A (1:26)

Right, right.

B (1:27)

Well, I've recalculated it.

A (1:28)

Ok, well, you're doing one, you're doing

B (1:31)

well, we'll get to it. But you're doing well in the politics thing and you're not doing well in sports.

A (1:35)

That sounds about right. So anyway, yeah, I mean, just, you know, sports. Did you read Nate Silver's book? The most recent one came out maybe two years ago.

B (1:42)

You know, I own it and I've read around in it, but I can't say I've read it.

A (1:45)

So the line that stuck with me the most is he said that professional sports gamblers, the very best people who do this for their full time job, win 53% of the time. Right. So like, of course, you know, like politics, at least it's not completely variable. Right. Like I was at the Knicks game last night and we were up by what, eight with four minutes to go or five minutes to go and we lost. So like you just don't know. So anyway, but so you know, the first topic's not about Calci per se, it's about prediction markets. And I just used Kalashi as the sort of stand in, but it really could apply to polymarket or others too.

B (2:27)

Are there others? Calsha and polymarket are the two I even am aware of. I'm sure there are others.

A (2:32)

But you know, predict it. There's Nov. All right.

B (2:36)

Predict it was kind of early.

A (2:37)

Yeah, there's a bunch. And you know, the dcms, which is the license that the CFTC gives out for them, I think there's 14 companies in the pipeline right now. So. Plus, you know, FanDuel and DraftKings I believe, I think we've taught those before before. If the Supreme Court upholds CFTC's regulation of prediction markets, I believe that most of the sports betting companies will become prediction markets and no longer be state licensed operations as well. So. But anyway, here's the point of this. You got 36 states this fall, plus three territories are holding gubernatorial elections. And I noticed the column got sparked by me noticing something that I had been doing lately, which is when talking to people about different races, I was referencing odds on Kelshi as opposed to the most recent polling I could find. And the reason why is to me it just feels like better data. It is up to date completely. You're not looking at polling that came out eight weeks ago. You're not having to sift through like, well, who sponsored this poll and what party affiliation do they have and is it from the campaign or not? And all that other shit. And I think that this is going to be the first election in history where the perception of a race based on prediction market sentiment will materially influence the race itself. So endorsement decisions, donations, press coverage, social media following, and I think that actually is a good thing and it makes sense. Prediction markets are meant to reflect the wisdom of the crowd. And while it's not an exact science, neither is polling. And prediction markets can reach a far wider sample. And to me, even more interestingly, they don't just reflect. When you poll someone, you say, who are you voting for? Right. Prediction markets is a broader analysis by the person engaging in it where they're not just thinking about who they would support, they're thinking about who their friends would support, their neighbors would support all

B (4:42)

the information they have.

A (4:43)

Correct. And so it is a far more multifaceted analysis. And then I would, therefore, I would argue a far better predictor of the actual outcome itself.

B (4:53)

Plus the, you, you probably have a relatively low amount of low information people playing in the prediction markets. Right.

A (5:02)

You have skin in the game.

B (5:03)

But yeah, if you're talking to someone on the phone, you know, who knows who they are or what they, what they, what they know about or what their level of commitment to.

A (5:11)

So. Right. And so here's to me, like, yes, I think it's just interesting in the fact that it will be the first time where a different factor and a different type of quantitative analysis will be used in real decisions around elections. But I think there's a bigger picture to this too. Right? So I get that the traditionalists now are grasping at their pearls or like, how dare we replace the tried and true method of polling with something new online. But look, politics overall today, and this is obviously sort of a theme of this podcast in general, is it's far too controlled by either hardcore ideologues or powerful insiders, whether it be party leaders or union bosses or industry coalitions, pundits or major donors. And so much of what gets done in government either reflects the interest of the vocal ideological extremes or the powerful few. And it's all at the expense of the people as a whole. And that's why the public is so wildly distrustful of their government. And then when you add on the reality of how we elect people, which obviously our listeners are tired of hearing, which is that gerrymandering means only primaries matter in 90 plus percent of elections, and primary turnout around 10%, that's mainly made up of ideologues and special interests, means you got a democracy that is designed to only reflect the interests of the extremes and the powerful, again at the expense of everyone else. And that's not a sustainable method like that model will just not exist in perpetuity. And one of the ways that it might not exist is the country itself might cease to exist. And on top of that, the approach favored by the insiders isn't even necessarily the best approach to win for their own party. Right? So take the democratic presidential primary process. They have structured debates, completely controlled and scripted by the party, scripted events and rallies where the signs that they look handmade, they're actually mass produced. It's all bullshit. And the decisions of the people who are controlling the process, they almost entirely live inside the bubble of D.C. inside that ecosystem. And they, in many ways influence both the process, for sure, and the outcomes. That's why you get candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris who might have been qualified, maybe in each case more qualified than the people they were running against. And. But the voters didn't want them, right? And the people on the inside, they want them because either they can't think like the voters, or more likely, they're thinking about what will benefit me, how will I get the, you know, deputy special counsel to the undersecretary of the VA or whatever job, wherever the fuck it is they're trying to get. And so they missed the larger point. The prediction markets are not subject to these people at all. Right? Their data exists totally, almost totally independently of the political ecosystem. And I think that's a really good thing, because I think we need to make government and politics far more accessible. I think we need to democratize democracy itself. So obviously, we believe that that means making voting easier by putting it on people's phones. I think it means giving people the tools to directly influence public policy by them understanding how politicians think and what they need, how campaigns work, both electoral, but even more important, legislative and regulatory, and how they can use the Internet itself and the different resources, you know, online to shape legislation and regulations. And it means better capturing the wisdom of the crowd when analyzing elections. So. And also, the more that regular people take an active interest in elections, the more they'll vote, the more they'll pay attention, the more they'll get involved, and the more they'll hold their leaders accountable. And that makes it harder for the ideologues and special interests to totally dictate the agenda. And it makes it harder for demagogues on both sides of the aisles to constantly lie and get away with it. So is polling going away? No. And is good independent polling valuable? Absolutely. But I think bringing in new ways of determining public sentiment is also valuable. I think it's valuable to just ask AI what it thinks people think. And as prediction markets kind of continue to evolve, the sentiment will become even more widespread and more accurate. And that's better data points for reporters, donors, endorsers, and ultimately the voters themselves. And look, the final point here is, I get it. It's a change in the way things are done, and change always scares people in power. But unless you're really happy with the way things are, who could disagree that we need change? We need desperately. The system, the way that it's constructed, is not gonna hold it's already breaking. We already have Donald Trump. And so if you wanna move power back away from the extremes and back to the people, then you need different methodologies, tools provided different tools to do it. And I think the prediction markets is a useful step towards that.

B (10:07)

So what? Polling is obviously a big industry, right? It's a major money source for consultants and stuff.

A (10:14)

Yeah. I mean, big. But what happens to it? Well, I think it'll have to evolve. I think it already is. But I think part of the challenge of pollsters have faced and haven't really solved is how do you reach people? You know, polling worked best when everyone had a landline and answered their phone. Now no one has a landline and you don't answer a call unless you already know who it's coming from. And as a result, it's really hard. So now they do different types of online surveys and panels, but those are also in many ways flawed because they're trying to capture specific demographics in a way that's really hard to do.

B (10:50)

And the models are much stranger than I think most people realize. Right. I mean, the way they take their sample and extrapolate it.

A (10:57)

Yeah, they have to. And in fairness to them, you know, if you want to poll 800 people, you're going to pay 50 grand for that, right?

B (11:03)

It's 50 grand for 800 people, typically, yeah. Wow.

A (11:06)

So.

B (11:07)

So are you still paying for polls

A (11:09)

when sometimes you would? Yeah, because here's where polling does sort of still matter. Not usually, in my view anymore, to determine public sentiment on something, it can be helpful, but it is useful in convincing people still on the inside of certain things. Right. So if we want to pass a law somewhere being able to show legislators, reporters, staffers, advocates, a poll from a pollster that they do trust, and it might just be because it's someone that they know. It might not even be that this pollster is particularly great at their job. That has persuasion value. So, yes, we still do use it. And also keep in mind, as widespread as prediction markets are, if I'm trying to figure out support for universal School Breakfast in New Jersey, that's not really something to be able to test on. Cowshe. Right. So, yes, there is still a role for it. And keep in mind, political polling is still a relatively small industry in the big scheme of things, but market research is obviously a very much bigger industry, and I do think that will evolve. But I also think. And that's not what this column was about, but I think that market research could also very much become something that prediction Markets handle well.

B (12:28)

I read like Nate Silver's kind of weekly update of the popularity of Trump. You know, he does his breaking down of polls and he has his waiting strategies and all those various sort of levers that he uses. And then I realized when I was looking at Koshi this morning that like a lot of what I go to him for is actually much cleaner and clearer on Kalshee, you know, so like.

A (12:48)

Well, that's the other thing. So the, the other risks that people are threatened by prediction markets in a way, I don't know native or particularly. He seems pretty open minded in general

B (12:58)

and also pretty adaptable. I would.

A (13:00)

Yeah, but. And tech friendly. But overall the experts who are make money one way or another because they supposedly understand how to analyze things. If you don't need them anymore, then you know, that's, that makes them less useful and they're going to fight to protect the status quo.

B (13:19)

So I looked up Trump not making it through his term.

A (13:23)

Yeah.

B (13:23)

You know, and the numbers were way higher than I expected.

A (13:26)

What were they?

B (13:27)

So 42% the current vote or percentage on couches. 42% that he will be gone before Inauguration Day 2020.

A (13:36)

So that would mean he'd have to die because this cabinet is never going to invoke the 25th Amendment no matter what they were. They were hired.

B (13:45)

42% chance he's dying. That's what people.

A (13:47)

Seems very to me. I mean I know he's older, but, you know, he seems sort of indestructible and he is certainly not gonna leave for any reason of his own volition. He's never gonna get, I mean he,

B (14:00)

his mental health does seem to be deteriorating.

A (14:03)

But he's not gonna get impeached by. You need 2/3 of the Senate. So even if the Democrats take the House back and send it to the Senate, you're not gonna get. They didn't impeach him after January 6th. So the only way that he goes out is, you know, on a stretcher. And I just, you know, it's possible. But 42% sounds really high to me.

B (14:24)

So I want to quickly update on your, your prediction sort of portfolio on the politics stuff. You, you bought Rubio at 19 cents to be the Republican nominee. He is now up to 25. So you're doing well there. You bought AOC at 10 cents to be the Democratic nominee. Not because you definitely thought she would be. But your point was you thought 10 was a good buy and then it would go up from here. So she's basically the even. She's at 9.6. You bought Newsom at 19 cents to be the next president. Same sort of thing. You just like the number that's even. You took the Democrats to win the house at 81 cents. That's up to 86 cents.

A (14:58)

Yeah.

B (14:59)

And you pick the Democrats to win the Senate. Again, you like the price at 41 cents. That is now up to 52 cents.

A (15:04)

Yeah, I mean, that's actually, in some ways, it's. I was having dinner last night with a friend and we were talking about the Democrats taking the Senate. And the debate that we were having is the point that I was making was how much does it really matter? Meaning that the Democrats have an exceptionally great chance of taking the House. If they do, then there's no ability for Trump to just jam through legislation anymore. And whether. So whether you have a Democratic House or Democratic House and Senate, it effectively serves the same purpose for that. That reason. Right. So his point was, well, the Supreme Court, that's true. But now you're sort of making a whole thesis based around nine people and whether or not any of them will die or retire, which is just a really so variable and such a tiny sample. I don't really think you can kind of, you know, make a strong case for something based on that. And then. And I don't think there's going to be much in the other way of like confirmations and stuff. So then it kind of just led to what else would actually matter? And it's. When I texted him this morning, I said I missed something that I think supports your point, which is if the Republicans lose the Senate because of Trump, especially if they don't get a deal done in Iran and gas prices stay really high and Trump tries to invoke some version of martial law to not leave in 28, they are less likely to support that. Now, look, they were fucking total chicken shit after January 6th. They could have impeached him and then he couldn't become president again. And they did not. So I wouldn't sort of.

B (16:41)

They already left the door open once.

A (16:42)

I would never overestimate these people. But, you know, I'm still, obviously, because I would prefer to not see Trump have more ability to pick Supreme Court justices alone, or appellate for that matter, that would make me inclined to want to see the Democrats win the Senate. But I think from a practical standpoint, not sure it's radically different.

B (17:06)

Just quickly, you were not as good on sports. You, you picked Detroit in the playoffs at 9 cents and then you shorted OKC at 41 cents.

A (17:16)

Yeah. Don't we not know till the.

B (17:18)

Yeah, no, the prices change, though. Yeah, we certainly. The prices move. So Detroit is down to three cents.

A (17:24)

That's just an overreaction to game. One of that.

B (17:26)

OKC is up to 50 cents. You pick Toronto to win baseball. And at six cents, that's down to a little below three cents. Anyway, so you did well in politics. Jerry's still out on sports. You want to talk about your latest outrage of people taking calls in public?

A (17:43)

Have you noticed this? So the other day, I'm in the airport, I'd been noticing before, and it seems to always be like, young men in their late teens and early twenties. Especially young men.

B (17:55)

Okay.

A (17:55)

That's what I've been noticing. And you like bros that not only were fucking behind me on the security line at LaGuardia, but then were on my fucking flight, too.

B (18:03)

They weren't doing it on their flight.

A (18:04)

On the. As they were boarding the plane, they were just talking like, yeah, I didn't sit near them, so I don't know what they were doing after that. But, like, just like, either I know you have AirPods or headphones, fucking put them in, or hold the phone up to your ear like a normal fucking person. But, like, what's wrong with them? Why do they think this is okay? And. And like, who raised these people?

B (18:26)

Does this make you more or less upset than people not allowing you to work in at the gym?

A (18:31)

You know, I just think I'm going to write something on this. But look, whether it's people who now no longer are working at the gym or people doing that, or people. And I think everyone's sort of guilty of this, but, like, you know, basically blocking entrance and egress because they're looking at their phone and sort of holding up everybody else, or people. I see New York City who absolutely, clearly are capable of paying the subway fare, hopping the turnstile.

B (18:57)

Well, that's even a different category, wouldn't you say? Or do you put. You put them in the same.

A (19:00)

I just think it's. Generally there is a breakdown in social norms. There is a breakdown in concern for the collective good. I mean, one thing that I've been. And I'm gonna write something about this, so we'll get into more detail. But what I've been trying to figure out is, is there any example of a society that. Where everyone has equal rights under the law? And I understand that some people might say that, you know, trans for the bathrooms, whatever, but by and large, in America, people have equal rights under the law. A diverse society. So an equal society under the law, a truly diverse society where there is buy into the collective good. So in this country right now, we have equal rights under the law. We certainly have a diverse society. But I think that whether it's Donald Trump or Instagram or the lack of happiness, both as a whole, as a country and people under the age of 25 because they feel like they're not succeeding, because they don't have as much material wealth as they would like, or basic ignoring of just courtesy like the things we were just discussing. I don't think that there is a buy in to the collective good in this country anymore. So what I've been trying to figure out is that exists. I mean, the answer people give you is the Nordic, but as immigration increases there you're not seeing that. Right? So I am trying to figure out, does it exist, can it exist, has it existed and is it possible? And I don't know the answer yet, but I do believe that in this country, thanks to the asshole baby boomer generation, since the 1960s when they came into power, there has been such an emphasis on individualism and that while that might have led to some, some rights that are really important and maybe those things wouldn't have happened without it, maybe they would, I don't know. But the consequence is it's a totally zero sum society now and that's really shitty.

B (21:00)

And do you think this is. There's a specific part of this that is like particular to New York, So a kind of inability to act as like good New Yorkers?

A (21:10)

No. Well, it's funny, there should be more buy in here because ultimately, in order for this city to function, people do have to adhere to a set of social norms. And I see less of it today than I ever have. And look, there are times where crime is worse or like there are substantively worse things. But I'm just talking about the basics. And again, if you think about Eric Adams when he was running for mayor and just whining endlessly about how people didn't give him the credit he deserved for crime. What he didn't understand was even though the crime stats were pretty good, when it feels shitty, then people are still unhappy. And you know, a lot of that were things like illegal weed shops and scaffolding and E bikes and shoplifting and all that. But some of it is just basically it doesn't feel like everyone is a New Yorker and sort of buying into the collective good of the city.

B (22:06)

You want to talk about the Yale report on higher ed?

A (22:09)

Yeah. Did you read it or look at it?

B (22:10)

I did, yeah.

A (22:11)

Yeah, I thought it was really impressive. I just want to first give them credit for just having one, the self awareness to do it. Two, giving that panel the intellectual freedom. In a world where college campuses have become the most intolerant of intellectual diversity and freedom to give those professors the ability to put together such a scathing critique of their own culture and their own school and a lot to learn from there. Whether it's them talking about the lack of tolerance for different ideas or inconsistent standards around grading, around admissions, teaching students kind of the wrong underlying values about what matters in life, academics being driven by a need to not offend anybody as opposed to advanced ideas. I thought those types of things were good. I would like this even more broadly to be kicking off point for a broader reexamination of how higher education works in this country. So yes, I think all of those things are important, but I think even more important potentially is, you know, you have something like $1.8 trillion in collective student debt in this country. That can't happen, right? And maybe the answer is you don't need four years of college. Maybe it's two years of college. Maybe colleges don't need to have the fanciest dorms and athletic facilities and everything else. Maybe there should be a collective agreement to abandon the U.S. news rankings. And Eric Curtler, who owns it is a friend of mine and I love Eric, but still don't think it is good for society. Maybe there needs to be less emphasis on that. Everyone needs a broad based liberal arts education and a lot more kind of vocational training. Vocational doesn't just have to mean H Vac, it can mean law, it can mean coding, whatever. So I don't think the higher education system we have works just like Our K through 12 system is. Basically seems to be designed for the interests of the adults in the system rather than the kids in the system. And I think that's true of higher ed Tune. And so I thought the Yale report in and of itself was great. But what I would really love to see is a leader with the balls to say, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Here's what we really need to do.

B (24:26)

So we've talked about the higher ed sort of crisis various different ways over the years. But was there anything in that report that opened your eyes, like something you hadn't thought about or was sort of different than you thought or.

A (24:38)

I read a bunch of articles covered, I didn't read the report itself, so I don't Know the answer to what I thought was commendable and surprising was the level of intellectual rigor and honesty in the report itself. Was there anything that you found in terms of the findings surprising?

B (24:55)

I also, just to be candid, I did not read the report either. I read a couple of news stories about. In some columns and stuff. So I assume it did seem like they. They did a fair enough amount of research. So there probably are things, but. So we both traded long magazine stories that we read over the weekend which were not the same. And I didn't read yours and you didn't read mine.

A (25:19)

Right. So which was your long magazine story?

B (25:21)

The. The free restaurant bread.

A (25:23)

Oh, right. I think at the bear thing that was like 600 words.

B (25:26)

No, no. Yeah, so. So I go ahead with your story first. It was from the New Yorker.

A (25:30)

So Hugo. The reason though came up was not the. At least my.

B (25:33)

Yes.

A (25:35)

Long magazine stories is literally like Hugo's like reason for existence. So his mind's always gonna go so much anymore. Gonna go there.

B (25:42)

But you read along magazine. You read the Patrick Red, you're guilty.

A (25:47)

You sent me. It was a great story. He's a great writer. You sent me an article today about an insurance game in California where people are dressing up in fucking crazy in bear suits and attacking their cars and then submitting claims that they should be compensated for damages.

B (26:04)

How amazing, right? I mean, what a great scam.

A (26:07)

Oh, they got caught. So it wasn't bad. I know, I know it wasn't that great.

B (26:10)

But then maybe their bear costumes are.

A (26:12)

That's why I said to you. So this article, which I highly recommend in the New York called Slammers by the great Patrick Radkeef.

B (26:19)

There's a new book which you're gonna read.

A (26:21)

Yes, yes. Is about. It's so fucking crazy. So in New Orleans. So Louisiana is like the most plaintiff bar friendly state in the country. And it is the state where, not shockingly, if you were disbarred elsewhere, it is the easiest to get your license reinstated there. And there is a whole giant scam of lawyer, you know, injury lawyers recruiting people to drive their car into 18 wheeler trucks and do it in a way that does not cause massive injury, though sometimes it did. And then sue the trucker knowing that the insurance company, because it's Louisiana, doesn't want to go to court even when they know they're completely being scammed, so they just settle anyway. And it became this very widespread. And then it spread to fake surgeries and all kinds of other stuff too. But you know, look Whether it's that or the bear costume thing, I think what I was at least wondering about is is this just kind of a modern day version that's always existed, which is there are always people who will use fraud to try to get ahead. Or is it that we have a society that has so much inequality? I guess this is sort of the far less argument for why criminals are never guilty. There's so much inequality and so much emphasis and that the only way to feel good about yourself is by being sort of rich. That people will basically now go to any length whatsoever to try to get there.

B (27:47)

Yeah, I mean, I think there's a long history of scams in the country. So I don't know that there's. And one of the things about these two scams is that they're kind of like really old fashioned sort of scams. I mean they're not like, I mean how much money is disappearing in crypto scams and various sort of Internet related things. These are like real world, like risks have to be taken that are like materials, you know. So you kind of, I mean, particularly the bear scam. I mean it's.

A (28:14)

I mean it's awesome. I mean they got caught, but yeah, they got caught.

B (28:18)

So here's just a random question that I want to ask you about the 150.

A (28:22)

Do you think the bear people are also furries? That's why they have the costumes maybe.

B (28:29)

How polite are you to your AI?

A (28:31)

I have found myself saying like thank you and please, you do say thank you. Not always, but because on one hand when you just, if you just write back, you're just wasting compute and energy. Right, Right. So you actually should not.

B (28:44)

So you'll literally say thank you.

A (28:46)

Just that I have done it before.

B (28:48)

Wow, that's so.

A (28:49)

But also, keep in mind it's a, it's a broader thing. It's a symptom of a broader issue, which is AI is coded to flatter you. Right. And tell you what you want to hear. And as a result of that, you are, you are more likely to use that platform as opposed to others and you're more likely to consume more compute, which makes anthropic or chat or whoever more money. And in my sort of endless desperation for external validation and affirmation, I put in a memo of everything that talks philanthropies has done. And I put into Claude and said, tell me which other foundations, individuals have the kind of approach that we have to philanthropy and then ranked us based on impact and all this other stuff. And I. Claude Basically told me how great I was and I thanked it, you know. So, you know. Yes. Are you polite to AI?

B (29:47)

I go back and forth. I never say thank you. Just say that.

A (29:50)

Do you ever say please while you're writing?

B (29:52)

I've had. I have said please.

A (29:53)

I mean, the thing is when I write texts and emails, if I have a request, I usually try to say please. So I think partly it's also just ingrained in you.

B (30:04)

So for the World cup games at MetLife Stadium.

A (30:06)

Yes.

B (30:07)

The.

A (30:07)

By the way, I didn't know till yesterday that you guys are. You and Jenna are curating this whole, like, set of programming at the bookstore around the World Cup. It's awesome.

B (30:16)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

A (30:17)

I didn't know until yesterday.

B (30:18)

We're having a foosball tournament at the. Yeah, I believe you greenlit the.

A (30:22)

I did the whole thing yesterday. The Literary World Cup. You're gonna have speakers, we're gonna show the games. Like, I. I thought it was great. I had no idea till yesterday.

B (30:31)

Yeah, the foosballs I'm most excited about.

A (30:34)

Well, as we get closer, we'll give all the details in case any listeners want to come by.

B (30:39)

So the. The fight over the train fare to the stadium. So I guess they're going to reduce the parking almost to nothing. I don't think you're going to be able to drive to games there. You're going to have to take mass transit. Almost everyone's going to have.

A (30:52)

What's the advantage of not taking. Of using a parking lot that seats that still fits top 10. I don't know, 20, 000 cars.

B (30:59)

We looked it up actually, because I was curious. It said. At least the thing we looked up said there are 28, 000 parking spots there.

A (31:04)

That's like that giant structure that connects the mall to the stadium and then also the lot itself.

B (31:09)

I just think. I'm not sure. Maybe it's probably totally.

A (31:11)

There's nothing worse than trying to drive to my life stadium.

B (31:14)

Yes, there's nothing worse.

A (31:15)

I'm going to take the trade.

B (31:16)

Yeah, but they. So the fare for the train because they obviously have to increase the number of cars.

A (31:23)

Is it really that it did? I mean, by the way, per. Selfishly, if I'm paying. I think I paid 2500 bucks a ticket. Right. If I'm paying that much, you're telling me that I can have a less unpleasant train ride and I have to pay 150 bucks as opposed to 15 bucks? Like, I'm very happy to do that. Well, what. But it's gonna be.

B (31:46)

Do you think it's gonna not?

A (31:47)

Well, my thought was, but. But I didn't realize the parking thing was supply demand, which was that, you know, you raise the price of something, then demand definitionally goes down. And I thought, well, people will. Then more people choose to drive instead, which, of course, now I think about it doesn't make any sense as a public policy. So it's basically going to pay 100 bucks and it's going to be equally miserable as it is to go to a Giants game.

B (32:10)

I think it's going to be pretty bad. I mean, it's hard to imagine, especially since they've never done anything with this volume out to the stadium. So it's like, how are they going to get that right the first time? It seems extremely unlikely.

A (32:20)

Yeah, I think I'm going to the first. Is Brazil, Morocco, the first game?

B (32:23)

I don't know.

A (32:23)

June 12th? I don't know, but I'm going to one of the first games. Are you going. Have you decided to go at all?

B (32:29)

I'm just going to wait. But I'm going to go. But I'm just going to wait. I'm going to go. I just. There's a. There's an interesting Sweden game that's in Dallas. I can't remember who they're playing. Sweden. Tunisia, I think is in Mexico and Sweden is playing.

A (32:44)

It might be possible that a flight and a hotel and a ticket somewhere else is still cheaper than a ticket here.

B (32:51)

Yeah, I think that. Well, also, depending on, you know, who the game is. Right. Like if you, if you want to see Brazil, I think you're going to be paying a lot for that. Yeah.

A (32:58)

No matter what, I am psyched. I'm only going to go to one. There's an off chance if I'm around, I'll go to the finals. But assuming that I think I'm not going to be around.

B (33:07)

I've heard the boxes for the finals can be like a million dollars.

A (33:10)

Someone told me they had tickets, so that's why I would go. I wouldn't pay for that. I mean that. But I wouldn't even pay $10,000 worth. But, but, but, but I was willing to pay 2500 bucks for a ticket to see Brazil, Morocco just because I don't like soccer. So this is presumably the only time in my life I'll ever go to the World Cup. Whereas you. How many games do you think you might end up at over the course of the tournament?

B (33:34)

You know, the funny thing is, I don't really. I don't I really like watching game. The soccer is a great TV sport. So I don't. I mean, it will be.

A (33:42)

It'll be great to go to live soccer game.

B (33:45)

Really? You'd probably be bored.

A (33:47)

Probably will be.

B (33:48)

I mean, if you're seeing a great game.

A (33:50)

Well, my thought was I know a few people going who are like having tailgate parties, so my thought was to get there like a couple of hours in advance and hang out with them. So it might be that at that point, you know, you had a few drinks and you're not really noticing.

B (34:04)

Anyway, our friend LeBron James recently got in trouble again for dissing Memphis. You know, he just said how much he hates going to games there, playing there.

A (34:13)

I don't know. He's been in the league for 21 years. He's been in all the cities, you know, lots of times. He's entitled his opinion.

B (34:19)

His opinion is fine. But here I'm going to put it to the question to you this way. So LeBron James comes to you and says, I need com's help. I want to make a difference.

A (34:26)

He has Adam Mendelssohn for that.

B (34:28)

What's that?

A (34:28)

Our friend Adam Mendelssohn.

B (34:29)

I know, but I don't think he's doing a good job. And I don't want to make people angry for no real gain. On the other hand, I want to be free to speak my mind and not consistently filter myself because I think that's unauthentic. What advice would you give me?

A (34:42)

I don't have that in the sense that, I mean, I'm not from a public standpoint, 1.1 millionth of LeBron James, but I suffer from the same challenge, which is I speak my mind. For those of you listening to this podcast, it's partly why you like. It is, you know, I'm just gonna say where the fuck I think, but oftentimes it cost me. Right. It hurts us on the business front. So I kind of feel like you have to make a choice. And by the way, you know, I'm just as likely to compliment someone or something as I am to critic. But I have made the choice that the only way that I know how to exist and feel true to who I am is to speak my mind, and I'll accept the consequences that come with it. So I don't know of a better answer than that. Do you?

B (35:26)

No, not necessarily. Just curious. I mean, his statements obviously have kind of major repercussions.

A (35:35)

You know, like, it makes me wonder, maybe he just doesn't care at all. But if he's going to retire, because obviously now he just set himself up to be booed viciously. If he goes, you know, if he plays next year, he's gonna. Unless he, you know, skips it, he'll have to go to Memphis. And I wonder if he's just like, I'm done and I'm not going to announce my retirement till after the season, obviously, but I'm never going. I will in my life, literally never step foot in Memphis again.

B (36:00)

So Apple named a new CEO. John Curtis will succeed Tim Cook. Tell me what.

A (36:07)

Here's what I'm thinking about a little bit now. I know very little about Turn. It's like literally I read one or two articles.

B (36:12)

Had you ever heard of him before?

A (36:13)

Nope. Nope. Apple is also a very much a black box in the sense that, like from a public affairs world, like, I've. I don't know anyone that works for them. Like, I don't know, works there internally. I don't know when that does, like their ads or their polling or like anything. Right. So it's like a total vibe around their campus, I guess. Here was the thing I was thinking about, which is you have the visionary that creates a company, then you have the successor. Sometimes that's a family member of the visionary, sometimes not, and then eventually the successor leads. What I'm curious about is kind of the pattern, right? So sometimes a visionary creates something, it takes off. It's amazing. But the visionary is not a great manager and you need to bring someone professional in to do that, and they might actually become a more successful company, albeit less interesting. So if you take Apple, Steve Jobs is a visionary. He built something amazing. Tim Cook's not a visionary. He's a functional manager. He's an excellent manager, but that's what he is, the CEO. Apple might, I think, did make more money under Tim Cook than it did under Steve Jobs. It's obviously much less special of a company now than it used to be. And then I'm curious of the history when you're on sort of now CEO number three, Is it just a long, steady decline? Is it kind of.

B (37:42)

Well, they heard many other CEOs in the mix before that, but, yeah, they did. Yeah. Steve Jobs came because he came and went.

A (37:47)

But basically the Jobs era, you're right. Yeah, we have the Jobs era. And then when he died. Tim Cook.

B (37:53)

Yeah, Correct.

A (37:54)

Right. So I'm thinking about Walmart or, you know, you just have all. Every company is started by somebody with that. Any company that you've ever heard of that's meaningful was started by somebody with vision, right? And then eventually they died or retired or got thrown out or whatever else. And I'm sure there are like, you know, case studies and books, you know, management books written about this. But you know, I was more just wondering, I don't know the answer of what is the pattern? Is it and is it like, can you almost predict, okay, by CEO? If you look at the historical patterns, CEO number three, let's call it, in the sort of big era type things, is the person that brings it closer back to where the visionary was or is a further degradation because the person who took over from the visionary was closer to that vision and kind of how does it unfold? I mean ultimately companies fail, right? The great companies of 100 years ago, General Motors or General Electric or Union Carbide or Standard Oil, US Steel, US Steel either don't exist at all or are shallows of what they used to be. Right? So that is sort of what happens invariably over a long period of time. But in that first, I don't know, 10 to 50 year period, how does it work? That's what I'm just was kind of wondering about, you know.

B (39:18)

And you're wondering like, do you think

A (39:19)

not because it, I don't buy and sell stocks, so I don't care. It's not going to impact that. But I'm just curious about like, you know, how do you, you know when, when companies are doing succession planning, when they're picking, like if you were Apple in that board meeting, picking the CEO, you could see a few different thought patterns, right? One would be, here's where Tim Cook was weak and this person has strengths to fix that. Another would be, we love Tim Cook. He taught our choice. He's retiring, it's his choice. Here's where he was strong. Here's the person we think best replicates that. Another could be Apple has made a lot of money under Tim Cook, but is no longer in any way a visionary company and we need to recapture some of that magic for our long term health or just to want to be affiliated with this thing. So we're going to pick it. Another would be the director saying I want to keep being a director of Apple and I'm just going to make the politically salient choice for myself. Right. I don't, I don't know. I'm more curious.

B (40:21)

Do you think there's also a possible, just best available talent thing? They want an insider, they make that kind of basic choice and then they just, whoever the guy, whatever division he comes from.

A (40:31)

You know, it'd be a good idea someone should make a TV show, a fictional script, a TV show, but based it on like a real life family empire, like media, like the Murdochs or something. And. And then have like the founder, the visionary leave and then maybe a competition between the. Imagine how children and others.

B (40:47)

How boring the Apple show would be just compared to succession.

A (40:50)

Yeah.

B (40:51)

Yeah. Okay, we have two quick more questions I want to ask you. So number one, are refs in the NBA calling too many fouls? Yes, they are. And what's done about it?

A (41:00)

Call us fucking fouls. Let them play. Like, I was, I was at the game last night and I've also. I was out of town this weekend, so I wasn't in game one for the Knicks, but I was watching some of the games, like just let them play a little more. Stop calling everything. And the reality is you could call. So like I've sat this season a couple times right on the baseline at games. And so you're right under the basket. There are multiple fouls in every play. Right. And it seems almost arbitrary as to when they decide that someone's contact was a foul as opposed to normal course of play. And I just think that like this is oftentimes, and you see this in a lot of different parts of the world where the people on the inside who are sort of bureaucrats and refs are like the bureaucrats of the NBA in a way. Like, they believe that process is more important than substance. And they're letting process, meaning their thing, become overtake the game. And if nothing else, I'm not even complaining. The Knicks blew it last night because the Knicks were fucking terrible. Mike Brown coached terribly. The free throw shooting was terrible. Like it was not the ref's fault that the Knicks lost, but in either direction, just like let them play the fucking game. We're not here to watch some ref, like exercise their judgment about a loose ball foul. Like we're there to watch basketball. And I just, this is just, I think often though, what happens is that like in any form, people on the inside become so obsessed with their own systems and their own significance that they ruin the underlying product.

B (42:29)

One more question. We saved the best to last. What do you need to do to become the bail bondsman to the stars?

A (42:36)

Yeah, so there was an article. This is, there's an article in the Post today. And forgetting about the substance of the article, it had the phrase and they brought in so and so the bail bondsman to the stars. I was thinking like, how low Level can you get and still be the something to the stars? Right? Like podiatrist to the stars, Uber X driver to the stars. You know, like just ems.

B (43:03)

I think you can go pretty data

A (43:05)

analyst to the stars. Like how low can you show data entry to the stars?

B (43:10)

Like customer service specialist.

A (43:12)

I was thinking about it when I was kind of making the list in my head. Things that are sort of personal services probably do exist. So like there is probably. I have sort of like flight attendant to the stars. I'm like, no, that probably. Is that actually because like the person on their private plane, whatever it is. So there are definitely things where it is. But on the flip side, like fishmonger to the stars.

B (43:34)

Deli slicer to the stars.

A (43:35)

Yeah, right. Is there some point where it ceases to be? It's just absurd, right?

B (43:41)

Bail bondsman is pretty good.

A (43:43)

What?

B (43:43)

Bail bondsman is pretty good.

A (43:44)

Very good. And then on the flip side, could you argue that it is a sign of, if you have that level of shamelessness and hubris to call yourself the bail bondsman to the stars, the fishmonger to the stars. Whatever it is, you know, dude, there's definitely fish on me.

B (43:59)

To the stars.

A (44:00)

Good. Good for you. Is there? I mean, do any stars buy their own fish? Yes, because it's like the most rare tuna.

B (44:08)

Sure. I think they. You know, I read an article about trash collectors to the stars.

A (44:13)

Because you actually read an article about.

B (44:15)

Yeah, well, because people go through like.

A (44:17)

Is it a long form article?

B (44:18)

No, it wasn't. It wasn't that long. It wasn't enjoyable because it was too short. Anyway.

A (44:24)

Recommendations I do not have. I have one. It's a little. It's. If you discover something that is both really well known and been around for a long time and you start watching it or reading it or listening to it, does that still count?

B (44:38)

Yes, of course it does.

A (44:39)

So have you ever seen the show Sons of Anarchy? No.

B (44:41)

I know what it is though.

A (44:43)

Right? You just got into it just like a week ago.

B (44:45)

I think that's a perfect kind of recognition.

A (44:46)

So, you know, fx, generally speaking has had a history of great shows. I've heard from someone who's been working with them lately that that's there. They've kind of fallen into more of the algorithmic type programming and fear of offending people. What made FX great was their actual slogan was fearless and it of was right. They put shit out there that was not necessarily like totally, you know, going to make everyone happy. It wasn't like kind of just the bland stuff. That you see on a lot of

B (45:15)

networks and it was designed that way. Yeah.

A (45:17)

And it was awesome. I have seen less of that out of FX in the last couple of years, but for some I was looking for something to watch and I was scrolling around Hulu and I went to live like an FX section, I guess they're owned in part of that network, that Empire. And I had never seen Sons of Anarchy. So I was like, I'll just try the pilot. It was fucking great. So I'm like through, I don't know, the first 11 episodes of season one. All right, you heard it here last. Yeah, well, when I do cardio, I like to have TV to watch. And so, yeah, look, if it's very violent, but you know, it's about biker gangs and cops and family, they made

B (46:00)

a shit ton of it too. So you're going to have a many seasons. Yeah.

A (46:03)

And we'll see if it holds. But like, like, I will just say that I, I thought it was excellent and if, if you like FX type shows and are just looking for something to watch, check it out.

B (46:13)

Good. All right, Brady.

A (46:14)

All right, thanks.

B (46:15)

Till next time,

A (46:19)

Firewall is recorded at my bookstore, PNT, where located at 180 Orchard street on the Lower east side of Manhattan. We'd love to hear from you with questions, feedbacks or idea for a guest. Just email me at Bradley Firewall Media or find me on LinkedIn. And to keep up with what's on my mind and my latest writing, please follow my new substack at bradleytus substack. Com. Thanks again for listening.