TRIGGERnometry - What Does This Mean for America - Jason Calacanis

Episode Date: November 7, 2024

Jason Calacanis is an American Internet entrepreneur, angel investor and author. He is one of the faces of the All-In Podcast. *Follow Jason on: X - https://x.com/jason YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@allin *Sponsor: Qualia Senolytic. Go to https://Qualialife.com/TRIG for up to 50% off and use code TRIG at checkout for an additional 15% off.  *Sponsor: Try Verso’s incredible longevity products and get 15% off by using code: TRIGGER at https://buy.ver.so/trigger   Verso Scientific References: 1. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.868640/full 2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35844164/ 3. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/10/6/456 Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Substack! https://triggernometry.substack.com/ OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Shop Merch here - https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: [e-mail] Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:  https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry:  Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I think that the country will survive. And do you know how I know this? No, because we survived four years of it back to back the last eight years. The media started to realize clicks and link bait drove revenue. That led to, I think, the audience starting to lose faith in it. And it was kind of like a self-owned by the media. So how do we have 80% consensus on every major issue but feel like. like we're at war with each other.

What would cause that? If you feel bad about where the world is, it's because you're consuming too much social media and you're getting distracted by politicians and you're being manipulated by the media. Jason, great to have you on the show, man. It's great to come here and still your producers. Yes, you're laughing because we've had a great time bantering

before the show. We have. You were taking the piss out of us for being comedians who do serious conversations, you're trying to steal our staff, you're doing all kinds of things. But actually, we really wanted to have you on the show to talk about more serious stuff. Okay. One of them being, we're recording this on the Sunday before the election. The election, as this goes out, has just happened. We probably don't quite know what's happened.

We'll talk about that in second. The one thing that a lot of people have been talking about, you're a podcaster, but also an investor, and you've been in the media world your entire career. Sure. Is this like the podcast election? That's what people are saying. What do you make of that, first of all? Well, it is Wednesday, if you're watching this at home. And that sounds you hear outside or the riots. I think, you know, media is a pendulum and it goes back and forth and trusted media has hit an all-time low. And I started my career as a journalist. And we took it very serious there back in the 90s. It was kind of a vocation and you were really trained, hey, your job is

to present the truth, tell the story, give the facts, let the audience decide. You know, they're smart. So just give them the facts, you know, the who, what, when, where, why? And we're done. And they'll make their own decision. And over time, that's changed a lot. And I think I've seen the media kind of turn over a couple times now. One of the businesses I had started was a zine. So in the 90s, the height of being kind of punk rock or being an entrepreneur in New York was to create a zine. And a zine was a magazine without the budget, basically. It wasn't glossy. You would do a photocopy. And so I had one called CyberSurf. I had one called Silicon Alley Reporter. And the way you, the way you kind of made your way in the world was by saying the things and having the conversations

in those publications that the mainstream media at the time were not willing to have. So we had Spy Magazine, Esquire Paper Magazine. I think you guys had Timeout. Mando 2000, 2,600, a hacker publication. There were all these kind of really interesting. Then blogs came out and I was involved in that. I had a company Weblogs that did Engadget, Autoblog, we sold it to AOL. And that was very disruptive because, again, you had writers who didn't have editors.

And then you look at podcasting. Well, the media became biased. We'll get into why that is. But also, I think the media started to realize clicks and link bait drove revenue in a very significant way. And then the audience was like, I don't believe all this stuff because the headline doesn't match the story. Right. So like the headline was written by somebody who worked in the social media departments, literally at a public. publication, like the New York Times, there's a group of people who write the headlines.

And BuzzFeed and Gawker, some of these, you know, early publications that hacked the system, would make 10 different headlines in their social media department. They would test them on Facebook with $10 against each one, whichever one performed, whichever two performed, they would edit those and punch them up, and then they would spend $1,000 on Facebook to get the first, you know, whatever, 100 likes on it. that led to, I think, the audience starting to lose faith in it. And it was kind of like a self-owned by the media. But then it's very hard to have a two-hour conversation or a three-hour conversation

and pull that off. And experts started going direct. And when experts started going directly to their audiences, you had a large number of members of the audience. with their AirPods in and their phones, kind of become addicted to this longer format. And then you have Joe Rogan and countless other podcasters,

kind of do what Howard Stern did. You know, Joe had a big, Howard Stern had a big influence on, I think, Joe Rogan and a number of people in podcasts because he would go long. He had a three or four hour radio show in New York, probably 30 million people listening to it at the peak. And going long was like a really,

kind of an interesting piece of what he did. And he had a technique. I've studied all these interviewers techniques. And his technique was to pretend he didn't understand. So he'd be like, oh, yeah, so you were in that rock and roll band? Yeah, so what's that like? You know, like you're on tour and you're like on a tour bus. And he's playing dumb.

And they're like, yeah. And he's like, well, there are groupies? Do you meet girls? And they're like, oh, yeah, you wouldn't believe. And then all of a sudden, Van Halen's telling this crazy story. I think that's what happened in podcasting is, you know, you take off the expiration date and the time where, oh, well, we're just getting into it, but we have to stop. People get very interesting an hour, too. If you can get somebody to the second hour, that's why any time I interview anybody, I put the harder questions at the end and the more banal ones at the beginning.

You just let them kind of warm up. So when we had Trump on the pod, I, you know, asked him about abortion a little bit later. I asked him about immigration a little bit later in the pod. And my final question, they pulled them off the show by the end because it was going a little bit long, was going to be on January 6th. And I had that sequence in my mind. We'll just go a little bit harder on each one. We'll start with immigration. That's kind of easy.

Then we'll go to abortion, Roe v. Wade, and then we'll go there. But yeah, it's definitely the podcast election. and I think if Trump wins, we will look back on it and say, J.D. Vance and Trump doing really well on podcast was a big part of that. And if men start voting in the United States and men consume a lot of these podcasts, then it's going to be very interesting because men in the United States, as you probably know don't vote as often as women.

Right. And interesting for me, you are the kind of the lone leftist now, I think, on the all-in podcasts. Is that fair to say? I have always been a moderate. I voted probably one-third republic. in my life and two thirds democratic. So I've always considered myself a left-leaning conservative, you know, more moderate. I'm very conservative on fiscal issues, the size of the government, you know, maybe interventions globally in wars, and then socially liberal. Like, if you want to be gay or straight or whatever pansexual, go for it, you know, whatever you do at your house is your business kind of thing. Well, your buddies have gone all in on Trump.

Big time. To coin the term. You haven't. You are the lone voice holding the line, right? Well, I mean, I don't like either candidate. I fall into this double-hitter group where I think one's an authoritarian and of low moral character, and then I think the other one's a bit of a puppet and a socialist. So if you ask me to pick, I'm just going to tell you the truth. Like, neither of these are candidates I would ever nominate or vote for it. Right. The reason I bring it up is I was curious to hear you say that you thought the media had gone biased

and you wanted to talk about why, which I really also want to talk about. But one counter argument to my own argument would be it feels to us because we are in the center of it like this is the podcast election. But the New York Times still has a gigantic audience that's doing very well financially. And we kind of live in a world where you can find data and evidence for whatever belief you have, right? So I could say, well, look at Jeff Bezos on the Washington Post. He's come out and reprimanded his own team. Or I could say, look at the New York Times, still crushing it. Yeah. Let's talk about that. What is going on in the media? Why did they become biased? And is it really true the podcast of taking over or we're just, are we in that trajectory, but not quite...

I think we're in a transitional phase where people are starting to realize they need to come to their own conclusions. They need to maybe consume multiple sources and determine the truth of themselves, which they should have always done. They should never have trusted any one person, whether it's the media or government. You should always kind of collect your own information. and come to your own conclusion. I think people are kind of figuring that out. You know, the bias started, I think, in the United States, at least, with Rupert Murdoch and Fox. That was really where picking a side, I remember when Fox started to, you know, Fox News became prominent in New York. It was like, whoa, these guys have picked aside. That was like a novel thing to do. And then MSNBC, people forget, was Microsoft and NBC had done a joint venture in the 90s to bring news. to the internet. That's the origin. That's the MS and MSNBC. And they decided, you know what, if Fox is way over here on the right, we'll just pick the left. And you lose half the audience.

But then the audience is much more loyal. So even though you've alienated half, which was what you never wanted to do in media, or you never wanted to do as a CEO of a company, you don't want to lose half your customers. You want to keep all your customers. What they realized was you could own that audience and they would watch you for three, four, five hours a day. And that was really, I think, Ruper Murdoch's big innovation in the U.S. was Fox. Then you had, you know, when Trump won, if you believed he was an existential threat. And if you talk to people on the left, they believe he's an existential threat. And you could make an argument as to what happened on January 6th, an election denial.

You could very reasonably make an argument that they tried to overturn the election results. In fact, a lot of courts have determined that, and whether you think it's lawfare or not, there's a reasonable case to be made that they did. Now, if you're a really, really extremely far left, and you actually believe that this person is Hitler, I don't, but some people do, you would do whatever you have at your disposal to, you know, stop Hitler. Like, we literally make movies about going back in time machines, and would you kill baby Hitler is like a question. So I think the media saw themselves as a tool to stop Hitler, to stop Trump. And so that distorted everything they did.

And you see it in the UK as well with The Guardian, would say, like, subscribe to the Guardian, and we will do more journalism to stop Trump. The Washington Post, the New York Times, like literally in their marketing materials, would put at the bottom of the story. And I think the Guardian still has it explicitly. If you want to see more journalism like this, to stop Trump, to stop authoritarianism, back us, right? And that, I think, has made people just not trust media at all. They just assume they're, you know, they've picked aside, and I don't think they're wrong.

I mean, if you were to ask me which media hasn't picked aside, I would have a really hard time. Maybe the economist, financial time, some of those publications, Wall Street Journal, most people would say, who study media would say they're the most, you know, center, not picking aside, objective. Do you think the future is podcasts where people go, look, these are my opinions, these are my thoughts, but I'm going to host people from different sides of the political spectrum? And actually, that's a far more honest way of doing it than the BBC saying we're neutral, when the reality is nobody's neutral because we all have our opinions and our thoughts on various

issues. Yeah, you know, different publications have different standards for that, and I think disclosing them is important. And so the public has always been confused about, for example, the editorial page. So having an editorial page at a publication and saying, our editorial page is a group of people who are separate, and you know their names, and they write these editorials, or we don't use their names on the editorial page, but they act as a group, and then they pick a candidate, and they give their opinions. But on this side of the business, these other pages, of the same publication, a straight reportage. It's just the facts.

I think consumers have always had a problem with that, and you probably just shouldn't mix the two. You should just take the opinion stuff out and leave that to Fox, leave it to MSNBC. Those are opinion. They're not doing journalism. They're not sending reporters out. Now, the BBC, Reuters, AP, Wall Street Journal,

they're hiring reporters to try to tell stories, to interview people, to try to tell the facts as best they can and maybe be objective. But the problem is definitely when these things are side by side, it's too confusing. Then you add to it, oh, the New York Times is going to add journalists who are doing podcasts and they're giving their opinion. And then you watch them on Twitter and they're writing all this crazy stuff that,

you know, these business leaders or authoritarian or, you know, whatever it is, and they're doing spicy tweets at the same time they're doing reporting, that kind of kills it, right? And I think the public gets smart. then they discover those tweets, they put them together with the story. And I advise all the startups I invest in to not talk to the New York Times or not talk to CNN. Don't talk to any journalists. Just go direct to your audience because they're just going to write a negative story.

And it's pretty predictable now. If you were to just look at the last hundred stories by the New York Times on technology or even capitalism writ large, it's going to be negative. That's just their approach. You know, it's such a good point because I remember watching News Night, which is a very famous political BBC daily show. I don't even think it's actually in existence anymore. And I remember, I can't remember what the issue was, but Emily Maitliss, who is meant to be impartial because she's a BBC journalist, did a monologue to camera about what she thought about this particular issue. And I remember just being so angry because I was thinking, it is not your job for you to give me your opinion.

It is your job as a BBC to hold the neutral position, bringing people with death. different opinions and moderate a discussion. And actually what you've done by doing this is betray the mission of the BBC. Yeah, I think if you look at podcasting, back to podcasting, people understand Joe Rogan's a comedian who has a passion for MMA fighting and he is a commentator and a sportscaster. So I think they probably go in with the understanding that he's just having a conversation. He's not attempting to do journalists. Now, random facts and interesting things can come out of it, but it's up to consumers now to really figure this stuff out. And maybe they should have never trusted journalistic publications.

Maybe we shouldn't have trusted the BBC as much. There's a really weird thing, though, you're all paying for that through your taxes. So if you're paying for it through your taxes, you would hope that they would have some rules of the road there, right? We have a similar discussion here with public radio where the government's government does give modest funding, not to the level of funding the BBC here in the United States. And that colors it as well, and you probably don't want to do that. And what do you think about the business side of all of this? Because you're an investor, and one of the things that might be happening is, you know, given that you can't everyone,

not everyone, you can't have seven billion podcasts in the world, basically, right? Particularly when it comes to the monetization side of things. Everyone can have a podcast, but if I'm consuming content, I am not going to give $5 a month to 30 podcasts because the admin alone will kill you, even if you're a billionaire. It doesn't really matter. So there are some models where there's a consolidation element, like The Daily Wire. They've brought together a number of personalities under one umbrella. Is that how it's going to go or is it going to be the way it is now where just the people

at the top are going to get further and further away from everybody else? They're going to pull away. What do you think is the business future of this space? Probably similar to writing or music. There are people who write in their journal every day because it gives them equanimity and nobody reads it. And then there are people who write on social media, long posts and 100 of their friends read it and go, wow, this person is incredibly funny, but 100 people read it. And then there are people who write for the New York Times or BBC or write books. You've got a book coming out on teaching.

I look forward to that, August 25th. Thank you very much. Great plug. A little plug there. Yeah. at finer booksellers everywhere. So, you know, or music. You know, people play music at home or they sing around the piano at Christmas or something.

And then people will do it professionally and everything in between. And that's really what, you know, Gen Xers thought, Gen Xers really thought the magic of the Internet would be someday everybody would get to produce content, have other people consume it, and it would rise and fall based on how good it was. Mission accomplished. You know, like anybody can start a podcast. The tools are such that literally anybody can do a live streaming show and compete with the BBC. And people do.

And people who you wouldn't expect, you know, the Dilbert creator, Scott Adams, now gets 10, 20,000 people every morning listening to him. It's a cartoonist. We talk about politics, you know, and he just did it as a side hustle, and he has no producers, and he just presses a button and goes every day. And he's built up a really significant audience. We've had a couple of times. Yeah, so, you know, he's a perfect example of somebody who's not doing it for money. Money might be a side product of it. And I think that's super encouraging.

It should be. And you've always had that in comedy, right? Open mic night was like a tradition. And the Internet has done that for radio. And, you know, it used to be you had to start in the United States, like in some really local town as a radio host. And then you would go to a B-City and then eventually wind up. York, L.A. or Chicago. And you had to like pay your dudes for a decade refining your craft. And now it's it's all open. So it's wonderful. And who cares? Like some people will make a living. Some people will

make a fortune. Some people will be like Joe Rogan and get a nine-figured deal every five years. And other people will make $9,000 a year and it will pay for their car payments. I think that's like the wonderful part about this. And all the new talent that gets discovered is amazing. It is. Well, speaking of talent on your podcast, one of the things, I really like about the All In podcast is I've had my battles with David Sacks about Ukraine and stuff like that. But one of the things you guys do is you have your battles on air as four guys that actually respect each other and like each other. Or maybe that's a facade. I don't know. You're looking at me with suspicion. But no, no, we are. Of course you are.

And so that's kind of what I'm asking is we know all the data now shows that America and much of the rest of the Western world actually is polarizing very rapidly in terms of who. people marry, in terms of who people hang out with, in terms of the kind of differences of opinion that people will tolerate in friendships even. But you guys, you do duke it out and you have disagreements. Is that an important thing for people to be doing now to disagree respectfully but publicly? I hope so. I mean, one of the great pieces of feedback I've gotten from the first four years of this All-in podcast is my friends and I, like, listen to it every week. And we debate it and we get into arguments about Ukraine and Putin.

And we debate Trump versus Biden, Kamala, the hot swap, all this stuff. And if we can show people that you could have a debate and still be friends, I guess that's a good thing. It's kind of weird for me because as a Gen Xer, you know, you would go to Thanksgiving and I'd have two of my Irish uncles, you know, who are for Reagan or Bush. and then another two or three who were, you know, for Clinton or whatever. And it was totally fine. Everybody could debate an issue or two and then just move on and still be friends.

So I think, you know, this polarization and the extremes has a lot to do with social media. If you are tribal and you pick aside, you're going to get a lot more followers than if you're nuanced. You know, if you were to ask me a question about Ukraine specifically, I would be like, yeah, know, we should, I'd have a very nuanced take. Like, yeah, maybe we shouldn't put NATO on Russia's doorstep. But conversely, it does make sense to me that free country should be able to join NATO if they want to. Why should a dictator get to choose that? Both of those things can be true. And so having a tolerance for ambiguity is like one of the highest forms of intelligence is if you can keep these disparate ideas in your head and not have to pick a side. The problem is,

you know, the world wants you to pick a side. And if you do pick aside, the bells go off. You get more likes. You get more people to like you. I don't care if people like me. I'll be totally honest. I've been far more successful and happy in my life than I ever thought I could be as a kid from Brooklyn. I hit the lottery seven times. I've made more money than I could ever spend. I've got a beautiful family. I honestly don't care. And so it would be very very, very, easy for me to come out for Trump and to go to the rallies with my friends and tell you, oh my God, Trump is the answer for everything. But I actually don't believe that. I believe he's not a good human being. Okay. Let's investigate that. Why? Because of his character and the way he's

treated individuals and all his business dealings. Yeah. So I guess the... Don't forget the elections happened. Yeah. Okay. So I'll be totally honest. I think that the country will survive. with four more years of Trump or four more years of Kamala Biden and the DNC machine. And do you know how I know this? No, because we survived four years of it back to back the last eight years. We actually literally survived Biden and Kamala and we survived Trump. I believe the United States is strong enough, the operating system that the founding fathers architected will survive either one of them. Before you do this, why don't we find out what you think has happened?

It's Wednesday afternoon here in the U.S. Oh, take a guess? Yeah. What do you think has happened? Well, all the statistics are saying on all the surveys and prediction markets are saying Trump has a lead. And then, but it's close. And so the last time Trump won, everybody was saying the opposite, that Hillary had

a lead was two-thirds chance. As a poker player, I can tell you, a one-third chance of winning is very significant. I've seen people put large amounts of money into the pot and going all in when they have won their chance. Like, that happens one out of three times. It's like not that uncommon. So I think either thing can happen. And if either one does happen, I just hope we can get through the counting of the votes without it causing another January 6th. You know, you invest in startups a lot, Jason. And startups, and correct me if I'm wrong, they have a disruptive element to them. That's kind of the purpose of a startup, is that it's going to come into the market,

disrupt, change the market. Do you think that Trump is a disruptor of politics if you look at pre-Trump to what has happened? Clearly, he's disruptive, yeah. I mean, he's a Democrat who ran as a Republican. He believes in a woman's right to choose, but then overturned Roe v. Wade. He believed in banning TikTok,

and then he got a $50 million donation from one of the big investors in it and flipped his position. Yeah, he's super disruptive. And aren't there some positive elements to that? that? Of being disruptive? Yes, particularly looking at politics and the political system. I mean, sure. I mean, being disruptive if you do something innovative and it makes a better system could be positive. I'm not a fed of burning it all down for the sake of burning it all down,

if that's what you're saying. No, that's not what I'm saying. No, what I'm saying is that Trump appeals to people who maybe felt more marginalized that politics wasn't. But Steve Bannon is a genius. If, yeah, his strategy to get the Republican Party to take on the causes of the working man and woman in the United States was a brilliant master stroke. Steve Bannon is a genius in that regard. He took the Republican Party, which stood for big business and flipped them and had them represent and become a populist party. That was absolutely stunningly brilliant. You know, one thing I want to ask you about that because I think that's a really accurate.

assessment. I was stunned when Trump won in 2016. Francis and I, yeah, of course. Francis and I in the UK, we both voted Remain in a referendum. That's kind of like voting for Hillary in 2016, right? So when Trump got elected, I was like, well, if I'm stunned, that means I've got the wrong information. And it's a step by definition. So I watched every interview that Steve Bannon did. I spent hours and hours and hours because I was like, this guy is literally telling you how he did this. Yeah. Why haven't the Democrats done that? I think they're in the process of doing it.

I think what you'll see come out of all of this is race to the center. I think people are realizing the trick of using the extremes of each party, the extremes on the left or the extremes of the right, that that hack has been burnt out. So Trump was able to win the primaries by going after evangelicals. He promised them he would overturn Roe v. Wade. He promised them he would get two or three people on the Supreme Court, specifically to overturn a woman's right to choose, and he did it. Then he realized that would not win him this election. So this election, he said, I did the greatest thing ever.

Let the states decide, okay? Everybody wants the states to decide. And now the states are going to decide it. I'm not involved in it. But he told this group of people, and he won that. Remember the primary had to beat like 12 candidates who were, remember the interview saw the Republican debates in that 2016 era? I mean, it was like, who's not running?

It was, they couldn't even fit that many people on stage. It was comical. I think they maybe had seven or eight people on some of these debates. And he worked the system there, and now he's working the opposite. He wants people to believe that he had nothing to do with overturning Roe v. Wade, and that J.D. Vance, who is for a national abortion man, is not going to do that either. And that these are not the droids you're looking for. So I think Trump is a master at communication.

And manipulating people. I agree with you. And you know what I find really interesting is whenever... I agree with you. He is incredible at manipulating weak, dumb people. Okay. What do you mean by that? He's a master of manipulating people.

People. Especially people who are suffering, weak or dumb. Yes. I would push back on that because... You would, I know. Yeah, yeah, I know. Because you're weak and dumb, mate. Because on weekend.

That's what Jason's really saying. All of those things. But I think what Trump is very, I'm joking. No, no, no. It's, I'm devastated. Fuck you. No. No, what I think Trump is very good at is identifying the things that are very important to people

that the elites do not want to talk about or is not important to the elites. So, for instance, the border isn't really important to the elites, the fact that there is a poorest border, the reality is it doesn't really affect them on a day-to-day basis, plus it's kind of beneficial to them when it comes to driving down wages, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. In fact, in the United States, people don't know this, but the Republican Party was for an open border. We had a thing called NAFTA, you know, the National Free Trade Agreement.

They wanted North America to operate largely like the EU does, where you could just travel between the different countries and Mexicans could come work in California. in agriculture and then go back to Mexico. And the border would just be open. You could just show your driver's license and go back and forth. Kind of like going between countries in Europe is pretty fluid.

And the reason was we wanted to have more low-wage workers. That was the Republican position. And so Trump is a genius in that he was able to convince people, hey, you know, America, this incredibly tolerant place that is a melting pot

where we allow the world world's immigrants to come, especially ones who are suffering in their countries. And all that we ask is that you integrate yourself into the country, learn the language, and become part of the melting pot. Yeah, he was able to convince them that their jobs were being stolen by Mexicans and that was lowering their wages when, in fact, it was Republicans who were sending those jobs, business leaders, overwhelmingly Republican, who were sending those jobs to China with globalization. And the Democrats were absolutely pro globalization at the time.

Yeah, and I agree with that as well, but it's also, there's a security element to it. I think over the period of time that Biden has been in power, I saw a stat, I think it's 11 million illegal immigrants. Now, that is an unsustainable position for a country to be in, because what you don't have is a border, and a country is defined by its borders. How many millions of people should be able to come into the United States every year? That is a decision that people need to make and people need to agree upon. But what you just said, 11 million was too many?

Illegal. Illegal. Okay. Illegal. Okay, but I'm just saying, let's put the number on the table. Is 11, what is the right number? Zero. The right number is zero.

Zero people should be. Zero illegal immigrants. Got it. Okay. So the question I think that will resolve this issue eventually for the United States is to look at what Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, many countries have done, which is a point system. About 75, 80% of Americans believe we should have an orderly border. They don't want to have people crossing illegal.

I don't think anybody really does. I wonder who the 20% are who believe that people should be able to illegally cross the border. I think they maybe don't understand the survey question. If I'm being totally honest. Or they're the ones running the system. Yeah, something is very weird. Under what circumstances would you want people coming illegally to your point about the security system? But in the United States, it's incredibly insincere.

Both sides could solve this issue, and they've manipulated the public. all you have to do is say there are really three buckets of people who can come into this, who we need to address coming to the country. There are people who are in line properly, and then there are people who are refugees who are leaving a country

where they would be murdered if they went back. And then there's talent recruitment, getting the best and brightest into this country. And if I was running for president, I'd say, look, we have three groups here. We want to have the most talented entrepreneurs in the world. So anybody with a PhD and master's degree, and this is what I asked Trump about, and he said, I guarantee you I'll give a green card, I'll staple it to their diploma.

I don't know if you saw that clip when he was on the show. They walked it back a bit because their party needs to be xenophobic and maintain this position that all the jobs are being stolen by these low wage workers who are coming to the United States. But we should be recruiting the best and brightest, especially from communist countries, dictatorships, authoritarian countries. Why? For every smart person we take out of China, Russia, North Korea, any dictatorship you're on, they lose a smart person, we gain a smart person. This is like a double win.

On a compassionate basis, we can just pick a number of how many people we could absorb with over 300 million Americans, maybe 0.1% of the population, we could all agree on? 300,000? Sound reasonable? Okay. And then in the middle, the line of who we need, that should be done based on merit, and there should be a scorecard. And it could be how many degrees you have, speaking the language natively, and then what

positions we need to fill? We need to fill a lot of health care positions, nurses, doctors, et cetera. So for the next five years, we might say, hey, that gets you one or two or three points if you have one of those degrees. And if you speak the language fluently, you get two points. If you speak it partially one point, if you don't speak it, zero points for that.

And this sounds crazy. This is how they do it in Canada. This is how they do it in New Zealand, Australia. You have a merit-based system. In the United States, it's incredibly cynical, and both sides of the political spectrum are manipulating people. To tell us more,

how are the Democrats manipulating people? I think, well, they're in office right now, and they've left the border open, and they've said that it's not open and it's not a problem. So that would be manipulation. So I might say gas lining. And your point about Trump and Jobs, I think that's more of a 2016 talking point, if I'm being honest. Right now what I hear out of the right in America, just as an outside observer, feel free to correct me, is we want, they've basically Elon has forced the right to adopt what I think is a very sensible position, which is we're pro-high levels of high-quality immigration.

And we're totally against illegal immigration. Yeah, I think Trump is doing what he does. He is pandering to the crowd, and he's adapted his position to win this year, which is what politicians do. They adapt their position to win. Number one job of a politician is to win. I would not, do you know how you can tell if a politician is lying? Go on.

The lips are moving. I mean, basically. Kabbalah basically going to the center is a lie. I think she's far left of center. And then Trump having this position is just a lie. to get votes. Okay, so give us the scenario by scenario. We're sitting here on Wednesday.

We may not have a result yet. Yeah. But if Kamala gets elected, you're basically saying she's a fraud. That's what you just said, right? I think she, like all politicians, is saying what she needs to say to get elected. Okay. So if she's been elected, are you happy? I am for having a split government.

You know, we have different aspects for it. governor, the executive branch, legislative branch, et cetera, judicial branch. I would like to see some stasis and them not be able to pass too many laws and spend money. The number one issue for our country is that we are adding $10 trillion to the debt every administration. I guarantee you if we were sitting here in four years,

we can do this podcast again, and in four years we'll be sitting here, and either one of them will have put $10 trillion in debt. part of the United States. I'm really glad you've made this point because there are people who, economists out there, who go, look, modern monetary theory, you can keep printing money. It's great. We shower people with money.

It's going to be like a hip-hop video. Everyone's great. Everyone's got a diamond-encrusted cane. You're a money guy. What's the problem with that? Have you ever met one of your friends who, like, lives above their means? And you're like, how do you afford this house? And then these two cars, and then all of a sudden they lose their job.

and it all blows up and they lose our house and the two cars get repossessed. You can't live above your means for any sustained period of time. There's a reasonable amount of debt or using debt to build a business or to invest in an economy. So if you were going to, I don't know, build some infrastructure, this beautiful house that you guys have here in Austin, I don't know how well this podcast is doing. We're crushing, I know. So you just go to different cities and buy a luxury house like this? No, we're not you.

It's an Airbnb, mate. Oh, what's that? What's that? How does that work? A piece of respect level is going down. Oh, I thought you bought this. I mean, you saw this place. It's gorgeous.

We're looking for an investor. Wow. For a podcast with two comedians. That's right. Wow. It's a unique original idea. Yeah. Right.

We're looking for $10 billion for a 10% stake. Yeah. No, we're happy to negotiate. We'll do a great deal. A billion here, a billion there, mate. What's a billion? Yeah. Well, that's very much comes.

back to the actual serious point, which is the debt, right? Back to the debt. Yeah, I mean, if you want to be happy in life, I think living below your means and controlling your expectations is super important. Elon always had a funny thing he would

say, like, happiness is expectations minus reality equals happiness. So like, if you put your expectation that we're all going to be flying on private jets and have three homes and be famous, like, you're going to be pretty disappointed. I think

austerity and living below your means is virtuous, and I can tell you, having had many friends get very, very wealthy, like uncomprehensible wealth. Wealthier than us. Yeah, well, I said uncomprehended. You're comedians, come on.

But comedians have done incredible. You have that happen where a comedian will make $30 million for a special. Ricky Jervais. I mean, he kind of laughs at how ridiculous his pay is. So I can tell you like when you go out and you have a steak or like a hamburger, there's no difference between like four or five people going out and having a hamburger and like two or three of them are billionaires, two or three of them or not, or just millionaires and that one

or two people are just, you know, civilians, working class folk, which is how I grew up. Yeah, it's no difference in the hamburger and the joy of it. Or if you go skiing or if you go for a walk or you hold your kids. you have a two and a half year old, like same experience. And if you actually have this overwhelming amount of wealth, it creates massive anxiety and unhappiness in most people I know who make a lot of money. Really? That's interesting. Why? How does that work? Because they've worked really hard,

and they believe that if they became famous or got to a million subscribers on their YouTube channel, all the noise and insecurity would go away. And once they had the money and they had the plane and the house, the noise would go away and the insecurity and the doubt would go away. And then it doesn't, which then magnifies it. Oh, no, I've made $100 million, a billion, and I still feel bad about these issues. There's no way to solve these issues is what they come to the conclusion. And then they realize, oh, you have to do some self-work.

There's some process here of dealing with those issues that money can't buy. I know it sounds ridiculous. No, it doesn't sound ridiculous at all. There's certain voids you can't fill with material things. No, it does take the edge off. I will say, like, you know, if you do not have to worry, because I lived with my parents having to live paycheck to paycheck week to week, day to day sometimes,

that does create an underlying fear. And I grew up with a fear of running out of money. And I think it was probably why I was driven in business. And a lot of the people I know who are the most driven are the people who come from that circumstance. And in fact, it's kind of a trope. in our industry that the kids of immigrants are the best people to bet on because their parents were just scared to death. Are they going to get kicked out of the country? We have to work,

and we have to meet this child get into an Ivy League school. It's the only way that we're going to survive as a family. And the bravery it takes to leave your home country and go to America or another country, in your case, Russia, and then going to England. This takes an amount of hootspah and fearlessness. And, yeah, if you... can do that and then raise your kids with that same fear and paranoia, they're going to be really great entrepreneurs. Well, actually, that's a good question for you because, you know, you had the trauma as a young man watching your father's business be taken away. And I know that... You did your research. Me. Yeah, you did your research. We're not that wealthy.

Yeah. But in Brooklyn, we kind of... Literally 17 years old. He used to own a bar, right? He used to own a bar, yeah, probably. They came because he was behind on the taxes. Guys with shotguns, like the ATF and everybody put the locks on it took everything out. My dad said, I'm going to jail, take care of your mom, and I was supposed to go to college. And he said, I have no money for college, but good luck. I'll be, take care of your mom, take care of your brothers. Yeah, come visit me in jail. That has to have a profound effect on you.

I remember with my dad, when my dad got fired from his job through no thought of his own. And I was at school and I said to him one morning, hey, can I have some money to get the train to go to school? He went, I don't have any money. And I'm going, well, how am I going to get to school? And he went, so I had to bunk, I had to jump on a train and dodge train inspectors in order just to get to school. Yeah. I mean, that gives you far in a way that nothing else can. How old were you?

15. Yeah. Yeah, I had a similar experience to you. Well, sure. Well, my father was one of these guys that did very well, my father was one of these guys that did very well in early 90s, Russia. And he went into Boris Yeltsin's government. And then for various political machinations reasons, he was falsely accused of tax evasion, had to flee the country. And so I went from being the son of a very wealthy guy to literally sleeping in a park for

several weeks. So what I'm saying... See, that's actually really hard because you think you're up here. Yes. And then the distance is here. Best thing that ever happened to me, though. Best thing that ever happened to me. See, my point is, we deserve $10 billion for 10%. We are the kids of the immigrant who will make it work. Women go to therapy. Yeah. Men start podcasts. There we go.

But it is true. If you talk to any successful entrepreneur or even somebody in the entertainment industry, which is incredibly entrepreneurial, you will see some sort of like trauma there that filled that battery and made them go. And sometimes the harder it was for them, the harder they'll work. Because you have that fear. They keep running. And it's also gratitude as well. So my mom's Venezuela, and everyone on the podcast is now going to drink. But I realize how lucky I am to be in this position.

I realize how lucky I am because there are people way smarter, way it's way more talented, way funnier, way better looking than me. He said that before we started actually. Who are literally thinking to themselves. How am I going to get water? Not food, water to drink. This is really important to have perspective. That's why I don't get super worked up about like if Trump,

Trump wins or Kamala wins, like my family will be okay. We're in good shape and I have been so blessed in my life to, you know, hit the lottery six or seven times. Like, what are the chances? It's bizarre, right? And so I do think gratitude is one of those ways to fill that hole. And then whatever trauma you had is a 15-year-old who now has to hop the turnstile and commit a crime because their dad lost their job through no fault of their own.

And then you see your hero who's supposed to protect the family. They have no armor and they have no sword. They can't protect the family. It's literally what happened to both of us. Yeah. It is the hardest thing to see that happen to your dad. Because you could see it in their face that they know that you know that they've failed. I mean, let it sink in how hard that is.

Well, you have the opposite problem, which is why I brought this up, which is you're very successful and you've got three kids. Yeah. And this is one of the things I've been wondering. There's a lot of conspiracies always about families that have managed to preserve wealth and the right mindset through the generations, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds. They're usually treated with suspicion because it's so bloody hard to pass down that attitude over generations. How do you do that when they're living in the lap of luxury? Well, maybe don't live in the lap of luxury, I think, is part of it.

So, you know, when I travel with the girls, you know, we could afford to fly business class, obviously. And we fly coach. And because I have friends whose kids have never flown on a commercial commercial. They fly private only. They fly private only. I have literally friends whose kids have never flown commercial. And, you know, I think that is actually, it's good for them. And then people will see me and they're like, what are you doing in coach?

I'm like, I'm flying to New York to see my family. And they're like, don't know, but you're in coach. And I'm like, yeah, it's a good deal. I want to leave it at that. Yeah. But in sincerity, like, I don't think showering your kids with, you know, this kind of experience is a good idea. And I think having kids work and get jobs is also good.

I met a lot of young folks when I went to work in Manhattan. You know, like getting from Brooklyn to Manhattan was like the really hard. goal that everybody had in Brooklyn. Now Brooklyn's cool. Everybody wants to be in Brooklyn. When I was there, the goal was to leave Brooklyn and get to Manhattan. And, you know, when I met the kids who lived in Manhattan, I went to Ivy League schools, they didn't know how to work.

They had no grit. They didn't know how to hop the turnstile. They didn't know how to hack the system. And so they were too soft to actually perform. And their anxiety level was really high. It was very bizarre to see. And then I just would be like, well, I'm going to come in an hour before you get here and I'm going to stay two hours later and I'm going to read all these books on how to do

this technology stuff and I'll just beat you through sheer force of will. Is that what it is? So you need a bit of childhood trauma, hard work. Is that it? Or is there some other things? Certainly it helps. What else? What else makes it great entrepreneur? Well, great entrepreneur. I think the ability to lead other people and to get them motivated and to be relentless and not give up that. doggedness is so critical because you have to find purpose in pursuing something in the face of just constant pain and suffering. It's almost like marathon runners or something. You have to really get good at the feeling of having blood in your mouth and getting punched over and over and over

again. It literally, entrepreneurship, if you're doing anything meaningful, is constantly trying to solve problems and failing and just getting beat up day after day after day. In a way, it's very much like stand-up, I'm told. I'm told that like the first couple of years of stand-up is just horrific. You get bombed, people laugh at you, you get off stage.

The other comedians are like, oh, you really suck. And then at some point... They don't say it like that. They say, you really suck. Because they enjoy watching you find. Right. But it's almost like there's, some recognition that the way to get there is to go through it. And I think that's entrepreneurship.

It's like, you have to go through that pain and suffering and failure in order to become good at it. And it is, it's hard to watch. Like, people really suffer. But it's also a gift that here in the United States, you can start a business and raise capital. And people are like, that's a really crazy idea. The chances of that succeeding are very low. Here's a much of money. Let's do it. You know, because you've convinced them that you're crazy enough to do it. You have the skill to do it. You're not going to give up and that you have the ability to execute on some level. You know, what you're saying is true.

I think you've missed one part of the equation of the pie. I think you've got to enjoy the blood in your mouth. Sure, absolutely. That's a very good point. Yeah, you get that taste of the iron. Yeah. It's like, hmm. Yeah.

Yeah, I agree. I agree with that 100%. If you do not feel like, Yeah, I'll show them. I'll get this done. I'll figure it out. Yeah, you're not cut out for it. I mean, the logical thing to do if you've gotten punched in the face over and over and over again is to extract yourself from that situation immediately.

If you got on stage and bombed five nights in a row and everybody told you, my God, you suck at this. And they laughed at you. The logical thing to do would be to say, yep, I suck at this. I am not coming back next week. But then somehow, like, I don't know if it's narcissism or pig-headedness or just blind faith, some number of comedians come back the next week and get one laugh and it fills their bucket enough for them to not quit. But how many of them quit? Loads of them quit.

Most people quit after their first gig. One and done. 99% I would eventually. Really? 99% of people who've ever done stand-up quit after the first gig. It is... And then another 0.9% quit after the second gig. Really?

So you basically eliminate everybody in the first week. Pretty much, because if you've had a bad first gig, you never do it again. If you had a great first gig, you go into the second gig thinking you're the dog's bollocks. Yes, I'm invincible. Yeah, you have a terrible gig, and then you're like, oh, okay, and then you quit. This is so interesting when it comes to human nature. It turns out the most successful people in venture capital, investors, are the ones who have early success. So if you have early success in venture capital, a virtuous cycle starts.

So in my first seven investments, I hit Uber, Thumbtack, and Data Stacks. Three out of the first seven companies I invested and became worth over a billion. One of them became worth over $150 billion. And so you would look at that and be like, that's the equivalent of like maybe doing three Dave Chappelle skits, his three best skits in the same. in a row in your first time running a show. And what happened after I did that was everybody said, oh, you're really good at this.

Let's give you more money so you can invest in more companies. Those are called limited partners, LPs. They're the money behind the GPs, the general partners, which is a fancy way of saying of venture capitalist. So that early success led to people giving me money for my first fund, a $10 million fund. Then the founder said, you invested in Uber and Thumbtack? oh yeah I know those companies.

Can I tell you about my company, Robin Hood? It's a stock trading app. And so then I invested in Robin Hood. So then more founders started coming to me with their ideas. And then I just said, well, you can get me on Twitter. I'm just at Jason. DM me your idea or email me anytime. My email for life is Jason at calicanus.com.

Email me your idea. And to this day, I have 20,000 people contact me and my firm every year for funding. Turns out that would be the equivalent. equivalent of like, you go into your first poker game and you win. And I've seen this happen. People win in their first poker game. They come back the next week. If they happen to win again, then people say, why, you're really good at poker.

And then you know what they do? They go buy a book about poker. They go watch poker clips on YouTube and they start studying the game and they get better. So randomness, early success can drive people's motivation to do stuff. Whereas the people who failed the first two times, they should have the same experience, which is, I fell two times. I should probably read a book on comedy. And I should talk to some comedians about what I did wrong, and I should study the tape. Instead, they give up.

And the people who got early success should say, you know what, I got lucky early, I should be prepared to fail again because that was just random dumb luck. Or maybe I should study it and figure out why those jokes worked. What was it about those jokes that worked or those bets? And then if you think about raising kids, if you said to a kid, who hit a three-point shot in basketball, wow, you're great at shooting threes. Why don't you come to practice, and I have a three-point coach, I'm going to have you work with the three-point coach.

We're going to make even better. Just that one little act, which would cost almost nothing to do, could change the trajectory of somebody's life. So just keep that in mind when you're talking to folks. And I always do that with entrepreneurs. I've had an entrepreneur the other day who stopped me in an airport. He says, you don't remember this, but I pitched you on my company.

And I said, oh, really, did I invest? And he said, no. I said, okay. He said, but I told you the idea, and I remember it like yesterday, you told me there were seven other people who had pitched that idea and failed. And I said, oh, I'm sorry I persuaded you. He goes, no, you did the opposite.

And I said, what did I say? And he said, oh, you said, those seven people failed, what's your plan to make it work? because sometimes the person who comes up the hill after those first six or seven people, they take the hours and then you take the castle. So what's your plan? And I told you the plan.

And you told me, he said, I'll never forget it. You told me at the end, I don't think many people would be able to make this idea work, but I think you could. So you should give it a shop. And I said, well, how did the company do?

He said, oh, it totally failed. I said, oh, he goes, but I did the second company after that with the things I learned, I found this other opportunity, and I sold it for whatever, tens of millions of dollars. And I realized, wow, like, you have to be very careful. Like, what you say can impact a person so dramatically. And you are not even aware of it,

especially if you get to the second half of your career where people actually put some value in what you're saying. So I now have a rule. I never underestimate anybody. I always just tell my team when we're sorting through the companies, He's like, this person could have the worst idea ever. They could figure it out. So let's hear them out.

Let's assume they're going to figure it out. And if they're awkward and their persnickety and they're hard to deal with and they're cantankerous or otherwise odd, well, those are the people who eventually figure it out in my experience. So be super kind and take them seriously. I think it's like... Because I really agree with that. because one of the things that is so important for life and one of the things that we don't teach kids is resilience.

Resilience, the ability to take a hit and keep going. Yeah. The ability to have failure and learn from your failure, not take it personally and move forward. And if you look at anybody who is successful, you get what happens on the surface and you think, oh, they've had it easy, but you scratch the service. It ain't been easy.

It would have been easier for you with what happened to your dad to think, oh, my life's over, what am I going to do? I've got to do this. Be overwhelmed, go into a spiral of negativity, and ultimately choose a path that would lead to a life that is miserable. But you didn't do that because you have resilience. And that's such an important quality.

Yeah, I had anger and I had fear if I look back on it. And I think when you look at motivation, I think about motivation a lot. Like there's Maslow's hierarchy of needs and self-actualization and different motivations can be very effective at different points in your career. Fear and anger are very powerful, very powerful motivators. And I look back on it, I was absolutely scared of running out of money and not having power. And I did everything I could in my late teens and early 20s to accumulate power, money, strength, notary. variety, everything possible. I started a magazine. I was a black belt and take one dough. I ran

marathons. I just did anything I could to make money, be powerful, be important. And then after a while, I realized, like, well, there has to be something more to this. And those short-term motivators run out. Like the I'll show them motivator and you have to find another one. And, you know, the one I've come to now is it's just so delightful to see people succeed and you've gotten to play some role in it. You just got to be like, it's kind of like Obi-Wan Kenobi. You guys have watched the Star Wars? I think we're all of the same age. Like, if you watch the Clone Wars, which is an incredible animated series that goes into like the real depth of the character Obi-Wan, he was just really, really like narcissistic.

powerful Jedi who they would send on the most elite missions with his Padawan Anakin Skywalker and then he got older and realized you know like I have to bring balance to the force there's like a higher thing to do here but in the beginning he was just like yes send me on a crazy mission let's do crazy stuff and so I always try to carry that with me now when I'm working with founders who I find myself working with people who are half my age I'm like how did I become 54 years old I don't understand I feel like I'm 30 and And they're so motivated and they want to just go win the war, you know?

And I'm like, yeah, maybe I could help them not lose a limb or two. Because the Jedi stuff is kind of serious business. And they just go run into the fight. Yeah. Lightsaber's out, let's go. And then they just lose a limb or two. And I'm there and I'm like, yeah, maybe next time let's not run directly at the Sith Lord. Like, let's be coordinated in how we go about this.

And it's like a very delightful place to be in life, I have to say. I wake up every day and I'm like, I can't wait to talk to enthusiastic young people about the business they're starting. But even more pertinently, some people lose, unfortunately, lose an arm or a limb, but you can still function. I think the greatest tragedy is when people lose themselves. That's the moment. And I've seen it with friends and people get into comedy and they have success and they do well. And you're like, oh my God, you, the shadow has come out. And it's running rampant now.

Yeah, that's the thing about those dark forces, right? You can go either way. Yeah, and especially with comedians. It seems like they're dealing with a lot of demons. Not the satirists. The satirists seems to be normal. Yeah. Jason's been great having you on.

We're going to ask you our audience questions in a second. Before we do, the question we always finish on is, what's the one thing we're not talking about that we're really? Oh, before I answer the final question, head over to our substack and subscribe. What is the URL? It's in the description. It's in the description. Just go subscribe.

Why wouldn't you? You know, I think it's such a great question. I think optimism. Everybody is so polarized. But there is actually a lot to be optimistic about. And that's why I like when people fight on our podcast, other podcasts, and they get all worked up about Trump and Kamala and the border and Brexit and all this stuff, there are much bigger issues at work that are going to to be solved by entrepreneurs, technology, and innovation that are hard for human minds to

comprehend. If you were to tell somebody living 200 years ago, our lifespan, or that you would be getting paid to talk once or twice a week on your podcast and make a living for talking into a microphone and it was recorded and then everybody else on the planet could watch it for free, that would like blow their minds. Just our lifespan would blow their minds. The average human lives 70 or 80 years. We are on the cusp of solving energy, fusion, renewables, batteries, solar, etc., nuclear.

And at the same time, we are solving superintelligence. And the ability for anybody to learn any skill has already had. happened. It's called YouTube. Like, literally, there is almost nothing you cannot learn by watching a YouTube video. And then all the Ivy League's about 10 years ago put their courses on YouTube. And I'll go watch an MIT course on macroeconomics. And I'll look and it's got half a million views. And I'm like, how is it possible that all the knowledge inside these institutions is now available for free and we're not absolutely over the moon about it. Then it's available to everybody. Like, we were not, I don't think, maybe you were, but I think two of the three of us here,

we're not ever going to get invited to the Ivy League schools. And now you can consume it all for free. And then you think about water and food insecurity and energy being solved. Well, water being solved is just an energy problem, right? Desalilamization, there's a entire countries that live off of desalienized water. And then you think about food insecurity and you think about water, well, food is just a product of water and sunlight so you could actually have unlimited food. And then, oh, these robots that Elon and a number of other companies, Boston Dynamics, are working on combined with AI, combined with the batteries, combined with energy, they're

going to be able to build anything, including themselves. The abundance that we're living with is a big part of the anxiety we have. And I think back to gratitude, which we talked about earlier in the conversation, getting back to gratitude, we should be so optimistic right now. The things that we agree on outweigh the things we disagree on 100 to 1. The problems we are solving outweigh the problems we're experiencing 1,000 to 1. Yet everybody feels bad. It's because of social media. It's because of being manipulated by politicians.

Just pause and assess the fact that. that you and everybody you know is in all likelihood going to live a long prosperous life. And even the people in the world who are living in abject poverty, that goes down 15 million, 100 million people a year, leave that designation of living in abject poverty. In our lifetime, the number of people in abject poverty will hit zero or they will be captives of a dictatorship.

In other words, they would not need to live in abject poverty. Just by buying iPhones, we had three or four hundred million people in China that were living in poverty become part of the middle class. The same thing is happening in India as we speak. The entire world is getting dramatically better. And if you feel bad about where the world is, it's because you're consuming too much social media and you're getting distracted by politicians and you're being manipulated by the media. Just pause and reflect and look around you at everybody you know and love and how well they're doing.

And it doesn't mean they have a private jet or they're famous, just means that you had a great dinner with them or that you hugged your kids and you took them to soccer, whatever you do in England with your kids. And the world is awesome right now. The world is absolutely phenomenal. And I have to keep reminding people who think we're in the middle of this existential crisis that we're not. Do you think one of the reasons that people do feel that way is that prosperity and material

success, as we talked about with individuals, is not always filling the void that people have. And so the longer we live and the more comfortably we live, the more we have time to look inward and to be unhappy. Absolutely. And you're being addicted to devices that take all of the joy out of life. If you look at what these devices actually do, we put our devices down. We had an amazing conversation for 90 minutes. I feel like I could hang out with you guys every week and have a dinner.

Like, I just felt like I met two great new friends. But you would never have that experience if we didn't put our phones away and actually give 100% of our attention to each other for 90 minutes. That's probably what people are experiencing in a very large way, and young people, especially. They are missing. It's not that these devices are causing the damage. It's that they're blocking the things that, enrich your life from happening. It's so easy to just scroll TikTok for two hours, then consume

a comedy show or go to a theater show or go have dinner with friends. And so it's blocking the joy. Young people don't have friends anymore. They're not having sex anymore. They're not partying anymore. They're staying home and they're FaceTiming their friends. And I think these devices have a lot to do with people's unhappiness and then doom scrolling. If you think about what we've done to our brains. Human brains were not designed to consume funny things, back to back for hours or tragic things. So we are firing our dopamine. And the most, right now, if we all thought about it for a second, there's probably six or seven really incredibly funny things that have happened in the world that are trending right now. And the producers are looking at one of them right now.

That's how compelling it is. You have no choice but to look at it. I don't think our brains were designed to be that stimulated. Either tragically by like, oh my God, look at all the horrible stuff that happened. The squirrel's been murdered. I can't stop thinking about this poor squirrel. And the family that had the squirrel taken from them, like there's tragedy happening all the time.

And then to subject yourself to it is literally, quite literally, the topic of a clockwork orange. Have you guys seen this film? Sure. And they pry his eyes open and he's forced to watch a feed of all the horrible things that have happened in the world over and over again. And he's a captive. We've done that to ourselves.

We literally have pried our eyes open and we're forcing ourselves to consume all the bad news and then all the good stuff and the sexy stuff and the, the funny stuff and the tragic stuff, it will make your mind, you know, get very burnt out. And I think there's a dopamine burnout that's occurring in society. That's why everybody's on edge. That's why, like, this election feels so contentious. 80% of people agree about almost every one of these issues in the United States. Now, it might be 50-50 on the candidates.

But if you look at gay marriage, abortion, or women's rights to choose, however you want to frame it, the border here in the United States, all of this is about 70 or 80% consensus. So how do we have 80% consensus on every major issue but feel like we're at war with each other? What would cause that? You're being manipulated by the media, by the politicians, by the social networks. You just have to unplug from the matrix and then assess it for yourself. Even when you talk to somebody who's like super pro Kamala, super pro Trump, if you'd actually discuss the issue, is we actually probably agree on the border. But we probably have been meant to fight about it

because I'm perceived as a left-leaning moderate and maybe you're more right-winging, I don't know, are you? Far-Far. He prefers the term far, right? He's like Maga? He's like lunacy maga? No, we're kidding. No, we're both people who were just like totally in the center and then the left went crazy. So we just were like, what the hell is this? probably most people are moderates and most people are good people. So anyway, to your question

of like what we should be talking about is the fact that we have consensus and the world's problems are being solved as we speak by good people called entrepreneurs and the people who choose to work with them. We are literally, because of what Elon did with Tesla and give them a lot of credit for this, because it used to be that in the United States, States, major cities were dealing with smog, and we were going to be living in a world like Shanghai and some of the cities in China where you would lose five years of your lifespan if you didn't smoke cigarettes because of the pollution. Like literally, if you lived in Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, like some of these places, five to ten years they estimated would come off

your lifespan. I could tell you the amount of suffering of a city with 30 million people losing five years each, 150 million years of life loss. That's like a huge tragedy. And then EVs now are working. It's like one guy put the entire world on his back and then built this incredible team. And if it wasn't for Elon going bankrupt, he literally went bankrupt trying to keep that company alive. And he pulled a rabbit out of a hat, getting some investors to bail him out when the Model S was coming out back in the day. If he hadn't done that, like, you realize there'd be a lot.

like billions of years of lifespan removed from people living in major cities, strictly because of pollution. But nobody's talking about that right now. We basically don't recognize all the good stuff that's going on. It's one of the pernicious things about human nature. I think we, as a species, were designed to avoid, like, the river with the crocodile because we didn't want to die, like quite reasonable. So we obsess over the darkness, like the pathos.

And we just have to take a moment and assess reality. Like just take a moment and assess reality. Unlimited energy, food, water, and resources for everybody on the planet has already occurred. It's just not evenly distributed. There's just some evil people blocking it from getting to other people. But we've kind of already solved all these problems. Excellent.

Well, Jason, thanks so much for coming on. Head on over to Substack where we asked Jason, your questions. Does he have any guilt, full on Alex, about running from a Democrat city because of bad policy and then moving to Texas, a well-run Republican-led state and voting Democrat again?