June, July? January, right there. Yeah, it was like two weeks. 70.

Wow. Now, 72% in Paramount was at what? Is that say 16. 16.2% for Paramount. And now it's what? Today it is 49% Paramount. Netflix, 36. Without any breaking news, I was all right.

Without any breaking news happening, though. So I think that's like he said, behind the scene stuff. And I think that's the forces of the political will behind it. So is it a government backlash? Is it a public backlash? Is it like you're saying? Is it the street fight between the companies? There's some other things that have happened.

There's been a couple of deals that occurred where people started to realize, wait a second. Because there's this whole controversy. And I don't know all the details, right, but there's this whole controversy over how much is some of the assets actually worth and shares versus cash. Cash is king, $1 equals $1, right? The second you start talking about, hey, we're going to give you some shares. Well, is that share worth $1 or worth $3? And there's a bunch of debate about that. But there's been some public market deals that have happened where now is calling into question things that Netflix was previously saying.

And so I think that you have a combination of factors. You've got the politics like they're talking about. You've got the characters that are, you know, kind of going through this. And then you also have, okay, we're getting more data from the market that maybe it's just that, look, these legacy assets might not be as valuable as everybody thought they were. And by the way, long term, go 20 years, not five years, go 20 years, 20 years, 2046, what does the media look like? What does Netflix look like? What does YouTube look like? What does Time Warner look like?

What do these guys look like? Well, you know a great point, Versaunt, you know, this like CNBC, MSNBC, all they. all got spun out from NBC Universal. It's down 35% since they went public. Vrescent. Versant. So like NBC has all these assets. They basically took CNBC, MSNBC, golf channel, all these things.

The appointment television stuff. And they spun it out and they say that's our streaming business. We don't want to have our movie film library, all this stuff, funding this other stuff. So we're going to break these out into two separate businesses. That Versaunt business that got spun out is now down 35%. So what they thought it was going to go out at, obviously the market is repricing it 35% lower. So then you go and you look at Netflix, you look at these other things. And I think to your point, like, how much TV do you watch versus YouTube, social media, Netflix?

It's just not that much. Oh, sorry. No, finished. So it's just like it is less valuable than it was, you know, five, 10 years ago. It's $75 billion dollar value to paramount. It's $75 billion value to Netflix where they want to pick something like this up, Brandon. Yeah, no, I just think like if this goes through for Netflix, it kind of, creates a fortress for content.

Like that example, I think it's because it's like, that's like a knockoff streaming service, what they made there. But Netflix is Netflix because it has most of the content on it. Then if they get this, it's like the primary source for content that people actually want to watch. So, yeah, I think just because it has more codominence already, and this would give it like stuff that doesn't even have. So I think it would give it more of that monopoly that we're trying to avoid.

Well, we'll see. Can you go to Tom's tweet real quick? Go to Tom's tweet since Tom is not here. Warner Brothers discovered just pulled a power move. set the Netflix merger vote to March 20th, told shareholders to vote yes on Netflix, also reopened talks with Paramount for seven days. Paramount immediately raised their offer from 31 to 31 up from 30, translation. Warner Brothers telling Netflix,

we're with you while whispering to Paramount, show us what you really got like dating two people at once. Classic corporate auction. Warner Brothers shareholder will win. Employees, brace for layoffs. Either way, Hollywood consolidation, fewer buyers, worse deals for talent, prices for consumers. The trick will be getting this through the Federal Trade Commission hearings.

That will be a mini-serious by itself. By the way, Tom, quick shout out to you. You got to laugh from a text joke, not an actual joke. So maybe in the future, we should test this out more often. I want to get to the next part here. Apple announces. They want to take on YouTube and Spotify with new video podcasting push. Apple. When you think podcasting, you don't think about Apple. I don't even think Apple pays. Rob, does Apple pay anything in AdSense? I don't think Apple pays anything, right? There is no pay from Apple.

Not in comparison to Spotify. Not in comparison to Spotify and YouTube. And by the way, YouTube used to be higher. Now, apparently Spotify even pays better than YouTube on AdSense. We get the reports on a weekly basis, and you'll see Spotify getting above it. But Apple on Monday announced that it'll bring a new integrated video podcast experience to Apple Podcasts this spring,

This move comes as video viewership continues to reshape podcasting about 37% of people ages 12 and up, watch video podcasts monthly according to Edison Research. The update brings Apple Podcasts more in line with its competitor, Spotify, YouTube, and now Netflix, which have increasingly leaned into video podcasting 20 years ago. Apple helped take podcasting mainstream by adding podcasts to iTunes and more than a decade ago.

We introduced a dedicated Apple Podcasts apps as Eddie Q, Apple's senior vice president of services in a statement by bringing categories leading video experience to Apple Podcasts. We're putting creators in full control of their content and how they build their business, making them easier than ever for audiences to listen. I get it, but what are you paying? Pomp, your thoughts on this? Well, I think that, look what you guys are doing here, right?

This is basically what TV used to be. And so what's the difference between a podcast or a TV segment? It's actually the distribution. There is no big difference. And as somebody who goes on legacy television quite a bit, but also is on the internet, people always ask, why do you go on TV? And I tell them, it's because I use the TV as a clip to them put on social media. It's basically just content creation.

There's a different vibe. There's different people, different characters, different, you know, conversation there. But it's really just to drive the distribution on social media. So I think that's one big piece of it. And what these guys are realizing is also that the business economics of podcast or that type of content is much more favorable to both the content creator, but also to the distributor. So if I want to go and I want to license CNBC or I want to license, you know, CNN or whatever, there's all of these things involved, including all the agents that are involved for the host themselves,

how much the unions are involved in producing the show, the distribution, all the people who have a hand in the cookie jar in terms of getting a cut. Well, if you just go straight to YouTube or you go straight to Spotify or you go straight to Apple, now all of a sudden you don't have all those people who are extracting value along the way and so what you're able to do is you're able to get the content to the audience in a much more cheap streamlined way

and so that means that there's more profit for everyone to enjoy and I think that's why Apple who's really not only a hardware company now a services company they want to get in this game because they realize they're going to make more money here licensing this content than they are in some of these other kind of traditional legacy media but I got to tell you Apple is not going to win this race with Spotify and YouTube Apple

you know what Apple's mindset's always been you're lucky to be on our app. Therefore, you pay us a third, right? And they had that whole lawsuit that happened that changed the numbers. What was that video game company that was the first one brave enough to Sue Apple? Do you know what I'm talking about?

Epic. Epic, yeah, Epic that went through it. So when I look it up right now on what Spotify does and what Apple does and what YouTube does, so Spotify pays 50% of the ad revenue goes to eligible creators under its partner model. Okay. Podcasters can offer pay tiers and keep 100% of subscription minus processing fees.

Okay. YouTube, you'll typically make a dollar to $2 per thousand monetized views. So you could make $1,500 to $2,500 per half a million monthly views that you have. Okay, so they're shared the ad since 5545. Apple pays nothing. The only thing they do is if you have a subscription model. So if Apple wants to compete and if they go to this model with no ad sense, they're not going to be able to compete with the other guys.

Apple has to figure out a way to bring the AdSense model to it. And by the way, if they did, they would be so competitive. If they started allowing content creators to get paid, they're not there right now. When you, Rob, think about it, can you run a poll real quick? When you think about podcasting, matter of fact, just ask the question, where do you consume your podcast? It's kind of an unfair place to ask the question

because they're watching it on YouTube, but maybe ask the question the following way. Which of these do you look at as a preferred podcast platform? Spotify, YouTube. Okay, you already have it. Can you run the poll? Let me see the poll. They put 89% where?

YouTube, Spotify, not. But this is we're asking people on YouTube. Here's one piece that I would say is if Apple came to me and they said, hey, we're going to give you the distribution, but we're not going to make any money for you. We're not going to sell any ads against your content. I would actually prefer to put the content on Apple because they're going to give me distribution, but they're not going to take anything. And so if you look at it.

at most people who are creating content, I think that there's a large portion of them that they rely on the AdSense. So if you're on YouTube, a lot of people are not selling ads themselves that are just getting the ad sense. But for the higher level, the more sophisticated shows or content creators, they're monetizing themselves. So if you look at like the revenue for anything we put on YouTube, the amount

of AdSense dollars we get compared to what we sell ourselves is immaterial. So what I want is I want distribution. Are you comfortable sharing that number? No, they probably won't let us do that. Or our team would get mad. Let me ask you question. But let's just say it's like 10 to 1.

10 to 1 on what you do with. Like we sell direct ads ourselves versus the other way run. Versus what the YouTube guys sell. So to me, I would say I understand what you're saying because you're a pro, but you're not everybody. Correct. And so to me, if you want to get mass, mass exposure and growth, guess what? You have to hit that market up that doesn't have a sponsorship division. that's not doing it.

We're not all Patrick Bed David, but you know, we're trying. We're not all pomp, is what I'm saying, because you get a lot of sponsorship money. We don't do with everybody. We have one sponsor that we work with, and, you know, that's kind of how we will do certain things with. But to me, I think Apple has an opportunity, and I wonder why the reasoning is. Jeff, where are you at with this? I think it's great because, like you said, it opens the door for potentially other business models, right? That's competition.

That's what it's supposed to do. and that's why social media and these kinds of platforms, you're right, it's about distribution. It's not necessary about ads. If you have a different business model and you don't want to go through the traditional YouTube or whatever else, Apple gives you the opportunity to get to a different marketplace

and different set of eyeballs. And if you can figure out how to make money on that, that's terrific. Do you think Apple's eventually going to offer an AdSense division? I think they have to. I mean, otherwise, why are they doing this? Do you think they will? They have to. If they do, who has a bigger deal?

distribution than them. Exactly. They have to have some kind of vision. There's got to be some kind of idea. I mean, they're not just doing this as, you know, we're getting our asses kicked by all the other platforms. We need to just get in the gate. They have some idea here. I think it's exactly what, what, Anthony said. It's lazy. It's what? It's lazy. Like, how about freaking create something? I mean, like, they just mooch off other ideas the last decade or so. I mean, ever since Steve Jobs died, they haven't created anything. They just, you know, Apple banking, now this. I mean, how about create something that's the biggest market cap in the world? Well, they would tell you we did create podcasting.

Yeah, but Steve Jobs. You're right. And by the way, I think you also have a good point that a lot of people are on your side as well that criticize why they're not creating any new products. I mean, if you get a story, do you think Apple wants to hear a story that says, Berkshire Hathaway chooses to invest? I don't know what page that story is, Rob. Berkshire Hathaway chooses to invest in New York Times. And there it is. Berkshire Hathaway, invests in New York Times, and trims Apple.

You think that's a good story? No. Berkshire Hathaway? Now, some people may say, well, you know, Buffett is no longer involved, so it's a different person that's doing it. But there is a level of criticism towards new things they're creating. It's like, what's the growth story? You know, like they haven't heard of Apple AI yet, not even a peep about it.

I get that. Do you think they eventually will get into AdSense? Yeah. For podcasting. Yeah, they should. But it's not like a huge revenue stream. It's not huge vertical. Like, I mean, I don't know what the story is as far as, like, a huge growth story for Apple.

You know, it's like there's a huge growth story for the other big, like, there's a huge growth story for Tesla, Google, but not Apple. No, like they already have the full potential of the phone market. Palm, you look like you want to say something. I think Apple has always done the exact same thing, which is they own the hardware market. They have a very luxury position there. They've been very good at international expansion to the point where I'll think people even criticize them that they are very focused on, you know, Asia, China, et cetera. And I don't know if you guys have seen this chart where basically every single one of the

large tech companies is heavily investing in data centers and, you know, GPUs and all the stuff. And it's just like the cap-ex expenditure on this thing has exploded. And Apple is basically flat. And everyone's like, why are they not spending money on this? And so when you see that, you start to ask yourself, okay, like, what's the strategy here? Well, if you own the hardware that is the consumer device in people's hands, you own distribution.

If you own distribution, what have they done over the last 15 years? They have started to expand their revenue sources by offering services. Some of those services were just like App Store bullshit that they were essentially just taking the 30%. But they also did Apple Music and they started to kind of get into all these things. When you get into podcast, what I think is really interesting about the internet is the internet not only has opened up these new business models, but there's a very strong argument that Mr. Beast is the new, you know, whatever, ABC or, you know, whatever channel. Paramount. Paramount.

Exactly. So there was a clip that recently went viral of Mr. Beast and the president of Beast Industries, and they were talking at the Deal Book Summit. And they said, well, what's your business? He said, all right, well, we got the content. And that includes everything from going on YouTube to now they have the Amazon show and Beast Games and all that. Then they've got an entire consumer product division, which started out as like knick-knack type food and, you know, feastables, lunche, lunche or whatever it's called.

Now they just bought a bank, right? they bought a fintech apps that are going to go distribute to it. And then they're saying, oh, wait a second, but we're also going to create a marketplace for creators and advertisers to come and get connected to each other. So they're realizing that, hold on, if we have distribution, then we can put products through that distribution, but then we also can create a marketplace where we can take a fee. That's Apple's business. Apple has the distribution.

They create services. Then they have the marketplace. And so I just think that distribution naturally leads itself to wanting all these different revenue sources. And so they get into podcast, yeah, of course they're going to eventually do AdSense. But I think they're also going to try to figure out how. How do you do it in the Apple way? What's the other things that you can do that, you know, YouTube or others may not be able to do?

And what was this? The Mr. Beast. Mr. Beast is at the Deal Book Summit. If you go to Twitter, just do Beast, you know, business line maybe or something like that. It's called what summit? Deal Book Summit. Deal book. Go to media.

Yeah, just do Mr. Beast and then click on media. Yeah. Let's see. Well, you're looking at all that relies on them being the main phone for people, though, And like, what if they got disrupted by their technology, then they'd be, you know, destroyed pretty quickly, no? Wasn't that kind of like an arrogant assumption, though? If we own the technology, if we own the device, then people just naturally flow from there. That may have worked 10 years ago.

Right. The entire space has changed. Right. You don't think that applies today. You don't think distribution wins? No, it does. But the distribution, the nature and character of distribution, as Anthony is saying, it is completely changing. Right.

That's the evolution here. That gets us back to Paramount and Netflix and everything else. Search on Twitter, search a Mr. Beast consumer, but Mr. Beast is all one word. The entire media ecosystem has, it's being rewritten. It's completely rewritten, but it's only maybe a third of the way through it. How long is it, wrap? One minute, 16 seconds. Let's watch it. Go forward.

So we have three divisions, our media division, which obviously, as Jimmy talked about, YouTube is the anchor, but our shorts on TikTok and Instagram, Beast Games, which season two is airing in January. We just dropped animation. We also are working on other channels. So all of the content is one division, and that today is about half the revenue. And then we have a second division, which is our consumer products and services.

Feastables being the anchor, our chocolate brand, the largest ethically sourced chocolate brand in the world, our Mr. Beast Labs toy, where our toy is now the number one action figure in America, and our lunchley, which is our snack product, MAC product in addition to our joint venture with jacklings for beef jerky. We're also launching a phone company, Beast Mobile and a financial services platform in there,

wrapped in financial literacy and access to the world's information in making sure we're doing good while doing well. And then the last one which we're really excited about is building a two-sided marketplace and a global creator platform matching creators with Fortune 1,000 market. who want to be able to access the creator, influence her economy in an efficient way to be able to build demand for their products and services. This is what you call the ultimate flywheel, the importance of first winning with distribution, and then you can pick and choose.

I just pulled up some numbers here. 2024, their holding company, okay, Beast Industries, did $473 million in revenue. 2025 projected Beast Industries, the numbers are not finalized. $899 million. You know that snack brand that he was talking about Feastables? You know it's a top line revenue just on Feastables? $250 million in sales just in 2024 when you think about this. So this is the engine, the brand being created, the flywheel,

some of the things that we talked about a year and a half ago at the Vol Conference and those who were there, you know exactly what I'm talking about. This is powerful. This is powerful. The question is, Pomp, is this duplicatable? Can anybody do what Mr. Beast is doing? Maybe not at his level, but is it duplicatable. Well, I think that there's people who are already doing it.

So Kim Kardashian and Mr. Beast from a business model standpoint, same thing, right? Get attention, drive distribution, build businesses, put it through the distribution. If you look at Jake and Logan Paul, I mean, they're two of the best entrepreneurs, I think, of our generation, right? Same thing. Get attention, build distribution, put products and services through it. So it's definitely replicatable. Now, what I think is really interesting for Jimmy is going to be his audience tends to be young. and tends to have smaller dollars than let's say a, you know, a Ryan Surnt or somebody

with a much larger audience that is, or I'm sorry, with a much smaller audience, but a richer. Correct. So what is he going to do as they grow in age? So he's already got the relationship with them. And now you see him going into the fintech space, right? So if he can grow with this audience over time, it is going to be insane as they come into more money and they start to have disposable income. He's going to be able to sell them all kinds of things that previously looked like snacks

that are high volume, low price. How closely you think he studies PewDiePie as a case study to see what was done right and what was done wrong? Because think about it, 10 years ago, PewDie Pute Pie runs the world, right? If you remember when they were racing with that other Indian YouTube channel, what was the other YouTube channel called when he was competing with it? It starts with a T. Can you ask the question which?

T series. Is it called T series? I think so. I think it's called T series on who would get to 100 million first. And I think B Scott there or something. But how much do you think he studies PewDie Pye to say, I don't want to make some of those mistakes or do what he did right? I've talked to Jimmy a number of times.

And the two things I can tell you is one, he is incredibly intelligent and he's very strategic. But the second thing is, and I hope he doesn't mind me sharing this. He called me one time. And just out of the blue. And I answered, he goes, pomp, teach me something. I said, Jimmy, you okay? They teach me something. And we started talking about, you know, space and rocket.

Yeah, he had five minutes, and he was just calling people on his phone, and he was just like, hey, what's something you learned this week or whatever? Wow. That tells you everything you need to know about a person in terms of their ability to continue to grow, learn, you know, try to get better, et cetera. This guy is the top of his game. The gentleman that you saw talking there, Jeff is, he's a former CEO of Shutterfly. He worked at SoftBank. Now he came in as the president, and I think he's the CEO of Beast Industries.

You don't recruit talent like that unless you are. hyper ambitious and those people look under the hood and say you've got the goods what's the comp for a guy like that what's he making probably not enough three to 20 three to 20 i mean it all depends on what what is the equity package right but from a cash perspective maybe he's getting paid you know one two million bucks in cash and then on the equity side upside whatever you'd end up doing well also depends on how much uh you know is he going to bet on himself right like one of the things that's becoming very popular in public markets is the CEOs who take these kind of performance based packages. And so, you know, I've even taken inspiration from, whether it's Elon Musk,

at Kaz, or at Open Door, et cetera, people are just saying, listen, shareholders want to see see executives win if they're winning. They don't want to see the executive make it 25 million bucks a year as the stock goes down. And by the way, it's so funny while we're talking about this. Last week, Logan Paul broke a record with Ken Golden on the most expensive card ever sold. And you have the clip wrap. Go for it. Go ahead. So Logan Paul. You get it. Ken Golden. Yes. Tonight you sold.

the PSA 10 Pikachu Illustrator card for $16,492,000. On behalf of Guinness World Records, I can now confirm you have achieved a new record title not only for the most expensive Pokemon card ever sold at auction, but also the overall record for the most expensive trading card ever sold at auction. Oh my God. Congratulations. Okay, you can pause it right there. Question is, he bought it for $4.5 million.

Okay, sells it for $16.4. What's the likelihood an average guy would zero following who bought it, let's just say, when he did for $5 million, would sell it for $16.4 today? How much of it was $16.4 because it's Logan Paul and Ken Golden, and how much of it is because of the asset? I don't think the price is determined by who's selling. I think the price is determined by who's buying. and AJ Scaremucci, Anthony Scaremucci's son.

I called him, I said, hey, he's kind of crazy. He paid $60.5 million. Why? And what he told me was his entire thesis is that we are going to see the dollar get to based over the long run and scarce assets are going to do very well. And so he, you know, he said some of us publicly where he wants to buy this card, he wants to buy the decoration of independence. There's a bunch of these assets that he wants.

And he basically wants to then put them together. And he's got this website, treasure trove.com. It's just, you know, you type in your email, and he's going to, like, email you later or something. But basically his whole idea is can he go collect all of these super rare scarce assets? And he believes that, you know, this card went from $5 million to $16 million. He thinks that this card is worth over $100 million in the future. Whether he's right or not, I have no clue. I don't know that much about Pokemon.

But what I do know is that it's a pretty good thesis. If you see gold, Bitcoin, real estate, all these things that historically have done very well, he's basically just betting on scarcity. And he's like, what's more scarce than, you know, the number one Pokemon card in the world. What's more scarce than the decoration of independence, right? And so let's see if he's right, but it's a pretty interesting thesis. So now all of a sudden, if you think it's worth, you know, $100 million,

you're willing to pay $16 because you think you're going to get a great return. So it's less about who's selling. It's more about, you know, who's buying them with their view. I do think it's going to be worth $100 million. I think any of these non-duplicatable assets that are one-off, especially the one-of-one, anything limited, numbered one-on-one. I had a call with Kevin O'Leary and his partner, we got on a call together

and we talked about what they're doing with collectible cards you know Kevin's now all of a sudden into the card business and they're buying up a bunch of numbered limited edition type of stuff where are you at with this Jeff? I think it's still true. I think that the seller is part of the story here because part of it is the seller more than the buyer. You're right. It's scarcity but you can also create artificial scarcity, right?

Because if you have a very unique product and it gets even more unique because there's a story behind it or a person behind it, that certainly doesn't hurt. So I think there is definitely some seller. You're saying the story has value to it as well. The story has value because it creates artificial scarcity. It's not just a unique item.

It's a unique item with a story that you cannot replicate. What is that big-ass diamond that everybody wanted forever? It was nothing more than a big diamond, but it had a ridiculous story and lore behind it. So they created artificial scarcity out of it. Is that something you're interested in? You want that big-ass diamond or you're saying no, I don't want to be it. Oh, okay.

I don't want the Pikachu card either Do you think that's unique Or do you think that's always How assets have You know kind of risen in prices Like the story has always been a value driver There's not it's not one or the other

There's always different ways to do things But I think in certain situations like this The story becomes part of the scarcity And by the way Have you spoken to Ken before? I'm sure you have Ken Golden? Oh yeah yeah

We were together at any member with Ken Ken. Ken's ability to tell stories and promote Oh my God This guy, if you ever see him sell a card and you just watch it for one minute, you will notice you're suddenly saying, I need this card, I need this piece. He is phenomenal at what he does. He's the best in the game.

You know who he is? He's the Don King of Collectible. You're not lying. He is. So we'll see what I happen here with the Collectible Card Space. Let me get into the next story. Next story I want to get to is Elon Musk and retirement. Rob, what page is that on?

There it is, 14. Elon Musk says you can skip retirement savings in the age of AI. Not so fast. Okay, this is a Fox News story. Let's see how this story goes. Rob, if you want to play the clip first, go ahead. Yeah. Well, one side recommendation I have is like,

don't worry about like squirreling money away for retirement in like 10 or 20 years. It won't matter. Okay. Either we're not going to be here or. Can you expand on that a little bit? You won't need to save for retirement. If any of the things that we've said are true, saving for retirement will be irrelevant. The services will be there to support you.

You'll have the home. You'll have the health care. You'll have the entertainment. The way this unfolds is fundamentally impossible to predict because of self-improvement of the AI and the accelerating timeline. Yeah, it's called singularity for a reason. Yeah, exactly. I don't know what goes happen. What happens after the eventorizing?

Exactly. You can never see past the black hole or the venerazin, the light going. Ray has a singularity out way too far. I mean, this is like the next, what? What's your timeline for this? We're in the singularity. Well, we are in the singularity, for sure. We're in the midst of it right now, for sure.

And we're just in this beautiful sweet spot, which is, you know, the, the roller coasters, we're just, yeah, exactly. That's a great analogy. It's like that feeling of, oh. You're at the top of the roller coaster and you're about to go. Yeah, but you know, it's. going to be a lot of G's when you hit it. It's like, I don't have just have court side seats.

I'm on the court. Exactly. And it blows my, and still blows my mind sometimes multiple times a week. Yeah. And so. You can pause right. Just when I think. Jeff, your thoughts.

Do you agree? This is insane. He just said, look, we can't predict how this is going to go. So the next thing he says or the thing before that is, don't say for retirement. We have no idea how this is going to look on the other side. So just say screw it, the hell with it. Just trust us that this is going to go well and you're going to be taken care of. Is that how you process it?

That he's saying trust us. That he's saying trust us. This is all going to work the way we want it to work and you won't need to save for retirement. And then he also says we don't know how the hell is going to work out. I mean, to me, this is completely insane. Pop. Brian, you go first and then I got a lot of thoughts on this. Let me hear what he says first. Yeah, no, it's super reckless.

I mean, I'm curious like how many times Zill-M must have been wrong. I know there's been a lot of them, but. I mean, like, to put, like, $800 billion. I know, but still, he's been wrong. He's made crazy predictions that he's been wrong about, like, with timelines and everything. But, like, look at the stakes that if he is wrong. Like, I mean, people already don't save for retirement. So, like, how many people are going to be influenced by that and say, like, oh, yeah, screw,

I'm going to be able to have UBI in the future. So I'm not going to save for retirement. And then what if he's wrong? So it's super reckless. So I'm literally building a company around this because I think that this is the single most important thing that the everyday American has to understand is happening right now. There is a arms race that is about to occur,

which is there is artificial intelligence that is being built at hyper speed, and that artificial intelligence is being able to automate away tasks and eventually jobs at a very, very fast rate. Now, let me give you a couple examples. How many software engineers now aren't writing code, they're just letting AI do it?

I am investing in a lot of these companies, 50 plus percent of the code being written inside these companies written by AI. Now there is Claude Co-work. So now it can go and do a bunch of tasks that an entry-level employee could do. You're now starting to even see.

Elon in that same interview, or I'm sorry, he did an interview with the Cheeky Pint with Dorcas and one of the Carlson brothers. He kept saying, we think that Grock has a way to learn faster than all the other models, and he wouldn't say why. And so I started thinking about,

because he kept mentioning Tesla, the Tesla model. And so I said, oh, my God, he is basically going to have people just record their computer screen while they work, and they're going to use the machine learning to figure out how to do what you do. And so I tweeted that. Elon responded. I didn't tag him right that he responded. He said, pretty much. And so what's going to happen here is artificial intelligence is going to go put a bunch of people out of work. What I believe is the arms race is we have to race to harness

artificial intelligence to make you money. Because basically what's going to happen here is if we do not harness the ability for artificial intelligence to make people money in terms of you have capital, you give it to the artificial intelligence, it goes into the market, it makes you money. What is going to happen is you're going to be out of work. You're not going to have any capital. And you're going to not have a path because the machines can do a better job at anything that you do. And so the first thing that we did is we built this product called CFO Silvia, which basically you come in, you load all of your different accounts.

You put your bank account, your crypto, your brokerage, all that stuff in there. And then you can start to talk to the AI and ask it simple questions, how to get my tax rate down? What should I do if I want to have this net worth in five years or 10 years? You can also ask it like, how does this current event go ahead and impact my current portfolio? And the beauty of this is if you ask a chat GPT or, you know, Anthropic or any of these other guys, it'll give you very basic answers. You know, here's what people do to get their tax rate down.

What this does is it tells you to your specific situation, asset by asset, what to do. And what's interesting about this is we start to get feedback from these users. What are these users saying? I trust the AI more than I trust a human person. I tell the AI more things than I would normally tell you. I ask questions I wouldn't ask a human because the human will judge me, but I can ask these questions here. And so what you start to realize is people are going to put all of their information and context into these systems and they're basically going to say, help me. And CFO civil view is doing it on the finance side.

But what we start to see now is, okay, if there is an arms race occurring, what you're going to see is you're going to see finance get automated. Because ultimately, if you're an average person and you're saying, I'm going to work every single day and I might lose my job in the future, what do I do? I'm going to have to use this technology to get ahead or it's going to put me out of business. So that is the arm's race. Do you agree with them, though? Do you agree with them that retirement's not something that's important today? I think that, one, you should always have some sort of safety net, right? What I think that he's basically saying here, though, is he's actually not saying don't have retirement.

What I think he's saying is humans are not going to drive their retirement. It is going to be all this other stuff. So what the future I envision is you're going to eventually take your money and you're just going to give it to the AI. And the AI is going to make sure that you have monthly income, that you've got retirement. retirement money, et cetera. Now there's a gap between where we are with the technology and where that eventually will be. But you see this. Like people are passively investing in indexes. You see them constantly looking for, you know, there's all these AI bots and stuff that are now trying to figure out how to use the technology in the financial markets, high frequency trading.

Hedge funds have been doing this for a long time. So my view of this is he's right that you are not going to be trading your time for money in the future in the way that we've thought about that over time. But he's wrong in that you're still going to need money and so you need some sort of retirement. That's interesting. So how does that, I mean, again, how does that work for, say, a plumber? Well, the whole idea is that, you know, look, if I said to you right now, what can robots do? Most people say electricians are safe, plumbers are safe, etc. Okay, but if I went back five years ago and I said, do you think that robots are going to build homes, you would tell me I'm crazy. I've seen multiple videos online. Now, the homes don't look the same, but they're 3D printed.

They've got these cement automation, all this kind of stuff. So as we rapidly get here, I think one of the aspects of all this AI stuff and robotics that, to me, is frankly, it breaks my mind, right? Because it's scary and exciting at the same time is this idea of exponential production. So if the humanoid robots can start producing more humanoid robots, then what is going to be that future look like? Now, the one thing I will say is, I actually think that the last human moat that exists is right here. This is the last human moat. There is not a thing in your brain that is a moat compared to sort of. software. Software is going to be able to do everything that you mentally can do. But this, your five

fingers in your hand, the dexterity, the mobility of your hand. What is going to be the value of knowledge? What is going to be the value of somebody who is got a great memory and knows a lot of facts? Like, what is going to be useless? Something that we admire that in 10 years we're going to say, you know, so what? You're so smart. You have all that information? I can take Johnny off the street. He's a homeless guy, put a $2.2 million or latest chip model from Nvidia, that's this, and he's going to have access to every single

book ever written, every fact in his brain, he's going to have every information there. Now it's about, let's see how good of a processor it is. What do we value today that because of AI we will not intend 20 years? Creativity. You think creativity? Creativity, the ability to go beyond what we have

today. So you think in 20 years we won't value creativity? No, I think we will value more creativity. How about the know-how you were not going to? Know-how knowledge, facts, memorization. You can replicate a lot of, I mean, because those are more mechanical processes. It's about the ability to go beyond where we have today. I mean, that's what human ingenuity has been since we're.

I agree. You know, there's five things we score at the company. Every quarter we do our calibration and it's based on five things. E-A-T-I-R-E is effort, A is attitude, T is teamwork, I is innovation, and then R is results. Three weeks ago, we're doing our calibration meeting and all the managers coming and they're scoring everybody. And then one of our guys, Mario, scores someone a seven on innovation

and gives these other two guys a one. And I said, why did you give these guys this guy seven and these two other ones? He says, well, because of this, this and that. I said, well, because of this. I said, but why this guy is seven because of this? And then he paused and says, look, Pat, not going to lie to you.

I don't even know how to score for innovation. I said, that's fair. A lot of other people probably feel this way. That was the right answer. So we have to figure out how to quantify. on how to score innovation. And we did, by the way, and here's what our system was. Four-step process that we wrote out on the board.

Number one was, how creative is this person, which goes back to what you just talked about. That's the number one element of creativity to us. Number two was, does this person ask critical thinking questions all the time? We're sitting in a room and say, why do we have that over there? Should we move this prompt over here? On the website, should we move the CTA here? The video that we did, I don't know if I liked the way it starts the first three seconds.

Maybe we move the intro of this clip to second 48, and then move that one to first three seconds. So that is the critical thinking. So you got creativity, critical thinking. Number three is actually always thinking about how we can improve everything. And at last one, at least it's implementation because you can have all the first three and you don't implement them. He's nothing. I agree with you. To me, the way you're presenting it, pomp, is this is how I see it.

Today you go to a Morgan Stanley guy or Goldman Sachs or a J.P. Morgan Chase guy. I have $10 million. How should we invest? Well, let's go small cap. You know, what's your risk tolerance, time horizon, all this other stuff. All right, we're going to buy some this. We're going to buy some this. We're going to buy some this.

Let's put some dollars. Let's put some cash. Let's put some this. Your age is 50 years old. So 50 minus 100. Let's go 50 equities, 50 bonds. Okay, great. No problem.

You're saying in the next two, three, five, 10 years, that person is going to have. I got $10 million. You give to the AI. And AI will say, how aggressive do you want me to go find work to create. to create a business, are you willing to risk that this could not work? And my brains of my engineers or the AI is going to go build this company.

Okay, he's going to go do this for us. Is that kind of how you're processing it? I'm saying two things. One is today, the AI will give you information that no human is able to do at the speed and the cost. I'm not seeing information. So I know about, I'm talking about. But you need the information first and you need people to get used to getting the information. Where I'm going to is to kind of go back,

And then you give them the money. Are we going to get to a point that it's purely about, here's the engines for AI, I give you $10 million, go start something, go build something, go market something, and I do nothing. Then I take that $10 million and now it's like $88 million, go do something. So there's two things that are happening right now. This is not like a, hey, is it going to happen in the future? The first thing is there's a bunch of experiments that people have where they're basically saying, let me give $10,000, $20,000 to this AI, go into the market.

make me money whether it's a crypto market stock market whatever right so that that to me is not very different than high frequency trading now with better technology but but that is definitely happening the second thing that i find really interesting is there's been a couple of these demos that have now gone viral online where people will say to the a i create me a business that makes x dollars per week per month per year come back when you're done and the ai will go and it'll say okay well if i need to make a hundred thousand dollars a month what industry should i go into it to look at the Tams of all these industries, where is there, you know, a lot of competition

that I could go and undercut caught. Like it does, you know, kind of like a business analysis. This is, okay, well, if I wouldn't need to be in that industry, what product should I serve or what service, right? What could I create? Okay, let's create a website. Let's get a URL. And it starts doing all this stuff.

And these people are running these experiments. And what they're essentially doing is they're giving the AI, right? Right now, one of the biggest stories about Apple is that they are actually selling out of the Mac minis, these small computers. Because people are buying them hand over fist, and they are basically setting them up and they're putting an AI on it, giving it full control of the computer,

and saying, I'm going to give you a phone number, I'm going to give you an email address, I'm going to log you into all these accounts, go. And so I always go to, and I say, right now, if we look back three years, most of this stuff didn't exist, right? Chat, GPT, AI agents, all, this is all brand new. This is the worst the technology is ever going to be. And so there's a huge gap right now

between how the technology works and how people know how to leverage it. I don't know if you guys saw recently, there was this huge breakthrough in science where these very sophisticated scientists came out and they said, look, 12 months ago, we didn't know how to use this technology. Now we actually know what questions to ask the technology. And so we started to solve really hard problems because we got better at using the tool. Right? It's like somebody who doesn't know how to use the shovel. All of a sudden learns how to use the shovel. So one thing that we've got for your audience is anyone who wants, anyone who signs up for CFO Sylvia next 24 hours, we're going to send them 100 prompts that I use on a

periodic basis to better use AI to manage my finances. And what you'll see in these prompts is you can start to do things that you don't even know to ask. So like some of the popular stuff, what are rich people do to save money on their taxes? How should I take some of those ideas and implement them in my portfolio? All of a sudden, there's a bunch of stuff you just don't even know to ask. You don't know to Google this stuff. And when you go to whether there's an advisor, a friend, an assistant, whatever, and you say,

hey, what are the things that I should be thinking about? they are limited by human knowledge. And so this is going to get applied to every single sector. And that's why you see insurance companies saying we're going to charge less for premiums because software is better at driving, right, all the way through the economy. Yeah. And I love that. But also at the same time, I'm going to what is your meeting with your investment banker

or financial advisor going to look like every quarter? You're not going to have that. That's what I'm saying. I don't know if you're not going to fully have one. They're going to get automated away. They 100% are going to get automated. I think there will still be a role for the creative side and the advice side. But maybe this is some I disagree with Jeff on is, and I like talking to Jeff because he makes me think much more critically about this stuff.

But I actually would argue that if I said to somebody, hey, you need to be creative about whatever type of art or prompting or whatever. If you simply ask the AI, come up with 20 prompts that I should ask about some topic or write me a prompt to create a piece of art. have a president? Well, it begs the question of, it begs the question of, what is the role of the president? But think about it. What is the role of a financial advisor? What is the role of a doctor? What is the role of any of these jobs, right?

That chairman. But do you think in 20 years we'll have a president? Yes, because I don't think that that job has a verifiable in-state, whereas I do think that a financial advisor, a lawyer, et cetera, those are verifiable in states and most of it. Now, a lawyer starts to go to court and argue and all the stuff. but like we get to a weird place Do we have automated courts?

So that I was going to say is that recent movie that just came out with Chris Brad? Did you see the movie with Chris Pratt? No, I haven't seen him. Okay, can you pull up this movie? By the way, that's a good question. Do you think we'll have automated judges? No. No.

Okay, I think we have to define what we think AI is going to do. To me, it's more like a human robot partnership. How can we make human beings more creative? Augment the human. Augment the human. And so you don't eliminate necessarily the role of the human. Maybe you eliminate some of the roles like humans used to do. Jeff, do you know what this movie's about?

No. Let me tell you what this movie's about. Okay, this movie is about Chris Pratt, who's an agent, he's a detective. He gets accused of killing his own wife. Okay? He wakes up, he's sitting in a chair, handcuffs, shackles. He has 90 minutes where he's sitting in front of this judge called Mercy to make the argument why he is not guilty. If he doesn't, he's gone. if he does make the argument, he's free.

And the most power, so the judge is an AI. You have to watch this movie, by the way. You have to watch this movie. You know how the movie ends? The movie, I'm not going to tell you what ends up happening, but I'll tell you one special line that he says at the end, that's scary as hell. He says, I guess what we learned is,

just like human beings can make mistakes, so can AI. And it's about the judge when you see this. There's also, that's the thing. There's also a survival instinct in a human being. We're not just going to be go passively be eliminated by AI. I think human beings, this is where the creativity comes in. The most creative humans are going to figure out how to partner with AI to stay on top of the game. I just, I go back to, is there a verifiable end state of the judge?

Yes or no? If the answer is yes, it'll be automated. Like if we have a lazy population that says, well, it was a state coming from, though. It may be better. Does a judge in the current judicial process, current judicial process end up helping or hurting humans when you add in bias, error, etc. There's a huge debate that we could have in terms of the role of the judge. But aren't you just replacing human bias with AI bias?

Well, so let me give you a good example is there's a study that shows if you are up for parole, you know the worst time to go in front of the parole judge right before lunch. So they looked at throughout the time of day. Because people want to get the lunch. Look it up. There's a crazy study that shows if you. You're flirting with something very dangerous. No, so that's the thing.

You're floating with something. Let me explain to why you're- The hungry judge effect. I get that, but you're flirting with something very dangerous. But are you going to replace it with a worst bias from AI? The question becomes how much of the law should include empathy versus fact? And I don't have a good answer for this. So you're going to put that into some coders' hands to code empathy.

But you know what you're flirting with? Let me tell you what you're floating with. There's no easy answer here. There's definitely no easy answer. Right. But this is the conversation that people should have because you're right. The legal system, let's face it, it can be improved, definitely be improved. But this is where I think the creativity comes in.

You give the tools to the judge or lawyers or whatever. Jeff, question. It's partnership with the act. You're flirting. You're flirting with, we got him now. But I'm going to tell you. You've hit a nerve. I'm going to tell you why, though.

I'm going to tell you why. Because where you're going, if you fully go there, you know how there's what different parties that we have right now. We have the Republican Party, Democratic Party, Independent Party, you know, communism, social, staples, whatever you want to call it, right? It is going to be human and the AI party. That's what it's going to come down to. And if you go there, guess what? They're going to win. If it's going to be those two together where you put them as the superior, they're going to win. Why? The instinct, inside of you, whether we know it or not, We're super competitive.

All of us. We're sizing each other up 24-7. The most noble person in the world, Mother Teresa, she's a psycho-competitor. You understand what I'm saying? Pastors are psycho-competitors. Joel Olstein, Billy Graham, it's in here. You can't get rid of it. It's in our gene.

Okay. So then when it gets to a point and in your mind, you realize you can get AI on your side, then you see a couple different people, you know, barrier to entry. What do you now have? It's about elimination of competition. Then what takes place? Now we're not banking on human team. Now we're banking on purely wealth and finance.

And by the way, that's an empty place to be. Sergei Bren did an interview recently. I don't know if you saw this or not. And he's talking about what happened when he retired during COVID and how it was the biggest mistake of his life. This is a guy that's worth a couple hundred billion dollars that just bought a $174 million dollar house, I think in Miami.

Rob, can you play this clip, please? Go for it. Retired like a month before COVID hit. And it was like the worst decision. I had this vision that I was going to sit in cafes and study physics, which was my passion at the time. And yeah, that didn't work because there were no more cafes. I was just kind of stewing and kind of felt myself spiraling,

kind of not being sharp. And then I was like, ah, I got to get back to the office. 260 to do. Time was closed. But, you know, after a number of months, we started to have some folks going to the office, and I started to do that occasionally. And then started spending more and more time on what later became called Gemini, which is super exciting.

And to be able to have that technical, creative output, I think that's very rewarding, as opposed to if I stayed retired. I think that would have been a bit of a mistake. By the way he speaks, does he sound motivational to you? Does he sound inspired to you? I used to see this all the time when I used to manage money for people. I used to tell them when they get closer to retirement age. That's why you guys are fighting because he wants to get rid of you.

So don't retire because what you would see is that people who retire completely commit to retirement, they were dead within a couple years. You know what is the dirty truth of this whole AI thing? I have a lot of friends that run a lot of companies. Right now, two things are true. They have never worked as hard. as they are working right now because they see there is an arms race and they want to win to your point that competition if you control the machines i don't have a problem with that intelligence all right

that's the first thing the second thing their day-to-day life at work is harder than it has ever been not only is there the speed of the innovation and everything they can't keep up but AI is taking away all the easy tasks yeah so the only thing that are left are all the hard tasks now so they've got to spend, you know, in terms of like density of hard tasks in a day is actually going up. And so it's this weird dynamic of like you're promised in economic or societal like utopia and abundance, but actually the lives of the people who understand what's happening here, they're working harder and they're spending more of their day on the hard problems, which I actually think is leading to many of them not being as happy. Yeah. So when I when I see something like this and I see

a guy having $266 billion, you know what he can buy? He doesn't just buy that $6,000, 16.4 million dollar cart. He buys the entire company. He buys the entire brand. He can buy fanatics. He can buy industries. He can buy leagues if he wants to. That's the kind of money that he has. Because he's a creative guy. He has to have the creative outlet. But there is a problem though. There is a problem. This video here, I made this video a couple days ago and I had my son record me. And it says the only noise that scares parents. Okay, Rob, go ahead and play. Yep. What is the only noise that scares parents? Silence.

I knew what it was before even. But check this out. Do you know what the point is with what we're talking about right now with AI? Here's a point. Check this out. What happens if all of a sudden this race goes so quickly and then we replace everybody? What happens when a bunch of people have a lot of time on their hands? The last time I had a lot of time on my hands, my hair was orange.

Just letting you know a lot of time I had a lot of time on my hand. It is so important for everybody to have a job. and do something. Even if everything gets automated, I don't want to stay home all day. Even if we have half the population staying home doing nothing, that is a horrible society. Horrible society. We have to have purpose. We have to be going after something. So to me, the only thing is the question becomes if you allow AI to run with no regulation, if you allow it to, is this something that you want to highly deregulate? Do you want to leave it open to let it go?

And typically, you know, as a capitalist, you want deregulation. You don't want regulation. You want it to go. But at what level? Will it be at a level of replacing human beings? Will it be at the level of replacing what people are doing? Like right now, how long ago do you think the NFL could have changed referees and done 100% AI? They could have done it five years ago.

How come they don't do it? Do you want? Well, they are doing it. are, but do you want it to be 100% getting rid of the referee? So that's the thing is... I don't know about that, because then guess what happens? First is the referee. Then the first team announces an AI head coach.

We don't want a head coach. We want an AI head coach. That's a job. Then it goes to, listen, X, Y, Z company just build a running back, and the NFL has agreed that each team can have three AI robot players. Now you've got a robot player that I pay $88 million and sponsorship. So that's an anthropic quarterback. This one has the Open AI quarterback.

This one has the game changes in a very big way. If we go too much there, go out final thoughts. The NFL is interesting because they're trying to figure out, did the ball cross the plane or not replay, all that stuff, right? I do think, I think as Jeff said it earlier, is like this idea of human error is also an important point. So like baseball is actually the better example to me where there's a strike zone. When you watch a baseball game,

they tell you whether it was in the strike zone or not. But there's still an umpire. And the umpire still makes. Love that. Balls are strikes. I love that. Yeah. And so.

Human robot partnership. Yeah. And so I do think that there is this transition period where people are trying to figure this out. The last thing I'll say about this whole thing, though, is my number one piece of advice for people is to start using the technology. Because the one thing that I know for sure is you are going to get left behind if you use none of it.

Now, how extreme is the impact is up for debate? But if you are not using this technology on a day-to-day basis, you are going to to fall behind. And so you can start, you know, replace some of your Google searches with using AI, use it at work, right? You know, you can start slow, but if you are not using this stuff, you're going to be left behind. Yep. I don't, that part I don't disagree. But it's very important to realize. By the way, we played a clip the other day in 2022, October 17th, when I said Dow's going to go to 50,000 by 2026. You nailed it. And, yeah, I nailed it. But I'm telling you, very soon, this whole political party concept could go away. And it could be human versus AI. And that could be

20 years away. But you know what's funny is like, if you look at how Trump won in 2016, there's now a bunch of like information that's come out where basically they were selling the red hats and they were using that to get the data to then put it into the lookalite audience on Facebook and they were using the Facebook advertising.

Like that wasn't quote-to-quote artificial intelligence, but that look-alike audience technology is machine learning and all this type of stuff. For sure. Right? We do it ourselves. For sure. And so it's like whoever starts to use the technology more and more.

Only if human is above. It's the only thing if that stays above. If all of a sudden, look what happened right now, birth rate in America, 1.58. You know last year we only had 3.6 million babies born in America. Do you know how many babies we had born in America in 1940? 3.6 million. But we did it with 150 million people.

Yeah. And we only did 3.6 million with 340 million people. Do you know America three times we went on a run of 4 million plus babies every year? Once we did it five years, once we did it seven years, once we did it 11 years, the most babies we ever made in a year is what? 4.3 million babies. So then you go through a list of why we're not making babies anymore, right? Okay. So one is, I think it's called Envion, the introduction of what do you call it, birth control pills.

I think the year is 1960, that it was FDA approved and it was only available to married women in certain states. Now it's everywhere, right? Then you have Roe v. Wade, which abortion, 65 million kids we've killed the last 50, 60 something years, right? That's the real Holocaust that some people talk about. Then you have in 1957, which was the highest birth rate we ever had in America, that's documented, 3.77. That year, women were in the workforce 35% of the time. Today, women are in the workforce, 65% to 70% of the time. Very different.

You know, that whole dual income, we want both to go to work. So when you look at the stats, you're like, yeah, let's get women. working as well. This is going to be great. We have double the workforce. Uh, birth rates dropped. What else? Um, you know, people were having kids at 22, 20, 23 years old. Now they're having kids at 30 years old, 32 years old, 34 years old. So some of the movements that we adjusted, we took a different kind of a hit. So the only thing for me is like my, you know, my thoughts, when it comes on to stuff like this, we have to be very careful that we don't over edify AI to human.

And if it goes that way, you will be a slave to AI in no time. It will own you in no time. If you think about this, right? So, like, one of the core principles that I usually revert to when I'm making kind of evaluations of this stuff is does it hurt somebody else?

Right? If it hurts somebody else, then, you know... Not yet, though. Well, but there's things... You make that, but other people don't. No, no, of course. But, like, if you think of this phone, right? And you say to yourself, okay,

somebody making that phone is saying, oh, you can connect with your family, you can learn information, You can do all this stuff. Well, there's a bunch of studies that show scrolling social media is incredibly bad, not only for your focus, for, you know, your energy levels, but also just your mental health and kind of all this stuff. And so it's, as a society, how do we make a tradeoff between is social media regulated to a certain degree or not? You know, how should we think about this?

You can't be for kids. So that's the thing. It's then as age demographic. You can't do that, though, because if you and all the ethical people like you make the same decision, then who will be left to run the AI arms right? It'll be the psychopath. What I'm saying, though, is just like, I think as a society, it's not just AI. It's like there's a bunch of these technology things we're trying to figure out, right? So, like, self-driving cars is another one.

We have verifiable, objective data. Self-driving cars are much safer than a human driver. There are a mass amount of people who are fighting against this saying we should not have self-driving cars on the street. That's a Dunning Kruger effect. Everybody thinks they're above-average drivers. So you want to know what I do at dinners now whenever I host dinners is we had a big conference last week and I had a dinner and there's probably 25 people or so. And I asked, I said, in this room, how many of you guys use AI on a daily basis? You know, kind of business crowd? Everyone raised their hands.

I say, great. How many of you think that your job is going to get replaced by AI in the next five years? Not one person raised their hand. I said, well, listen, by the odds, you know, somebody who ain't going to be here in five years. It's just nobody thinks it's them. Yeah, yeah. No, I get that. Let me get to this next story, which has to do with this. And I'm going to come to you first, Jeff. Farmers are aging. Perfect. And their kids don't want to be in the family business. This is a Wall Street journal story. This is the very, very important of what's taking place. It's a great story. Don

Guneep is running out of time. The fifth generation farmer still wakes early in the morning to tend to roughly 1,000 acres of corn and soybeans and 40 cattle, but for four decades of grueling work about with dealing with prostate

cancer and surgery to replace both of his hips with titanium implants has taken a toll. The 74 year old estimates, he can maintain the current workload for a couple more years. Seventy-four years old. Under the gates of generations of the Unips, the black and white photos, he gathers his four siblings to chart the future of their family's farm and contemplates a day where they no longer cares for the land that runs on that road. It's his family's road. The natural choice to take over his son or daughter left for college and now working corporate fields, the siblings made the same

decision. It's disappointing to me, he says, holding back tears. That's the way dice, the dice were rolled, and you have to accept what life gives you. The number of farmers in America have been shrinking for years, but rising costs and weak commodity prices are pushing more families out at a faster rate. In 2015, 315 farms filed for bankruptcy, up 46% from 2024. U.S. core data shows those left are aging. There are more farmers 75 and older than under the age of 30. according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, they are facing tough choices and tougher prospects. Family agriculture is in crisis,

and American farmers and ranchers are fighting for their livelihoods as National Farmers Union President. What do you say, Jeff? This is going to sound cold, but the key here is family farms. Family farms are just uncompetitive. Factory farms are far more competitive, far more productive. The cost of food goes down, which is, as a society, what we want. We want cheaper food.

In fact, we've been so successful at it, poorest people are more likely to be obese than not. So what the market is saying in a self-organizational structure that family farms cannot compete. And it brings us back to the AI argument. We've been through this before. In 1800, 90% of the American workforce were farm workers. Either you own your farm or you work for somebody else.

By 1900, it was down to like 40%, 30%. It only went further from there. So the only question to bring us back to AI is we're doing the same type of thing here, technological revolution, will human beings be able to be creative enough and stay, as you say, Patrick, stay on top of the heap enough so that we just reinvent new roles because people don't want to work, people want to survive, there'll be a place for creativity, that kind of thing. The only question for AI is whether or not this is actually different. You know, they keep calling it the singularity.

I'm kind of doubtful about that. I mean, it's going to definitely revolutionize the future. But as far as economic processes are concerned, you know, we've eliminated industries before. You used to go in an elevator in New York City in the 1920. Somebody had to press the button for you, right? We don't miss the elevator operators, right? We don't miss telephone operators. In fact, we would not have had the Internet.

If it hadn't been for the elimination of telephone operators, we automated that process. Where did the telephone operators go? Where did the elevator operators go? They found new employment doing something else. So as AI takes over more of the mundane stuff first, does it invent, do people invent new industries and opportunities to absorb the rest of the labor force? There'll be a shift, not an elimination. That's the optimistic take. I don't know that for sure.

None of us know that for sure, but that's the optimistic take. And this part of it, this is part of it, moving unproductive farms out of the system because they're unproductive. They can't compete. That's a societal good. Nobody's making that decision. The marketplace is making that decision. And over time, people who used to run farms or used to work on the farms will migrate to something else, which is exactly what the story is telling us. There is a hopeful element in it.

Pomp. I think there's three things on this. The part of this article left out is definitely like big farming is somewhat of an oligopoly and definitely has made family farming very difficult. If you go talk to farmers, they actually point to that as the biggest kind of culprit. They'll also point to things like tariffs, et cetera, that may have had smaller impact. But the big thing is just like, you know, the John Dears of the world, et cetera, have had this consolidated power. There's this great book.

And I always, whenever I come on here, I like to bring kind of gifts for the audience. audience maybe. And this book, I think is probably the single book I've read in the last year that has made me think differently about a bunch of things. It's called Leaving a Legacy. Basically what this guy does is he looks at society and he says, hey, there's things that we have been convinced of that may not actually be the right way to think about this. And he comes at it from the perspective of if you want to build, you know, a thousand year family, if you want to think very long term. And three key things he talks about. One is nepotism. We've been told that nepotism is a bad thing, but he actually used the example of family farms. He says, if you're a fifth generation farmer,

you don't go and try to find who can get the extra 15% yield out of your farm. You think about let me raise my son or daughter to take over the farm because this is provided value. Yeah, this is a provided value to our family and food, et cetera, and help us get a living. So he's got a bunch of stuff there. Second thing is philanthropy. He talks about the idea that we've somehow in this bureaucratic process been convinced that, you know, giving water to kids in Africa, a very noble cause. But most people who do that are never going to actually meet those kids.

And yet in your own neighborhood and your local community, there's a bunch of people who need help. And so philanthropy used to be this thing that was more kind of local rather than global. And so we've gotten away from that. But then the third thing he talks about is he spends a lot of time talking about this idea that as individuals, we have been convinced that everything that we work our entire lives for, we should not give to our children. We should not actually pass that wealth on to that. And he goes right at the heart of many of these issues, which I think consensus has been reached. And his point is, if you think long term, then you need multiple jobs. generations to accomplish things. He goes back to the farmer. But the other thing he says that I think

is really important feeds into this AI, feeds into the farm, et cetera, is a lot of people don't want to give money to their kids because they say, I'm going to mess them up. His point is, well, no, you just didn't raise your kids right then. Because there's plenty of families who pass on money through generations. And if they did a good job raising their kids, then their kids aren't messed up. I'm 100% aligned with everything you said right there. Yeah, that is a topic. That is a topic that's been very important to me the last five years with generational planning. I brought a guy on the podcast probably 10 years ago when I had my first son, second son. He was a guy that deals with the billionaire families in Seattle. And he tells a story about the Franklin Templeton story,

which apparently they allowed him to tell the story publicly. They had 16 grandkids, of which 15 of them had drug and alcohol issues. And only one of them was the Again, this is him telling this story on what he shared. And he said typically by the time a person like me shows up, it's too late. You need me before you have kids. You need me to start thinking about the stuff before. And then there's a bunch of legacy planning events you can go to to talk about what it looks like G1, G2, G3, G4, G5.

And it's very enlightening. So I just ordered a book myself right now when you recommended it. So we'll see how that book is. All right, let's get to the next story. Next story I want to get to is which one do we want to go to? There's so many. Can we give a shout out to this Hermes CEO that he rejected financial predator Jeffrey Epstein's outreach? I mean, we're not going to go to the other Epstein stories.

We'll go on that on Friday. But here's Hermey's CEO. Okay. This guy was approached allegedly by Epstein. Rob, I think this is on page seven. Is that him? Is that the, yeah, there you go. So let me read this to you.

everyone's being hit up in a negative way. Let's give a good story here. Axel Dumas told Reuters that Epstein approached him in 2013 as a company was defending itself against a hostile takeover attempt by Louis Vuitton. I think I was a target. I was a young CEO and we were in the middle of LVMH affair. He was a financial predator.

Dumas was quoted as saying he already had a hateful reputation. Documents released by the Justice Department showed that Epstein sent several messages to Dumas' assistant in 2013 and 2014, asking for meetings with the CEO. Epstein also sought the company's help in designing his private jet, but Hermes refused. Dumas told Reuters that he met with Epstein once in March 2013 during a company event at an Adelaire where the brand makes its product.

According to Dumas, Epstein was not on the guest list. Indeed, instead he joined a group that included, that included, an award-winning director, Woody Allen, and his wife. Dumas told Royators that Epstein kept trying to get an audience with him. After that, he tried three times to meet with me, and I refuse every time the exec recounted. I can't tell you exactly what we knew about him or not, because I can't remember 13 years ago,

but he already had a lonesome reputation. The DOJ files, including small receipts of purchase, made at Hermes store in Paris, show Epstein was a fan of the French brand that caters to the ultra-wealthy and had emailed to ask if it could design my plane in one email to his assistant Epstein writes, track down Axel Dumas and Hermes headquarters, Paris. The email shows Dumas own the system politely refusing Epstein's invas invitations

to meet him in November 13 and January 2014, citing a prior engagement. What do you think about the story? What do you think about the story? Snyder, you go first. Yeah, I mean, there's two things here. One is Epstein had a horrible reputation at that time, yet most people, it seems, didn't care. So, I mean, this guy seems like he's the exception rather than the rule,

which is incredibly sad and disappointing and disheartening. But I don't think it's necessarily surprising, which we've talked about many times before. The other thing is the downside of something like this is guilt by association, right? And I think that's really the point of the story. The reason we have courts set up and we have a due process set up is something like this doesn't happen. But when you get wrapped up into this, you know, sensationalized story with Epstein for really obvious. reasons, things like this fall through the crack. So if you're just named in the Epstein file,

suddenly you're guilty of association, which is, I'm going to use the term, it's on American. Pomp, how do you, how do you, you get invited to a lot of stuff? You get, you a lot of emails that coach you. I got something even crazy here for you. There's people in the chat are saying that I'm in the Epstein files, right? So Saturday night when DOJ releases, it all of some, my phone blows up.

The hell, how, I never, don't know who this guy is, never talked to this guy, stuff? I said, how am I in the Epstein files? See an email. It's a phishing email. The fishing email. The phishing email is somebody used my name with a, with a fake email.

That's not my email. And it says that I am, I think there's two or three, says that I'm an informant for the IRGC. What? And he better give me $10,000. And this is an email to Epstein's brother. I swear.

This is the funniest story. This is in the DOJ Epstein file release. And so I'm like, wait, what the hell is going on here? Did you know that before? No. I had no clue. So in the file of release, so the reason why I say this is

is because, now remember, this is sent in 2020. This is when, you know, Bitcoin, everything was ripping, all this stuff. We were getting these

phishing emails. Every person I ever talked to in my life, every person I ever knew, our investment firm, we were getting these all over the place. That is so fun. Now here's what's crazy. Two things I took away from this.

This is obviously not me, just for the record. So you're not part of the IRGC. I'm not part of the IRGC. And as one friend told me, He goes, I knew it wasn't you because you would ask for more than 10K. But is now anybody who is caught in any email who has mentioned all the stuff, they get, you know, kind of your guilt by association thing. That's very real.

There's a lot of people caught up in this who had nothing to do, which hides the people who actually did do bad things. So by going and trying to label everybody, you actually are able to protect the people who actually did bad stuff who should get found and prosecuted. The second thing is that when you go and you look at this, it took me 30 minutes. 45 minutes to figure out whether this was a real email or not. I saw somebody tweet it and I said, is that, is that AI? Is it real? Is it not? Had it go and I found the file, right?

Went to the thing. And all of the kind of stuff. And so what it started getting me think about is like this guy, not only did he resist it multiple times, but he explicitly says that he had a bad reputation. We've heard from a lot of other people who said, oh, I didn't know what his reputation was, all this kind of stuff. And so either those people are lying or they actually didn't know, right? They just got introduced to somebody, whatever they didn't Google them, all that's going to stop.

It now makes me, every time I get introduced to somebody new, I do a little bit of homework, right? Especially when you know that they are kind of involved in somebody's elite circles, et cetera. And so I think it's just a good reminder to everybody is, look, just know the people that you're doing stuff with and spend a little bit, a couple minutes figuring that out. So you're not caught in any of these situations. And good for this guy that is so true to say, you know, hey, look, I don't want to meet you. I think this is actually a good story because every story is something bad, Brandon. Yeah, do you think they're doing the thing where they're associing so many people with it that they, and that gets discredited? So it like protects people who actually are associated with it because they're almost like diminishing the credibility of these reports are coming out with the amount of people are attached.

Like it's amazing that we're finding a connection potentially between like every major person out there in Epstein. So I almost wonder if they're trying to diminish the allegation of that. You know what I mean? You think that's what it is? Not with a specific case. I mean, if you thought Hillary Clinton was being asked about it, and she's like, release all the files. We don't know anything about this. You know, I didn't have a relationship with the fellow.

And then she gets asked about, how about Jelaine Maxwell? I think I met her at a couple, you know, Clinton Foundation events, but I don't have a relationship with her. Yet at the same time when her daughter got married, and Rob was saying this earlier, they had 500 people there. Nobody just walks on to that. And then Jelaine Maxwell has a seat right there, zoom in a little. a bit? Yeah. That's Chelsea. That's the father. That's Jolaine right there at the wedding. So look, there's different angles and different directions to go. All I'm saying is for this specific story to isolate, kudos to him for what he's doing. And it's something everybody has to

be aware of nowadays, more than ever before. Let me get to the next thing. By the way, Tony Robbins and I were speaking. He said something to me. He said one guy came to me. I think he stole a lot of money from him of some big number, 400 million dollars, massive number that he talks about. Somebody sold that from Tony? From Tony in a business deal. He says, moving forward, what we did is every single person that we went into business we did an extensive background check on them.

So if you raise money from someone, they will do it like, they'll probably done it to you multiple times. They'll do a background check and they did mine. It was this thick. And the investor came to me and says, okay, we're greenlit moving forward. I said, what did you find? He says, did you know your license was suspended twice? I said twice?

I thought it was once. He said, no, it was twice. So, wow, what was the second time? He said, well, that's the worst thing that came out. I said, okay, that's great to know. So these people that are putting money, you got to do the background check. I had the Heritage Foundation president yesterday here,

Dr. Kevin Roberts. And their job for vetting pomp, which is very interesting, is you become a president. Let's just say pomp becomes a president, but you've never been a senator of Congress, so you don't know the swamp, you don't know the people.

You're like Trump. you're not like Bush or Biden. They already know everybody, right? You come to us where heritage. We vet the names. And we have draft picks for each position. You want this? Seven names.

Draft pick, they vet. This background. This came out, this came out. Here's what direction you want to go with these candidates that you have. Even with that vetting process, think about who gets through, right? Because I asked the question yesterday,

I said, if a person came to you that wants to give $2 million to the foundation, but if they were on the Epstein, would you take the money? So now charities have to be careful with this. Campaigns have to be careful with this, right? This gets very tricky, slippery slope. And, you know, even there was this photo, the photo company that was taking pictures of kids in schools that the school all of a sudden said, no, we don't want to deal with this company that comes and takes pictures of schools because the investor was on the Epstein list in a bad way. The school did a timeout.

We're no longer taking pictures with this company. They went to a different direction. SPF. When he was giving out all the money to the politicians and stuff, if you did a background check on him, it would have came back super clean. So it's not just about the person. It's also where's the money coming from. Yeah.

Right? So, like, it is, I mean, look, these are first world problems. If somebody's going to a foundation saying, I'll give $2 million. But there is, like, that is part now of vetting is who's the person and where's the money coming from. This kind of goes into where some of the high intense background check

products being good. You see IMG Academy? What about it? Oh, pull this up. Do a IMG Academy sanction. I just saw this, I think it was yesterday or a day before. I AMG now had to pay a $1.7 million find for accepting students and tuition linked to the Mexican cartels. Stop. Stop it. Go a little bit low, Rob. Go a little bit low. Okay. An elite Florida California gentleman on 1.7.0.c settlement for accepting tuition from two students that ties with a next in cartel. IMG Academy, a prestigious. Bradenton prep school known as a powerhouse

will work over massive some varfating wow but it's like serious we were there a few months ago or someone to one of their camps U.S. Treasury Department I mean this is like serious stuff now again how many students

go to that school over all these years how do you track it though two students and now you got headlines you got to pay $1.7 million dollars but how do you track that though how do you know where the money is coming from and that's a tradeoff if you try to go the route of tracking it because then that's like

control of your money federal official who didn't name the students or specify the sports day played said IMG accepted the tuition of 98,000 for one and one or two for another from two specially designated national individuals who provided money and services to sanction drug cartels. But how would they know? How did they, because the only way they're paying a fine is because the paper troll showed that they knew where the money was coming from and they accepted it.

The bank should have known. I mean, that's a KYC issue. The bank should have known that this was dirty money. Know your clients. Yeah. Go a little bit lower. Go a little bit lower. Which raises other questions, but...

There it is. So it was hit with 89 penalties for violating the foreign narcotics, kinkpin, sanctions, regulations. The banks should have known that these individuals... So why are they paying the fine? I don't know. There's always a lot of details to this stuff. Guys, you guys are the smartest. I'm expecting an answer.

Banks is AI beating you? Don't let AI do this. I'm expecting an answer from you guys. Banks get away with things. Can you check the... But if you look at this, right? Like, there's also a bunch of companies now that have all popped. up that first started crypto now they're doing in the traditional banking world tokenization all

stuff they're going to be doing this stuff is trying to figure out you know where do these assets come from and it's all like CYA stuff but you know what this tells me this tells me we need a product for this yeah this is a big problem to solve you need a moving forward and i mean not to go off topic but i mean they say that if uh there wasn't for drug money in 2007 that the whole banking system will crash so it's probably not a thread that they want to pull on wait what wait are you supporting drug money coming i'm not i'm saying that the banking system allegedly depends on it according to what reports said in 2008. 2008, the banking system didn't crash because there was drug money?

Because there was drug money in the banks. Who said this? There's a report. There's articles that say that. Yeah. Not to go down a rabbit hole, but that was a big thing. He didn't even go to Google. He went to chat GPT.

No, Brandon is like, while we're doing this, while we're doing this, can we go to New York? Because Mom Dani wants your money, folks. And honestly, he's getting sick and tired of the fact that the governor's not supporting him raising taxes, and it's not cool. It's not cool. and they forced him to do this.

You know what he sounds like? He sounds like the spouse that hits the wife and says, you made me do this. I would have never done this to you. You made me do this. Mom, Donnie sounds like that. Rob, do you have the clip? Is this the one, Rob?

The one that... This is the one. Okay. Watch this year, folks. Go ahead. I would rather do is ensure that they remain as they are so that the city can be on firm financial footing. However, in order to get to this point of closing the gap

on both this fiscal year and the next fiscal year, we are forced to raid the rainy day fund, the retiree health benefits trust reserve, and to increase property taxes across these other years. There you go. Okay, so what is this one? What is the next one, Rob? There you have? This is just him going into more detail.

Played? This would effectively be a tax on working in middle class New Yorkers who have a median income of $122,000. The second path also requires us to raid our reserves. It would mean withdrawing $980 million from our city's rainy day fund in fiscal year 26 and $229 million from the retiree health benefit trust in fiscal year 2027. These are steps that have been taken before, but only in moments of extraordinary external crisis. Mayor Bloomberg's response to the 2008 financial collapse and Mayor de Blasio's response to the enormous

revenue shortfall caused by the pandemic. We do not want to have to turn to such trouble. drastic measures to balance our budget. That's a threat. That's a point. It's blackmail. Yeah. This is totally blackmail.

Can continue. We saw it happen in the UK. Be careful, though. The guy to your light lives there. So go ahead. Continue. We probably agree. We don't get you in trouble.

But we saw it in the UK. What happens is leftist governments come in and they say, oh my God, we just discovered these numbers. And these numbers are horrific. The only way we can get out of this crisis is if we taxed the hell out of everybody. And oh, by the way, we're raising expenses, you know, We're going to raise expenses to do all the stuff stuff that we want to do. The UK did that in.

In 2024, the labor government comes in. They say, oh, my God, we have this massive shortfall. We now have to institute a payroll tax, which eventually created lots of job losses on top of everything else. But typical playbook. That's what happens. And the other side of that is, if you don't give us the money, look at, I mean, look at the language you use. The only time we've ever done this, 2008, 2020, it will be catastrophic unless you get the state government to fund every last thing that we want to stay government to fund.

Pomp. I got a lot to say about this because we warned everybody this was going to happen. How funny is it that the guy who promised free transportation, free food, and free child care is now saying we ain't got enough money? Well, the first thing you do is stop giving out free stuff. That's the first thing. The second thing is he said that we have two options. Those two options, oh, you already found it. Yeah, you already on top of this.

All right. So the second thing is that he says we got two options. We can either have the New York State increase our budget or we could tax the hell out of the rich and the profitable businesses. Well, we got a third option. Why don't we just spend less money? You may say, how do we do that? Well, back in this tweet, I sent to him to our amazing mayor on January 29th.

I responded to him and I said, hey, let me give you a couple of examples. because he announced these chief savings officers. And I said, all right, well, if there is these chief saving officers, just search my name and chief savings officer. I said, let's make the big cuts, right? I said, New York City needs a leader with the backbone to make their hard decisions. I believe you're young and enthusiastic enough to pull this off if you wanted to. For example, there's $3 to $4 billion of annual savings that could be captured if you

merely stop the aggressive enhancement to city workers' retirement benefits and you cut the ridiculous administrative bloat inside the Department of Education. And you could accomplish this without losing any teachers, firemen, police officers, city workers. You wouldn't have to raise taxes on anyone. Every hospital and school would stay open, and you don't need the chief savings officers. So there is the closing of this gap by him simply just saying, we are not moving forward going to keep increasing aggressively the benefits to all of the retirees. So people who aren't retired yet, we're just going to stop making bigger and bigger promises to them. Just keep it where it is. And then 40% of the New York City budget goes to the

Department of Education, and a number of administrators there has absolutely exploded. And so when you look at this, you start to say to yourself, this is not a revenue problem. This is a spending problem. And if they have a $122 billion budget, the state of Florida is $117 billion. There's 15 more million people that live in the state of Florida than in New York City. How the hell is New York City spending more money than the entire state of Florida on a budget? It's not a spending problem. It's a philosophy problem. That's crazy. Mandami was, he's exactly who we thought he was. And he advertises the entire way. I actually love that he's coming. coming through.

Yeah, people's... I love that he's doing exactly what we thought he's going to do. People voted for this. They voted for the fantasy and the fairy tale. And once you vote for it, you're kind of stuck with it. And that was the, that's the political process that goes on here. Is that you vote for all the stuff and then the blackmail happens to make sure that it happens. Well, you want, you want to know what I think is going to end up happening?

Go forward. He ain't going to get any of this done. No way. You know why? He's saying he's going to raise property taxes 10%. It's not like a 1% increase, 2% increase. Look at the people. He said he said he's going to raise property tax 10%.

That's what he said, right? He said 10% increase of property taxes, 9.7% or something. To who, though? To who? Every person. People above 122. In the clip you played, he said, look, this is going to hit middle class earners, which are the people he's supposed to be protecting.

Yeah. But the biggest barrier is so. So you're saying he's not going to be able to do it. Do you think he'll be able to do it? 32%. They will revolt. They will revolt. 32% of New Yorkers own.

homes compared to the lowest in other states. The national average is 65, right? It's worth 32%. Of the people who own the homes, everyone thinks that it's just rich people. But actually, if you look in Queens, the Bronx, the homeowners there, they're not, quote to quote, quote, rich. These are middle class, lower middle class Americans. You're going to raise their property taxes 10%.

Stop. And take the retirement money. Stop. Who does he need? Who does he need for that to happen? Whose approval does he need? He needs to state government. He needs Hockel to get on board.

But he's trying to get around Hokel. He's trying to do it in a way without needing Hockel. He's threatening. Look, I'm going to decimate your core voter audience. I think it would be the state of Congress. State. Because they're out for financial. This is New York City versus New York State.

But you know what? If you flip around to the other side, you want to see the future of politics, this guy is an incredible entertainer. He had, look, think about this. Trump, remember when he did the tariffs? He had the science fair boards come out, right? And they had all the tariff rates. were doing their science fair presentation.

Everyone was like, look, these guys. You saw what Mom Donnie had? He had the science fair boards out. He was doing the whole, I mean. He's duplicating Trump very closely. He understands the game. They're all doing it now. Yeah, but by the way, I hope he comes through with all of it.

That's right. I hope he comes through. I really hope he comes through with all of it. You get what you vote for? You know why, though? No, let me tell you why. Come on. I'm going to tell you why.

I'm going to tell you why. Every once in a while, every once in a while, the world needs to be reminded of what doesn't work. every once in a while you need a reminder. And if a guy like this comes in, by the way, during COVID, what are the two states that lost a trillion dollars of wealth that left? New York and California. Do you know right now, the only state that not has lost

a trillion dollars of wealth on two different occasions is California? Hasn't happened to New York yet. That article hasn't hit yet. But it's coming soon if he continues the way he's doing. And I'm encouraging him, please continue with all this stuff. Keep doing it. For some of you guys that are in New York, that are like, but he's not a bad guy. It's okay.

You know, we hate, you know, who are the other? Sliwa or who is Slewa or who is Cuomo? Did you see, you saw this is very, very sad. But I think that the number, look up how many people died during the cold front. I think it was 16 or 20 people. So there's this standing philosophy that they take the homeless people off, right? And he didn't take them. And he said, hey, if you want to stay outside, you can stay outside.

Obviously, a lot of people died. Not everyone died from the cold front. Some of these are drug overdoses, et cetera. But definitely there are people who died because they got left outside. But then I don't know if you guys saw recently the police shot and arrested a guy who ran at them with a knife. And Mom Dani came out. And he basically said, I think that you guys should take the handcuffs off of them and let them go. I saw that.

And so you have two things. And he went and visited him at the hospital. Is that the one you're talking about? He should have been visited by a social worker. Yes. Yeah. And so now you got two problems, right? One is, I don't think anybody who says, hey, if you run out of the cops with the knife, right, you should be free.

But the second thing is, now you have the mayor who's, what is he going to inject himself into every single thing before the courts do? So what, now all of a sudden, if you got to go to a jury, every jury member? I hope he continues. No, I'm telling you. You know why? You know why? Because all the people that had the money and the resources. versus in New York, you could have done more.

You could have done more. I hope he continues. You guys, and I'm not talking about you, the people that don't want to say the wrong thing to lose customers who are like, well, I don't want to say anything because I don't want to seem like I'm against Mom Dani. The people that stayed quiet,

I'm so glad you're getting what you're getting. I'm so glad you're getting what you're getting. By the way, kudos to the people that got a ton of backlash that a lot of people said a lot of negative things about who came out and said things. Kudos to you. Ackman was one of them.

There's a few of them. You were out there saying stuff as well, but there was a few of them that were doing that. But the rest of you in New York, guess what? Your silence is causing this. Your silence. I don't want to get the other.

Behind closed doors, some of people are vocal, but I hope he keeps pushing the envelope and he succeeds. I'm banking on this guy succeeding. We need a new case study of what happens when you allow somebody like, and by the way, This is a trifect of a candidate because what you said right now is crime, right? Because that's safety.

Then you have economical ideology, which is socialism and communism. Then you have religious, where he's out there, you know, putting his hand on the Quran and speaking from the Quran on peace. So you have all three. And guess what scares some of the richer guys to speak against about?

It's this here. They don't, they'll speak out against this. But this is why this is a perfect candidate that scares a lot of the billionaires and media people to say anything. And again, I'm rooting for you, buddy. Well, it's all, it's all right. I would say, why isn't California a case study

that scared people out of that, though? But it is, though, a trillion dollars left. But they're still voting for them, though. So do you think New York's ever going to, like, vote somebody like this out again? No, but they, New York has voted Republican mayors. New York could have voted the mayor in a different way, and they didn't.

So, by the way, these days of just, You know what? I don't deal with politics. I'm just going to sit and grow my business and I'm not going to do anything. Keep doing that. Let's see what happens. There's a reason why eventually guys realize we need an office in Virginia. We need an office in D.C. We need an office in some of these places.

Why? Because you need the help of some of these guys that are behind closed doors or else guys like this are going to run it and destroy. Maybe if you said what is the greatest city in America, what is it? It's New York City. It's not even close. Crypto industry is a great example of this. The crypto industry for 12, 13 years said, hey, we're not into politics. We're outside the system.

We don't care about all that stuff. It changed. Well, politics came for crypto, and guess what? All of a sudden, those guys turned on a dime. They raised a bunch of money. They got Sherrod Brown, a bunch of these guys out of office. There's no atheist in Foxholes. Listen, I will tell you right now, you go to Washington and D.C.,

you know the number one thing that these politicians are scared of? The fair shake pack. They got a couple hundred million dollars, and they are incredibly effective at going at some of these politicians and so again you know money does have a huge impact on this stuff but more importantly is that industry realized hey if we don't participate here then we're going to get rules we don't like but this is this is part of that we've seen this before we've seen this playbook in smaller ways I mean why do cities vote heavily Democratic and have for decades the reason is back in the 60s and 70s they called it white flight it was really

getting away from democratic policy so those who are in the middle class all move to the suburbs. And what happens is the inner cities are left with either wealthy, ultra wealthy, or the vast majority of poor people. And the vast majority of poor people who get most of their livelihoods, for lack of a better turn, they get, you know, welfare and state aid through the Democratic

machine. So eventually, the goal is to get rid of the safe people, to get rid of the middle class, and what's left will always vote for the uniparty or the single party, Democrats. That's playbook, we've seen all throughout history. Same thing, California. Why is California one party state?

Anybody who could leave left? Well, why do you think Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton recently came out and started saying that the mass migration, everything, was a mistake or all that? And homelessness in California? You're asking me? Yeah, I'm asking you. No, I'm asking you. No, no.

I think where they're going right now is the following. The one part that I'm surprised Hillary's not distancing herself from because they're going to lose. It's 10 out of 10 they lose is they are distancing from homelessness. She did say stuff about mass migration. a problem. She said that a couple of days ago. I think it was in Munich. I don't know where it was. Maybe another place that she did. But they are still keeping the position of transgender interviewing somebody from that site. See, there are a lot of Democrats that don't subscribe to the transgender. You saw the $2 million loss with the transitioner, the detransitioner that came back.

And by the way, over the next five years, you're going to see, in my opinion, hundreds of those happening all over the place. Doctors who help kids with puberty blockers are sitting ground, finding ways to get an insurance lawyer to protect them because they know they're going to be targeted. It's coming their way in no time. You should have never touched the kids. You should have never touched the kids. So if you think about where politics goes away, Pomp, my opinion, is take Epstein and take the trans issue. There's Democrats and Republicans are like, no, I'm good. I'm not there. Epstein, I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat. You're on the list and you did something. I want to know about it, right? We're not.

We don't do politics here. 85% of us, 90% of us. We get on the same page. So I think this is where they're realized in 2028 and midterms. They have to come a little bit to the center. If they don't go a little bit to the center, you got Mamdani, you got AOC, you got all these guys. If you don't come here, they're worried what happens in 2020. So maybe it's even a, you know, an indirect way of Obama given feedback to Newsom, okay, in his very gentle way.

Because the way Obama will do it, it's a very massaged, gentle way to his own party. I think he is speaking to Newsom. I think they're worried about who's going to be their leading candidate for 2028. AOC is being talked about whether she wants to compete. She's number two right now on Calci. If you pull up the list. AOC is number two on Calci. Maybe it's changed as of today.

Yeah, yeah. But Rob, just pulled it up. We kept chart. Number one is Newsom. I think number two is, yep, AOC is number two. Yeah, number one is new. go a little bit lower to see the rest of the names are up so number two Kamala okay John Alsow and Shapiro and Kamala are third so that changed Shapiro came up because he

wasn't third Kamala was third Prisker down Budichichich five but even with Budichichich did you hear what the stat came out about how many African-American men voted for Pete Buttigieg did you see that number no zero zero And Stephen A. Smith said on one of his shows, he says, we just don't do that. Yeah. You can't. So they have to go back to common sense. It's, if you really unpack, and I've been fascinated with Trump's ability to be an outsider and to win, forget all of his policies, forget him as a person, just as a student of communication on the internet and in modern society. One of the things that is kind of crazy, if you go on the internet and you look, there are people across all sorts of different demographics.

that would say, hey, you know, that's my president, that that's the guy I voted for, all that kind of stuff. But also, there's a guy who's got, you know, gold toilets in Manhattan has convinced, you know, farmers in Iowa that they're the same person, right? He speaks their language, though. But that's the thing is, I do think that the polished politician has kind of gone to the side. And I actually think that's why Mom Donnie is so compelling to people is because he's speaking to, like, a millennial generation in their language, in their format. I'm so glad he's winning. Trump is FDR. I'm so glad he's winning.

He's the guy who says, yeah, FDR is the same thing. You know, gold toilets, everything about that. FDR was the guy who said, I hear you, I listen to you. People thought they could actually be heard during the Great Depression, of course. Trump's same thing. He got elected in 2016, I think the unemployment rate's fake. Ross Belt, lost all these jobs. I'm going to do something about it.

He connected to people in the same way, even though he's not the prototypical, you know, red state, rural area politician. That's what everybody else is trying to replicate. How do we become Trump? How do we find disaffected voices and become their outlet? Mm-hmm. Yeah. And by the way, let's do one last story before we wrap up.

But those of you guys that are listening here, whether you greet with Snyder or not, or you agreed with Pomp, they're officially on Menect. So you can Mennack Snyder, Jeff. I call last name because in the military, we only do last name, Pomp, you know this. So you can message Snyder and get smarter. He's on there now.

And you can do the same with Pomp and learn more about the software and different things they're doing. doing and then Aseto's also there okay Brandon's also there if you want to manect him as well but let's go to the last quote last we're all going to compete over who can answer the most questions today the the the competition is going to be who's going to be the lightweight at the top Alex Jones started answering his manette this morning so he's moved up to third place it'd be interesting to see the

lightweight is wide open but we'll see that it's a very competitive climate on manette okay so let's get to the next what's the last is there a story you have strong opinions on do you want to go to the Colbert story or you guys don't have strong opinions there you want to go to a budget deficit you pick the story give me a good fiery story can I give you one that we were talking about backstage that I genuinely would love to hear Jeff talk about so one of the theories a lot of great investors have right now is that deflation is a much bigger risk than inflation I tend to agree with them and tariffs deportations AI robotics all this stuff is very deflationary Jeff was talking about this idea

of if there is deflation, then there may not be the debasement trade and all these things that people have been talking about. So maybe you want to describe a little bit as to kind of your current viewpoint on there's this deflationary pressure, but what does that mean for the dollar or for asset prices? Yeah, what I think a lot of what happens a lot of times is people create a narrative and then go looking for ways to support it. What I do is try to look at the markets in particular, never focus on one market or another and see what they're telling me and then try as best as we can to construct a narrative. about what the markets are saying.

So start with something like the yield curve. The yield curve has been bull steepening since September of 2024. Bull steepening is a very negative deflationary signal. Let's define our terms here. Because you and I were talking about this, and a lot of people don't realize there's two different forms of what is called deflation. One of them is very good, one that we really want to see.

And the hope for AI is it creates this productive disinflation. We all know what productive disinflation is. you know, when we're younger, we know what it is intuitively. When we were younger, you bought a fancy computer. It was really, really expensive. But over time, it gets cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. That's not harmful deflation. That's free market capitalism doing what it does well.

That's not what the markets are saying. What the markets are saying is that the economic situation is getting worse, not better, and therefore it's going to lead to market volatility, at the very least. It's going to lead to economic volatility, which, by the way, you've already seen. We had no job growth last year. an entire freaking year without no job growth that's gonna have downstream consequences. So what the markets are saying is that balance of probability

we're gonna see interest rates go down and stay there for a pretty long time, which is not an inflationary situation, it's the opposite situation. And the counter argument to that is that, in a situation like that, that's going to unleash the money printing machine of the government. The discussion that we were having

is that the government doesn't actually have a money printer, money comes from the banking system. And if the banking system is, is not in the mood to create money, it won't. It won't matter what the Fed does. It won't matter what the federal government does. If the banks don't create money, there won't be money. And it's really not about supply.

It's about circulation, which is why we watch these signals like the yield curve. So last year, for example, when everybody was talking about tariff inflation, sell America, treasury rejection, the treasury market itself was saying, I don't see any of those things. Yield curve kept bull steepening, which said there is no tariff inflation. We have a bigger problem on the employment side for, macroeconomic reasons, not for AI, and that the outcome of that is going to be something that looks like a recession for too many people if it doesn't actually become an outright recession itself. So in that situation, a very different set of outcomes than dollar debasement, inflation,

and everything. So you start the treasure yield curve and look at other assets like gold. If you're looking at strictly gold, gold goes parabolic, you think, well, there's dollar debasement. But gold can go up for other reasons. So you take gold and balance it against the Treasury yield curve, Treasury yield curve says no dollar debasement, no deflation, what is gold saying? Gold tends to go up during periods when people want to own a safe haven. A safe haven, safe haven demand looks a lot like what the Treasury yield curve says. If you're in China, for example, when we go through a deflationary period, as I just described it, a macroeconomic downturn, you're not going to want to own.

You want to ask us. They don't care about Jay Powell or Federal Reserve interest rates or the dollar. They're saying, do I want to invest in something in China? hell no I'm going to own gold so gold as a signal wasn't about dollar debasement it was about safe haven that fits with the treasury market and it fits with a whole bunch of other markets as well

when you think through that you mentioned gold we're about stocks stocks volatility now volatility up or down both directions both directions so there's an anxiety that maybe there's something to the macroeconomic case that maybe AI won't be able to overcome with all of its positives and believe me I'm long run

positive on AI for the reason that we discussed. So we got market volatility in the stock market that is consistent with safe haven demand, treasure yield curve, bull steepening. You start to pull in all of these various signals that are coalescing on a, what we hope is an accurate narrative, but a common narrative, which is more of a recessionary downturn type of environment. And then you get the macroeconomic data that suggests, yeah, that's the case, at least for enough of the population that it becomes a major issue. Again, zero job growth for an entire year. That is an unhealthy economy. You don't just gloss over that. An unhealthy economy that gets more and more unhealthy. And I imagine most of people watching me are saying the same thing. Yes, this is an unhealthy economy. This is a sick situation. So the markets are saying, yes, we hear you. Not only do we hear you, we're betting on the consequences of that unhealthy economy. What are you saying, though? Because right now you got the story that also came out yesterday. U.S. debt set to crush World War II record. I'm sure you saw that. As annual deficit explode to $3 trillion within decade. Right. So where are you going with this?

What I'm saying is in what I'm saying there could be a possible market correction? Market which market are you talking about? Stock market. Yes. Let's start with a deficit. The deficit under these types of conditions, the marketplace, the general financial marketplace, wants to own that debt because it is most liquid. Traditionally bond markets, a government bond market for a variety of reasons and none of them are actually really good, they are the most liquid assets.

in a downturn, safe haven, you want to own U.S. Treasuries, regardless of the amount of treasuries that are printed. We saw this during the New Deal. Heard the same arguments back then. You know, FDR is going to bankrupt the country. It's going to explode the dollar, which you actually did. Treasury market, you know, interest rates are going to go double digits. They actually did the other thing.

During the 1930s, treasury yields fell. They stayed down the entire decade because of demand for safety and liquidity, what's perceived to be safety and liquidity. So if you see the U.S. government go absolutely apesh, issuing debt, part of my language, I think it's appropriate here. We all agree that deficits are unsustainable or deficits are a major issue. It's not an issue for the Treasury market. And the reason why it's not an issue for the Treasury market is because of this perceived demand for safety,

which is the other side of gold and some other things. That is a huge signal? Is it problematic for the rest of the world if the U.S. isn't issuing all that debt, though? Yeah, that's actually, we don't have enough treasuries. I know that's going to blow people's going to mind. Meaning there's not enough deficit spending? It's not the deficit spending. It's the financial instruments that are at the end of it.

Isn't that what creates the treasuries, though, is the deficit spending? Right. It's a perverse situation where we actually need the government to create treasuries in order to satiate the market demand for it. That's trippy. It's terrible. I think we agree in that I do believe people are drastic underestimating the risk of deflation. You know, I look at trueflation over the CPI metrics. Trueflation is showing under 2% every single day this year.

So we are right now this morning they were at. like 0.8 or so. And so what I believe is going to happen is they are going to actually want the government to print more money, right? And we disagree a little bit in terms of how that happens. But if you have a deflationary pressure like this, we have been trained for the last 15 years. If the government prints money, you get inflation. But if you have tariffs, you have the deportations, you have the AI, you have the robotics, the government could actually go and try to stimulate the economy, bring down interest rates, print money, and you can still have that deflationary pressure. And so I keep calling it like a monetary slingshot, which is in the short term, I actually think there's a number of assets

they're going to have some sort of headwind to them. So you may get that volatility in the stock market. Bitcoin's obviously down. You know, gold has kind of come off of the highs. But if they are going to go and do this kind of to address the deflation, over the long run, they're going to destroy the currency. And if they do that, then you're going to want to own these. assets over the long run. So whether you're buying Pokemon cards, right, or you're buying, in my case, Bitcoin gold, whatever, I think that you're going to do very well over the long run. And so what scares me is when people try to trade this stuff on a day-to-day basis because of the volatility, because of the announcements, because of the geopolitical kind of differences on a

day-to-day basis, it's just very hard. And so it's more so just what is your in your portfolio for the next 10 years to benefit from something like this? And I think it's going to end up being those scarce kind of hard assets. I think equities is, you know, if you're too careful to try to time, we've all seen the chart of if you were, you know, you try to time the market and you were out for a period. It goes from 12.4% over the last 80 years to, you know, 9.1%. If you're out 20 of the days, you're at 6%.

And how important it is to be there on the big days, when big days happen, and be able to tolerate bad days. But if you go away from equities long term, if you're somebody that's not what, you know, professionals that do this on a daily basis, it's problematic if you try to time it right now. And I do talk to certain people. I remember when COVID happened,

one of my executives took out all their money out of equities when it hit 18,000. Remember when Dow hit 18,000? Everything out of equities. They lost $3 million, took it out of equities, came back in equities, you know, at what? At 33,000. You know what it is to lose that 18 to 33,000?

You're not going to get that back again. And these guys were in their, they were older. They were not younger. It's not like it was somebody that's 48 years old that could afford it. This was somebody that was a little bit older, closer to retirement that did something like this. Anyways, the goal is to get smarter,

and we delivered again today with Pomp, Snyder, and Seto. Great to have you guys on. Gang, if anybody's watching this again, you got any questions for them. Manect them. If you want to learn more about what they're doing with Sylvia, Sylvia, you can also menact them. He'll tell you more about it.

But with that being said, there's a reason why maybe if Mamdani wins and keeps kicking ass, maybe this guy named Pampliano will choose to come back to Florida so we can do stuff like this more often and maybe even with a live audience. I don't know. So maybe Mamdani is going to push, pump out the next three years and says,

look, you can bring the engineer. here, just like Palantir just announced they're coming back to Miami. I think you hired Mom Dona as your recruiter. You voted for him. You got him. So you guys got it. I did not vote for him. Anyways, gang, God bless. We'll do it again. The next live is what? Friday. What do we have going on tomorrow? Tomorrow is who?

Kevin Roberts. Oh, Dr. Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation. It's a little intense the way it gets. It's intense the first 30 minutes, but I think you can enjoy the interview. Take care, everybody. God bless. Bye, bye, bye, bye.