A (2:21)

But I want to talk. I want you to teach us all about prediction markets. And it woven into that is your new project Predictable. And this apparently is not. It's not replacing any of your other projects. So you're still explaining me. You still have your show at Blaze.

B (2:40)

Yeah, so I'm still doing. So I had Studios America for. I think we did it for six years. And then when we were starting this new project Predictable, it was like, well, I don't know. That was the. That show was just me. You know, there's a lot to do. So I was like, well, I don't know if we can do that. Anymore, at least the same way. And we were looking for maybe we add to the show a little bit. We added Dave Landau, comedian, you know him from BlazeTV. He'd had a show called Normal World on BlazeTV. So now it's Stu and Dave Do. America needed more than one person for an entire country to do. So we picked up Dave and it's been, you know, he's very funny, very funny guy.

A (3:12)

Do you guys have regions or you just.

B (3:15)

That's a good point. When it's warm, I like to take the warmer regions. He's from Detroit, so he can have all those places that are dark and slushy and, you know, all that. But I. It's. It's a lot of fun. He's a really funny guy. You know, he's done, you know, comedies on. Last Comic Standing is on. He does Rogan all the time and he's, you know, all over the place, really funny and one of the sane people in that industry. So it's kind of fun to talk to him. And then we have Predictable, which is the new project, as you mentioned, on prediction markets. Kind of like a. It's a news show basically through the lens of prediction markets.

A (3:49)

Yeah. And politics. Heavy, probably.

B (3:52)

Yeah. Especially this year. You know, I think as we're going into an election, one of the things I used to do on. The one thing that I do have is a big change for me at least, is I'm no longer with Glenn on the Glenn Beck program, on the radio show, at least on a regular basis. You know, we still hang out and he comes on my show on his. But that was one of the big things I did over there. Right. Was look at the, look at polling and, you know, demographics and prediction markets and as a big picture to try to figure out what the heck was going on. Because I feel like we've had a situation over the past, I don't know, three or four elections where a lot of people were surprised by the results and, you know, I don't think that needs to be the case. I think we should be able to dig into the data and find at least a better signal rather than just listening to the noise.

A (4:36)

Yeah. And. And I remember many years doing sort of election night things at the Blaze and you were always the. Everyone had their passionate opinions, but you're the only one that actually brought data to the table.

B (4:50)

Yeah. Glenn used to call me the little black rain cloud, because whenever there was bad news, I'd be the one saying, you know, actually Mitt Romney's not gonna win this election. But, you know, it's true. I'm a sort of a data nerd. Like the stuff I, you know, growing up, I loved looking at stats for sports and just, you know, I was one of my only. The only people I knew at my age who just loved spreadsheets. That didn't get me a lot of girls at the time, but it was, it is, it did turn into something, at least later on in life.

A (5:20)

You know, I had the same experience reading turgid tomes of Austrian economics in high school.

B (5:27)

That wasn't, wasn't like Ladies Night as soon as you open.

A (5:29)

And I was, I was like, let me, let me tell you about Ludwig von Mises and a. It didn't.

B (5:34)

It's so crazy. Although I think it worked out for you eventually, honestly. And actually, Ludwig von Mises mentions probably

A (5:40)

wound up working well in your life eventually. Terry fell for it. Exactly. So I'll start by pointing out I was just talking to somebody about the increasing difficulty of using polling and getting people, the people that you actually want to talk to, actually getting them to respond. And now we call, but calls don't work and we text and then people get burned out. And I suspect that it's true based on the questions, but also based on the tech and based on the biases of who actually picks up the phone, that that sort of predictive analysis is becoming less and less reliable.

B (6:28)

I think that's true. And I think it's also becoming a lot more expensive to do. Right. Which makes it a lot less reliable as well. You know, the response rates are down by something like 80 or 90% from what they were, you know, go back 15, 20 years. People don't answer their phones. I mean, when's the last time if you didn't recognize a number that you answered your phone? Nobody does it, right. For a long time they weren't even calling cell phones. They did start doing that. They've tried. I mean, I think there is a honest effort in the polling industry to try to solve a lot of the problems that they've had. I do think that, you know, there are some bad actors, but generally speaking, I think they really want to try to do this. It's just incredibly hard these days to get anybody on the phone. And to. You mentioned kind of a response bias issue. That is a massive thing because obviously you could just do Internet stuff, right? It would be easy to just, you know, set up a. And people have tried to do this. They set up basically like large councils, right, where they will have the Same people they'll pull over and over and over again. But who signs up for that? Who agrees to that? Only someone who's massively engaged in politics, who cares a lot. It gives you a much, a much smaller window into an average person's life who's like, you want me to do what, every four weeks? Like, no, I'm not doing that. I'm not going on some website and answering your stupid questions for a half an hour every, every month. So it has become really, really hard. And I think that's one of the things you've seen where Trump has outperformed his polls. I mean, I think that is a real factor. The people who vote for Donald Trump are not the people who are going to be answering their phones from some random pollster. And if they do, they don't want to talk to them. They think a lot of times things are kind of like, you know, skewed against them. So it's been very difficult for these companies to adapt. They are attempting it. They've tried to adjust for things like education levels and geographical concerns and racial concerns and all these things. But, I mean, you know, it's a little bit of art, you know, and it's a lot of magic kind of thrown in there. I think if you look at the bigger picture, you kind of look at that as one element, right? You say, okay, hey, these polls can give us. What I would say is like, they're not surgical instruments, they're blunt instruments. A pole can do a pretty good job as to telling you whether a race is close or not or whether it's a blowout. Like, if we want to say, hey, like, you know, what percentage of people are pro life in this country, you'll get a general sense. But when you're talking about an election, a poll is going, it can't tell you whether it's 42 or 41% reliably. It's never been able to do that. People want that. But it's, in a way, not really what polls are designed to do. They're not designed to tell you exactly who's going to win. They're going to give you, like, a little bit of an area of these two candidates. And when it's close, they're going to get a lot of them wrong.

A (9:10)

So I want to get into the reliability of prediction markets when it comes to politics. But I feel like, and I was at an event where you spoke last night, and, and I learned a lot that I didn't know. So I feel like giving people sort of a 101. What's, what's going on? And, and what, what do these platforms look like?

B (9:29)

Well, the two. Well, three big ones and the first one was called Predict it, which was kind of an older one that is still available and had some limitations on it. But in 2024, there was a legal decision, you know, with the CFTC that basically allowed these things to be everywhere. That's why you're hearing about them all the time, right? Like they were kind of like only nerds kind of looked at them before this and now they're kind of everywhere. And basically what they are is they will give you a very specific question. Will this person win or not? You know, will the stock market be above this level on this date or not? Will Bitcoin hit 150,000 by the end of the year or not? And you just have a yes or no answer to that. It's, you know, really simple. If you can kind of, you know, if you have a. It's a very simple thing to use. There are advanced ways to use it, but basically common. The, the basics of it is if you look at the, the number that you'd see on one of these prediction markets, Kalshi Poly Market, you'll see a number, it's like a percentage, right? 50%. There's a 50% chance something's going to happen. If you think it is going to happen, you buy it at 50 cents. And if it does, if you're correct, it ends up at a dollar. So you can basically double your money in that circumstance. If you're wrong, it goes to zero and you lose all your money. That's essentially how these things work. They will change throughout time. You know, like you look at Eric Swalwell, for example, right when he was running for governor, he was one of the favorites at one point. And then all of a sudden people started saying, hey, you've done a lot of really creepy things throughout your life on a daily basis. Perhaps you shouldn't be the leader anymore. And before the polls changed, you saw these prediction markets sink down and then drop to almost zero before he even dropped out. It's a way of kind of being able to see this as you go. And it provides, I think, two things. One, if you are interested in investing in these things, you can make some money. Like if you, if you follow something closely, something that you really care about, if you care about politics, if you watch your local senator all the time and you know how they fold at the time for a big vote, and you can predict that in advance you can profit off of that. And secondarily, I think for the more mass market, it is able, it's a way to be able to kind of cut through all the nonsense. You know, we've seen it over the years. There's a lot of people in the media that we know and love. But, you know, it's, it's a, it's kind of a mess. The landscape's kind of a mess. Right. It's hard to get the truth and it's hard to get even. People at times I almost wonder like, am I listening to someone who even believes what they're saying, let alone if they're right or not, Are they even saying what they believe? It's so hard to sift through that if it's not your full time job. These markets have a way of just doing that because people are putting their money where their mouth is. And I think you would agree with the sentiment that markets improve outcomes. And this is a really good example when it comes to information. This is the first time markets are really applied toward that goal. And I think it's an incredible innovation in our society.

A (12:20)

You know, a big conversation last night was about the abuse of inside information. And I'm thinking about this again like the same Austrian economist that kept me from dating girls in high school. There's this idea, particularly in the Austrian school, about personal knowledge. Every one of us has the particular knowledge of our time and place and we know things that nobody else knows. And if you think about that, the whole point of a market is for people to share that knowledge, exchange that knowledge, compete with what they know versus what someone else knows. And that process creates what one of my professors called a greater social intelligence. And that sounds kind of commie, but it's just like free people figuring stuff out, solving problems and sharing that information. And so I've always had a problem with the concept of insider trading because obviously somebody's always going to know more than somebody else.

B (13:27)

Yeah, this is a really interesting part of how these things are rolling out, because it is, because it was on a legal decision and then it was like open the floodgates three weeks before the election in 2024. These things have hit a lot of people in the face. They're new, they're novel, and they're interesting to people. You know, there's a million stories every day about how, you know, this guy in France went up to a thermometer on a weather, he had a weather position in one of these prediction markets overseas. And he put the Hairdryer up to the thermometer to raise the temperature. So he could win $100,000 or something. You know, he's under investigation. There's a different story like that every day. You know, all these publications, I didn't see them at all when there was Covid fraud going on. I didn't see them at all when there's fraud in Minnesota going on. None of them cared about any of these things. There's Medicare fraud going on every day a thousand times as big as any of these stories, but none of them ever seem to care or report on any of it. You know, in a way, I understand that. Right. It's interesting, it's new and it's kind of, you know, it's. It is something that is highlighted. Look, the bottom line is in the United States, insider trading is illegal. I think me and you can have a really interesting academic nerd fest on whether that's a good idea. When these markets first came into, when they were first kind of conceived, it was basically DARPA who was sent trying to find a way to how can we predict the next terrorist attack. And hey, maybe we make a market and we let people inside intelligence say, you know, actually, I think Somalia right now is a real problem because they have that expertise and maybe they're getting squashed by the bureaucracy. It's a really innovative idea. As soon as it came out of the media, people were like, how dare you bet on terrorism? Right? Like that was the reaction. So they shut it down almost immediately. There was the Wisdom of Crowds, a book that kind of went a little bit deeper on this. And these prediction markets started. When we look at the greater good for the, for the average American, I'd argue that insider trading is actually a positive for these markets. That is against what the CFTC will tell you, what Kalshi or Poly Market US will tell you, that it is illegal and you, you can't do it. And by the way, if you're thinking about it, don't. It's not worth it. You almost definitely will get caught. That being said, when you think about it as just like information, if the point of this is to bring us better information, it. There shouldn't be a problem with that. There was a controversy on, I think it was Kalshi last year where it seemed allegedly that someone inside of Spotify, someone who had the visibility on data at Spotify, was waiting until right before the data was going to come out and then buying some very small position, some long shot on a Spotify stream market. What Song would be streamed the most on a particular day or month. And, you know, in a way, like, if you're in that market, I can see why you'd feel burned by that. Right? Like, you know, you're like, gosh, that person knew. And I had a. I didn't know. And it's unfair. At the end of the day, the point of that information getting out is what these markets are supposed to do. And it did efficiently do that. The other thing is if you're a person taking a position on the other side saying it's not going to be that song at number one, you know, I mean, at the end of the day, you didn't have that information. Somebody at Spotify had it. The fact that you were wrong, this is the result of being wrong. You lose your money. That's the whole situation. So I think as far as information to the public, it's better. I think these companies, though, are going to say it's a bad experience for traders and it pisses them off. When we're pissing off our customers, we're going to do our best to try to stop it. And that's why they keep announcing when they find these people, they're trying to show, hey, we're going to stop this from going on. Even though I think maybe as a purist, it does sort of degrade a little bit the type of information that you're getting or the quality or at least the speed of it.

A (17:24)

Thank you for joining me today on

C (17:25)

Kibbe on Liberty and for being part of our fiercely independent audience. Every week, my organization, Free the People, partners with BlazeTV to bring you this show. My guests bring smart perspectives on everything from current events to timeless philosophical debates. If you like what you hear, go to freethepeople.org kol and support Kibbe on Liberty so we can continue to produce these honest conversations with interesting people. Now, let's get back to it.

A (17:55)

I think their problem that I'm just learning about is similar to almost all sort of online communities and what the rules are. Forget the government. Government and regulation will screw up everything but the community. And perhaps the platform has a responsibility to come up with a set of rules that allow for fair play. And again, this is another idea that Friedrich Hayek talks about a lot. Like the rules that we follow that hold communities together. They didn't come from Congress. They came from people figuring out what are the rules that will allow us to peacefully cooperate with each other. And I think it's all digitally online, all these, you know, spontaneous communities that emerge they're trying to figure out how that is going to work. So, like, all the chaos and, you know, the guy with the hairdryer, there's a lot of incentives for the community to police itself and certainly the platforms to make sure that the user experience feels fair.

B (19:04)

Yeah, I think that's right. And I think that's where this lands in eventually. You know, I. These stories are sexy to the media because it's this new thing and it feels like, gosh, we're, you know, they always want to have some story about how we're spiraling out of control. You know, AOC has said this. You know, John Oliver just did a big thing about it. It's the casinoization of America, right? You can bet on anything is what they keep saying. And it's like, well, wait a minute, think about reality for a second here. Your entire life is a series of cost benefit analysis to try to figure out how to make your life better, right? That every day you're betting on things whether you want to acknowledge that's what it is or not. You know, we all take risks, we all try to decipher whether these risks are good risks or not. And so this is a way to make it a little bit easier, I think, on people. You know, the. Trying to hedge something in your life up until prediction markets was pretty difficult. It's pretty opaque. It was one of those things that, you know, financial elites were pretty darn good at, right? They would have systems in place and large algorithms that could predict how X, Y and Z would change. And even then, you still, I mean, you've seen all the studies over the years that just putting your money in the market and just letting it roll is better than trying to pick even with some of the highest level people. This gives you a really, like, black and white way to do it. And I think it makes it much more accessible to the average person, you know, and it's also outcomes that really matter. You know, when I look at elections, which is kind of like my expertise as far as these things go, I look at this and I say, you know, the difference between, you know, a Republican or a Democrat winning in a particular, you know, election could mean thousands and thousands of dollars in taxes for me. And I've done this before where I've hedged against a particular outcome, knowing that my taxes were probably going to go up if the Democrat won. I mean, Republicans don't always do a great job with taxes either. But you know what I'm saying, there's. There's certain candidates Is that true? Occasionally. And, you know, spending is a whole nother thing. By the way, this, your audience would love the markets that predict whether Donald Trump is going to cut spending this year. I'm like, no, no, no, no, no. I can't get enough money into those markets.

A (21:12)

Yeah.

B (21:12)

But, you know, it's true. Like it is. Sometimes your cynicism can pay and sometimes your pain can pay. I mean, I know that I mentioned this to you to last night, but, like, I'm a big, you know, Philadelphia Eagles fan. One of the ways I will use these prediction markets, even though it's sports and people say there's no utility to that to me there is, because I suffer when the Eagles lose. So I want to get paid. If I'm going to get, if the Eagles are going to lose, I'm going to get paid. So I will go in and I will put a position in against the Eagles to win a game because I don't want to suffer through the terrible consequences of. And honestly, if they win the game, I'm going to be happier and happy to lose that money. That might just make me a psychotic fan. And I acknowledge that. But it's important for people, individuals to be able to make their own decisions about what they do with their own money and how to live their life and use their own resources. And of course, many people in this wonderful city you live in have a much different idea as to how that's supposed to work.

A (22:09)

It's interesting that you finally found a good reason to be an Eagles fan. I didn't see that coming.

B (22:17)

So, believe me, I mean, we're working hard. It was, I went through, let's see, from 1976 to 2017, about 40 years before a Super bowl win. So it was torture for almost all that time, but eventually it started paying off. It's been a good last, good decade, for sure.

A (22:33)

Yeah. And so, like, I, I certainly know, like, I follow Thomas Massie's race pretty close and prediction markets have gone up and down. It was fun for me to watch prediction markets. So the trend in his primary was getting closer and closer. And then Trump actually showed up in Thomas's district to campaign against him. And it was the first time that the voters had seen Thomas's primary opponent on stage and it was, it wasn't good work out. And so that the net effect of Trump's visit was like a 15 point swing in Thomas's favor. And like, I think at least that's fun.

B (23:18)

Yeah, I mean, it's, it's fun. And also I think, you know, it's a way of, you see how, you know, a poll is going to take days and days to call these people to try to react to a news event. Prediction markets will do it instantly. I remember watching the prediction markets move when I was, I was looking, I was sitting in the studio with Glenn. We're in the middle of a commercial break and we're, you know, we're watching, we're getting close to the 2024 election and we're watching up and we see Kamala Harris. She's doing an interview. We want to see what's going on in there. And I'm watching the words on the bottom of the screen. Flashbies are doing the closed captioning. And, and they ask her, is there anything that you would do differently than, than Joe Biden? And, and she's like, you know, no, I can't really think of anything. I'm like, what? How do you not have an answer to this question? This is incredible. Like this is over. How is she going to win this election after saying that this is going to be in every ad. And I, you know, go over the prediction Mark and I could just see the thing go, you know, it's ticking down, down, down, down, down in our chances to win. You know, it's a way to be able to react quickly to the news and then also to correct that reaction. Right. A lot of times we overreact to some news event in an election cycle and when someone, a trader on the other side sees that and says, wait a minute, this has moved too much. People are now too skeptical on those chances, they jump in and they set it's price discovery. It's so important for people to understand how do you know what's coming, you know, forever you go and you see people talking about it on what Fox News, on cnn, even on, you know, the Blaze will run my mouth all day long about what I think is going to happen. But you know, that's just what I think. I remember watching a Fox News, I think was Fox News broadcast about, it was about Jerome Powell changing the rates one day. And you know, it was him and Powell had this kind of public tiff like which way is this going to go? Is it going to be, you know, is Trump going to get him to lower, to lower these rates? Is, you know, is Powell going to keep them the same? And it was like put up there like it was like this 50, 50 debate. Like what's going to happen? Like Trump is putting pressure on him. What's going to Happen. You go to the prediction markets, there's like a 99.2% chance he's not lowering rates. The answer was there. There was no need to present it that way other than just to create drama for programming. Right. Like, there was no chance this was going to happen, really. Yeah, but that was a way to kind of cut through what you were watching and wasting your time on that particular day

A (25:36)

radically democratizes access to information, but also access to that personal knowledge. And I. I can see just how disruptive that is to incumbents. And I'm thinking specifically big gambling and big Wall street, and they don't like the competition. And going back to the stock market analogy, there's been so many regulations, ostensibly to keep the little guys safe from getting defrauded and screwed over by investments, that it's kind of created a closed system where you have to be an insider, you have to be wealthy, you have to have liquidity. And, oh, by the way, you have lots of inside information. So what happens, particularly when we keep inflating our currency the way we do, is that the guys inside the system can protect themselves. They can hedge against inflation. They probably understand better than most people what's actually coming. But the little guy, we keep him safe by keeping him out of that. And it strikes me that that's where the anxiety is, that everybody has a voice here. I mean, everybody's responsible for the decisions they make in these predictive markets. And I suppose that's what people demagogue against, but to me, it sounds very liberating.

B (27:09)

I agree. I mean, I'm old enough to remember when you had to. If you wanted to trade a stock, you had to call your broker and they would slowly, days later, you'd find out what price you got it at. Right. That was, I don't know, 40 years ago. That's probably what it was like. Then we saw the Internet revolution. We've seen people. Now you can just go on with a million different apps and trade in seconds. Course, there's going to be some negatives with that. Of course some people are going to do stupid things. Right. Like, you know, that is the focus a lot of times from media angles to say, oh, well, this person went on and, you know, lost their paycheck on this. Of course that can happen. No one covers when they go and lose it at the casino. No one covers it when they go and they put it on a meme stock. No one cares. Right. Like it's, it's old news. This is the new thing to complete complain about it's the new thing to nanny state over, right? We're supposed to protect everyone from themselves. Of course that you can't do that. You know, people will, people are, I mean, look, there's terrible things happening all over the world by people making terrible choices. They're, they're taking substances they shouldn't take. They're driving 117 miles an hour down a, you know, 45 mile an hour zone. They're doing things all the time. They're risky, they're eating terribly, they're drinking terribly. But they're people. And there are people that are making those choices. As long as, as they're within the law, they have that right to do that. I would not advise being particularly risky. When I talk to people about prediction markets and they're like, hey, I want to get started on this first piece of advice is like, just start small. Try to understand it a little bit before you start throwing tons of money in there. There are real opportunities, especially in an environment like this where you're making what, 3% on your savings account. You can definitely do better than that in prediction markets and without almost any risk. Right? As long as you're patient and really sober and selective over it. But like, I wouldn't advise putting your entire, you know, savings in there immediately to try to do that until you're really familiar with it. It's something that people, it's a new thing. It's important to take your time with it. But there are a lot of interests, as you mentioned, who are pushing back against them and want to kind of stop this progress. I mean, you know, Kalshi, I think, was raising money in 2024 at a $400 million valuation. They're up to about $20 billion now. I mean, this is just over a year. This is growing really, really quickly. There is competition from other markets, but also you see NASDAQ and New York Stock Exchange buying pieces of these companies, being involved with them by partnerships with them because they see this, the technology behind it as a real, real positive. You know, I have no problem with gambling. Gambling is not a bad word to me. In fact, I'm flying to Vegas tomorrow and I will certainly partake in a little bit of it. I do think that there is a, certainly a sort of fake opposition to prediction markets from that entrenched industry. And we see that, I mean, you know, you see that all the time, right? Like it's one of the heads of fighting back against prediction markets is Chris Christie, the guy who got, you know, largely responsible for Bringing the case to the Supreme Court that made it so you could legally gamble on sports nationwide. All of a sudden he cares about gambling on sports. Of course he doesn't. He's got entrenched interests and buddies that he's protecting and that's really frustrating.

A (30:20)

I like how much work the word largely is doing in that sentence.

B (30:25)

That's a great point.

C (30:26)

If you made it this far into the show, it means I must be doing something right. Key Beyond Liberty is just one of the amazing products we created. Free the People. We tell emotionally compelling stories and produce educational videos for the Liberty Curious. Our award winning documentaries personalize all things liberty, independence, creativity, hard work, integrity and perseverance. After the show, check out our work@freethepeople.org and if you like what you see, donate to support what we do. That's freethepeople.org now back to the show.

A (31:03)

I'm just going to dork out one more time. Like there's this classic concept in public choice economics called bootleggers and Baptists and it is the coalition of special interests and the people that they manipulate into thinking that they're fighting a righteous cause. And it applies to alcohol prohibition. The real people financing the Baptists rising up and opposing drinking. Like we're not going to allow to you to buy liquor on Sunday. It was the bootleggers. So you have two sets of very different interests. And I think that absolutely applies to the gambling thing because it's big gambling that is worried about abuses in this more democratized network because it destroys their model.

B (31:49)

Yeah, it does. They've had a, they basically had a monopoly, right. And this is a massively closed government,

A (31:57)

no one regulated monopoly.

B (31:58)

It's funny because you know, you as things have opened up when it comes to let's say sports gambling, you go to states all over the country, you've got a ton of different choices. You're in FanDuel, DraftKings, all these prize picks. You know what fantasy sports, all these different things you can do. Those choices are actually pretty limited in Nevada where of course the Concedo interest where you can get on like one app if you want to bet. You know, there's not all the options that you have in other states. There's not all the fantasy sports options that you have in other states because there's incredibly powerful interests able to kind of control those lines. Of course this is partially for the voters for Nevada to figure out as to whether those things are good. But I would argue that when you give people opportunities, you see problems get corrected. One of the big complaints we had this big, the last nanny state thing, the last thing everyone was going to protect us over was sports betting. This is rising up, there's too many commercials on tv. You know, it's the same sort of arguments. Everyone's losing their money, 18 year olds are on there, they're losing their money like crazy. And of course there's some of that, that, that's true. And it is a concern, I don't know if it's a concern for, for government to stop an adult from, from acting that way. But one of the big things was they kept saying, I must have read 100 think pieces about this, which was, oh, well, even if you win, even if you're smart, even you can somehow figure out how to win in the NBA, these places will come in, they'll cut you off, they'll limit your betting. Nate Silver wrote a book where he tried to make money gambling on the NBA. And you know, smart guy really knows the NBA was able to be really profitable. And every single time he started winning, they would limit his bets, they would cut him off. He just wrote a book about this a couple years ago. The problem's completely disintegrated now because you can go on to a prediction market with unlimited numbers and they can't ban you. So that that problem, which was a central part of the debate as recently as a year ago, is now completely demolished. I still see people writing it, which doesn't make any sense to me, but it's completely gone now because prediction markets were able to innovate past it. That's what America's supposed to be, right? Like it's supposed to be a place where we solve these problems. We don't nanny state our way out of it. Unfortunately, we know how this has gone over the years. I do think that there's hope though, in some of these areas where things can actually get better.

A (34:17)

It's kind of like it is an unrigging of the system because the decentralization by definition forces that, because you can't dictate within the closed system. And that gets to probably our favorite subjects, politics and more important importantly, policy. And the biggest challenge in, well, there's, I won't say the biggest, but a very big challenge in representative democracy is getting information that's true, or at least as accurate as it can be. And for busy people in America who take that responsibility to vote and perhaps to advocate, maybe they, maybe they come to Washington once a year, like really, really invested people. It's still like, virtually impossible to find out what's going on. And it strikes me that this is a great way for citizens who are actually concerned to have some sense for what's true. Because you don't trust corporate media. You certainly should never trust your member of Congress, because I don't know if you've noticed this, but sometimes they do different things in Washington than what they say back home.

B (35:33)

Wow. Maybe it's just because you live here, you've noticed that. I haven't noticed that.

A (35:36)

I don't want to sound cynical. And that always was a fundamental problem in politics. And then technology and social media have made it easier for people to find out that that senator that used to come home and tell them, I'm going to defend the Constitution, that turns out he's a lying SOB and he's part of the swamp. And I won't name names of any particular senator from Texas who just spent $100 million squeaking through to a runoff. Amazing. Yeah.

B (36:08)

Yeah. I mean, Cornyn, that's been one of my central frustrations of, like, I can handle having a Susan Collins in Maine. She's not my favorite, but it's Maine. I don't know how much better we can do. I would love to see us do better, but, you know, I don't know if we can. We can certainly do better in Texas than John Cornyn, and, you know, whether we're ever going to do that, I don't know, but it is. You know, I think Cornyn's a good example as someone who lives in that state. And you watch him. He'll. He gives a very hard. I'm a conservative type of guy. Sell every. Every election cycle.

A (36:43)

Every six years.

B (36:44)

Every six years. You hear him, you know, he's the most conservative guy in the universe for about six months, and then he goes back to Washington and he. You constantly felt. Feel let down. The people in Texas are constantly complaining about this, like, he's not doing what we wanted to do on this, this and this issue. That. That information is interesting. Right. A lot of people will say, well, of course Cornyn's going to vote this way. He's a Republican. If you go around the country in a lot of different places, that would be their belief. That would be people. They hear the mainstream media. Of course, they think Republicans gonna vote with Donald Trump on every second issue or. Or going to vote the conservative way on every single issue. If you know John Cornyn, though, you have kind of what you were talking about, that inside information, your individual information, where I've had experience with this guy. I know what he does. So when that vote comes up, you can kind of look at that and say, I can actually profit off of, you know, the, the information and the torture I've had from John Cornyn over the years. And I'm not going to say it's going to make it completely better for you. I don't know that it will. You know, it will pay for all the heartbreak you've had over the years, but it can improve the situation. And look, it helps information get better and it helps you pay for a vacation. I don't see how we lose on that.

A (37:53)

So this, this is the embarrassing prediction markets part of the show. And explain. Explain the concept of the new show. And I think by the time people see this, the show will be live. Yeah, because you're imminent, but we're.

B (38:07)

That's a great word, imminent. I like that. We are imminent. We kind of. We're doing a soft sort of role. We're planning on starting it next week or maybe even the week after. But I had this kind of opportunity to come up to dc. I was like, I can, you know, there's so many great people I can talk to up here. Like, let's, let's, you know, just put some content out. I don't care. I'm like, we don't have to have the graphics ready, we don't have to have the studio ready, whatever. Let's just talk. So we've been doing that this week. The studio they're building in the Blaze studios. It's not a technically a Blaze show, but they've been awesome to work with and, like, they've been partnering with us

A (38:38)

and, you know, you know, some folks

B (38:40)

there I do know. I have a couple contacts in the building after all of these years. So we'll be recording it right there at the Blaze studio. They're putting the studios together now. It will. It's going to be a show. I try. People say it's a prediction market show a lot of times, and, you know, it will definitely be focused on prediction markets, but really it's a news show, the lens of prediction markets. I want to use the prediction markets to be able to help us, you know, inform ourselves a little bit better, to understand the world a little bit better. Predictable is kind of a. We chose that word. Even though it kind of sounds like a knock on a show that shows predictable. It. I want the world to be a little bit more predictable for people, and that's what we're going to aim to do. And then I also think, you know, prediction markets aren't perfect. They don't always have the, you know, the issue nailed. Exactly. We're going to look for those opportunities, we like those opportunities, we want to find those and we want to look for a way to be able to profit a little bit. I mean, I've been doing this, you know, on prediction markets, particularly for elections, you know, since back to like basically Mitt Romney every election and you know, done very well throughout that time. And you know, one of the reasons is I think the information surrounding elections is so incredible, incredibly terrible that you could take advantage of mispricing of these markets and find stories where you can really get opportunities. And it becomes a situation where over a long period of time, if you're really focused and you kind of methodically go through it, you're not throwing money at super long shots or vibes, really trying to do this in methodical way. I think it can really help people. They can certainly beat your 3%. I mean Kalshi, for example, gives you 3% anyway, plus whatever you're making in the actual markets. They kind of treat it as like an ongoing account interest. So you can, you can beat that pretty easily. And, and it also has some fun because, you know, it's honestly enjoyable. It's not like trying to look through some, you know, watch some like in depth Bloomberg show like it. We hope to, to have some fun. It's going to be, it's a show that hopefully brings you information and news and some opportunities, but also it's just going to be entertaining to listen to.

A (40:49)

It strikes me that, tell me if this is correct. I'm just thinking about this in real time that perhaps corporate media, the arbiters of who's good and who's bad in politics, the only trustworthy sources for your political information. This has, has to piss them off too.

B (41:08)

I think you're, I think you're totally right on that because there is the, the drama that they want to create like they always want. They want there to be a push and pull. This side might win, this side might win. Even when they know, you know, what side is going to win. I keep thinking of the way our information and news is set up is closer to a centralized government system than a market. Right. Right now. And you know, they, because you have these like you have campaigns, you have the mainstream media and even you know, to some degree partisan media. Right. That, well, you know, the other side of course is telling me something that I, you know, I think is crazy. And then My own side, a lot of times, I think, is telling me something, maybe even with good intentions. But they. It's something that either they're trying to influence an outcome, they're trying to keep me hopeful at a time where maybe I shouldn't be as hopeful for a particular outcome, or they're trying to will something into happening. Right. There's a lot of different motivations as to why people say the things that they do, and there's a place for that. I don't think we'll sit here. We could talk and just go back and forth on just these issues of what we feel about them. I have no problem with that, and I will continue to do it for sure, even on this show. But I think going a layer deeper than that, we have more information now. We don't have to rely on what Joy Reid is telling us is the truth anymore. We're beyond that time in our country. We have better tools.

A (42:30)

That feels good.

B (42:30)

Yeah, it feels good. I mean, if you're depending on Joy Reid, you're losing. So I think this is a great extra tool to be able to kind of dig into and say, okay, the SAVE act, for example, this kind of voter ID bill. There's a lot in the Save act that I like. As a conservative, however, the chances of it passing are probably pretty low. I don't know that you would necessarily get that sense by listening to a lot of conservative media. It seems really like it's right on the verge and it could happen at any moment. Understanding where you are at, even when it doesn't necessarily make you feel good, is probably the better outcome. Like, let's have the information. Let's know what the truth is. And maybe it means that we have to work even harder to get something that we want passed. Maybe we, you know, knowing early that your candidate is behind when everyone is telling you they're actually turning tied, maybe that means you go out and you knock on a few more doors. Whatever it is, I think it can actually be a positive benefit for people

A (43:22)

at Kibbe on Liberty.

C (43:23)

Freedom is a lifestyle24.7, something you live

A (43:27)

and breathe and wear every day.

C (43:30)

If that describes you, you need the very best Liberty swag in the market today, just like this shirt I happen to be wearing. Go to freethepeople.org kol and check out our exciting merch. You, too can love Liberty and look cool.

A (43:46)

I could. I'd never fully get there, but I could get more comfortable with the idea of nuking the filibuster if, in fact I thought Republicans had 50 plus one votes to do things that mattered and actually wanted to. Because I'm looking just at the save act and I don't see, see the path to 51. I don't know if they need 50 or 51, I don't remember. But I guess the Vice President pushes it over. So I agree on that. But, yeah, everyone's cheerleading, we got to do this, we got to do this. And I'm like, what is your. And this will get into my critique of some of the Trump administration's failures. I kept saying early on, you guys have a, about a 12 month window to do the things that you hope to do, and reconciliation has to be a big part of that. And all they did was the new spending stuff. They didn't do the other stuff. And they said, oh, we'll do that later. And it's like, no, that was your window. When Trump's political capital and all of those squishy votes that will probably vote against them. On the SAVE act, for instance, I haven't read the bill either. But the principle of, the principle of showing an ID to vote one person, one vote, I don't see how that's possibly controversial, but it is.

B (45:09)

Of course it is.

A (45:10)

Of course. Yeah, that's true.

B (45:12)

I think that really was the window and they had really the one bill. I mean, I am glad that we got the tax decreases permanent. That's an important part of it. I think that was really the most important part part of it. And that was while a win, it didn't feel like much of a win because it was what we already had. Now it would have gone away if we didn't pass that. So it's important. That was a, I think, a legitimate coup for the administration and the Republican control of Congress. But, you know, that was the small window. I mean, like, you know, I, I look back at that and I think of that era with, most of the time, I don't get fooled by any of this. I, I read the Elon Musk biography that was written about him and you know, there's this great story where he, he had, he was getting a lot of people shorting Tesla and so, and the reason they were shorting it is because he had made these huge promises. This is not new with Elon Musk where he makes these massive promises about how many cars he's going to deliver in a certain period of time. And he, the really smart people looked at this and said, wait a minute, I'm looking at how many cars they can produce in a day, and they've got like three lines going, and they can only produce a certain amount of cars per day. They're not going to hit this number. When they announce that the stock's going to go in the tank, let's short it. He was very, very angry about this. Did not like the fact that people were doing that. So he went through and found a little carve out in California, which was actually a carve out designed for, like a gas station who's running a special on tires, right? Like, if you're running a special on tires or oil changes, and you need. You'll have more people in for a couple weeks. You know, we'll let you put a tent out in the parking lot and people can just kind of pull into the tent. Ah, great idea. He's like, what if we made an entire line to produce cars in a giant tent out in our parking lot? That's what he did. He was actually able to hit those numbers. And one of the reasons why, you know, the Tesla stock went crazy and all those people got absolutely wiped out that were trying to short it. You know, stories like that, and there's a lot of them in his history, made me feel a little optimism about the Doge process, right? Like, he might be one of these guys, one of these few guys that can go in there and actually cut through this mess. And, you know, I remember going on the air and I remember who we were talking to one day, and they're like, you know, they're saying they're going to cut one, you know, $2 trillion. I mean, even if they only get to $1 trillion, I'm like, there's no way they're getting to $1 trillion. I'm optimistic about this process. If they can just not increase spending for one year, I will be completely thrilled. Over the moon. And of course, politics wound up doing what gravity does and always winning. So, you know, it was sad to see, but there were opportunities on these markets for a lot of people where there's one guy, sorry, who he looked at that, the Doge process. He was a kind of a budget nerd and was like, there's absolutely no way, because we've got, you know, this. The cost goes to Medicare and Medicaid and the military and interest. And that's where all the. This stuff comes from. All this other stuff is kind of a sideshow. And so he put his entire life savings, he put $300,000 on. No, they won't cut any money. And of course, he was successful then. And I Think he made like $200,000 on it. You know, that is, those are the types of opportunities, especially if you follow this stuff closely.

A (48:22)

I should have done that to hedge my disappointments.

B (48:24)

Yes. Yeah.

A (48:25)

Because I, because I would have. As, as a, as a hard nosed, cynical budget guy, I knew the probabilities were extremely low. But as an advocate, we made a lot of hay over, like, this would be important to do these things. And there was an opportunity with, like, if the big bill had actually been beautiful. All that BS about, oh, you can't do discretionary spending in a. Tell that to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They had no problem using the levers of power to do the things they wanted to do. But I've gone off a ramble tangent, and I want to force you to make bold predictions. Have you looked at John Cornyn's race? He's been forced into a runoff. For those who don't know, he's been forced into a runoff. He spent somewhere between 70 and $100 million to get a tiny little percentage over the other guy, Ken Paxton. So now he's got to go on a runoff with this guy. And there was a third candidate.

B (49:32)

Yep.

A (49:33)

So what, what are prediction markets telling us?

B (49:36)

It's been an interesting journey in both of these races because the Democrats had an interesting one as well with my favorite congressman in Texas, which she wound up losing in that race. But she. That was a, that was a close one. The way I played it was to look for value. And in that Cornyn race, I felt there was a really good chance Cornyn would make it to the runoff. And if he made it to the runoff, you know, became a 50, 50 race, he was the underdog going into, into that because I think, like, the typical Texas voter absolutely prefers Paxton to Cornyn. The issue there, especially you're on the Republican side. The issue there is, you know, Paxton's got a lot of, you know, he's got a lot of baggage. He's. He doesn't make everything as easy. I think he's done a lot of good things, but he also, you know, has a lot of personal stuff and, you know, it's not an easy race. He, though, has won consistently statewide. He's never lost a race statewide. So the typical Republican voter would much rather have him. There's definitely a sense of nervousness about him being the nominee because. Because James Talarico, who's the opponent on the other side, is, Is seen as a threat. I don't get it at all, Matt. Honestly, like, it's he's this like, he's cosplaying this, like, sure, I'm liberal, but I'm super Christian and you can believe me. And he's trying to win going down that road. It's a very strange approach. I don't, certainly doesn't move me at all. Maybe it works for some of these voters. The polls show that it's relatively close. It's so early and we don't even know who the candidate is. One of the interesting, the way I played this market was to go in on Cornyn right before that primary thinking he would make it to a runoff. As soon as that runoff was announced, there were massive reports about how Trump was going to endorse Cornyn. If Trump endorses in that race, I think that that candidate will win. If he endorsed Cornyn, I think that candidate would win. That's the type of race he can really move. So that actually Corning will go up to about 91%. That's I saw, I think I sold it like 85 because I do think that was too high. I think now honestly it's probably a. Assuming no Trump endorsement, I think we're pretty close to 50, 50. I'm out of that race now. As far as my position goes, I don't honestly know. I think I would slightly favor Paxton because I think that's actually what the people of Texas on the Republican side want. And I think most people who are conservative think whoever gets through that race will wind up beating Talrico. The Democrats are going to dump a fortune into that race, though. This is Beto 2.0. They're going to do what they can to try to get this guy. He's, you know, he's milquetoast and he's a good guy and, you know, they're trying to push him as this, as this candidate. I think he's really inauthentic. And when he's in the spotlight in a one on one race, I think Republic Republicans will come home.

A (52:25)

Yeah. And it would be a bad year to be a Republican in a midterm election. And this is like, I don't have the data and I'm hoping you can bring that to the table. But we do know just historically that the party in power tends to get some slap back in midterm elections. And for all the reasons we could lay out, like, there's plenty of discontent within the coalition that Trump used to win his election. And I'm sure prediction markets are predicting that the Democrats take the House. But what is the crowd saying on the midterms, are the Republicans going to get clobbered?

B (53:14)

You know, yes, I think is the shortest answer I can give you to that. It is. You know, I was buying the Democrats to win the house at about 54% back before the November election. You know, you saw some results in Virginia and a couple of other places that, you know, made those numbers jump into the 60s. I bought, kept buying and buying and buying. Up to now it's about 85. I think now we're about to about correctly priced. I think now that market Democrats to win the house about 85%. You could convince me it's higher than that, honestly. But there's also data like, you know, if you look at, you know, generic polls, there's enough there to make you sit back and think, you know, if, if the war stuff settles down, if the economy picks up a little, you know, it could be a little bit closer. As you point out, the partying power almost always loses this race. That's the functional start of the conversation. Right. It's been, go back 100 years. About 9% of the time the party in power has been able to, to hold or win seats in the House, and it's about 20% of the time in the Senate. It's pretty unlikely. And the Senate is more based on how the playing field lays out. The playing field, though, in the Senate is very much tilted toward the Republicans. This is a good year for Republicans when it comes to the playing field. They, if you kind of take races, they should be able, you can get to 50 Republicans pretty easy without, without reaching. Right. Like, are they going to win Ohio? You know, they certainly should win Ohio. Right. Like, I mean, it's borderline catastrophic if they lose Texas or Ohio or one of these states. At this point, they certainly should. But, you know, Democrats have pulled some pretty strong candidates in some of these races. It's possible they lose some of them, but you don't need to reach toward. Well, they need to hold on to Maine for Republicans to get to 50 votes. For that reason, I think right now the prediction markets have it at about a 50, 50 race. I would say that's slightly underpricing Republicans. I'd probably put them in the 60 to 65% range to hold it. A lot of times this is an interesting time to buy. And one of the, one of the, one of the ways to think about this, it's not just how many percentage points you can make on an investment like this. It's also the timeline. Right. You know, taking A lot of people love going and betting and some of these are just bets, not investments on the 2028 presidential election. And you can find, I think, real value there. The problem with it is it's multiple years out. So if you're making 20% over three years, there's nothing wrong with that. But also it's not all that exciting when you can do that in a primary election that's happening next Tuesday. So. But when you look at this is an interesting time generally for these markets because it is a time where there's lots of debating. For example, Texas, you've got Republican versus Republican violence constantly. Like there's all these battling. Talarico is by himself. He's out there running. He's the big, he's above all of this. It's very easy to look at that and say, well, gosh, you know, the Republican is very, very vulnerable. At the same time, what happens in October, right? Like, what are your feelings like in October, it's no longer this esoteric thing about how I'm disappointed in John Cornyn or whatever. Now you're looking at Cornyn versus Talrico, for example. I don't like Cornyn at all. Like, I, you know, I don't like him at all. But when I look at what I want the makeup of the Senate to be, I would rather have him voting with me 70% of the time than Tal Rico voting me with 7% of the time. And so a lot of times, and you know, this is, I vote third party all the time. This I, you know, so I want to make sure this is not the audience to pitch the lesser of two evils to. I understand that, but I, yeah, half

A (57:03)

people just clicked off.

B (57:04)

Yeah, no, I hope, please done with Stu. Yeah, no, I, you know, I'm big supporter of having different options for sure. But if you think about how we're not protecting our own, our own wants and needs, we're predicting the states in this case. And I just think the voters of Texas are going to be like, wait a minute, you want me to send this guy, the guy who, you know is telling me that Jesus was non binary. We're going to send him to the Senate, are we? I don't think that's where this thing lands the same way. It didn't land that way with Beto. It didn't land that way with every single Democrat they roll out in that role. It's very difficult. It is absolutely catastrophic, period. Circumstances. If we wind up looking at a

A (57:45)

situation like that, it is like, I would Say it's not catastrophic for Republicans, but it's notable that in such a year that you describe. So for people that don't work out about this, because senators run every six years, the there's not everybody's up every time.

B (58:02)

Yep.

A (58:03)

And it's kind of random based on when they were elected. And so, so this year happens to be a year where Republicans have a much better map than Democrats.

B (58:13)

Yeah. If I remember the math right, just off the top of my head, we did a show on this a couple weeks ago. I think it's, I want to say the Democrats actually as far as seats that are not up for election have a small advantage by a couple of seats. But when you take the, the solid seats, the ones, you know, the Arkansas and the, you know, Louisiana's or whatever, the, you know, the bright red states versus the bright blue states, Republicans get to 47 before we even get to leaners.

A (58:37)

Yeah.

B (58:37)

Then you're just, if you're just taking leaners like the Ohio's, like the Texas. I mean I have Alaska in a toss up right now because Democrats got it. They're basically their strongest candidate. Republicans don't have a, you know, as a kid that's not particularly popular right now. So again, will that be a toss up by the time we get to the election? Maybe, maybe not. But even without any of those toss ups, just, you know, just getting, just the leaners, you're at 50 already. So it would be, we're talking about major upstate sets. I'm not talking about losing North Carolina, which I think is a really good position to go in. And look at the Democrat in that race. I think he's going to win that race pretty easily. It's not about like Republicans needing to overturn races like that that it look, looks like they're going to lose. All they have to do is win the easy ones and they're at 50. So that's why I think it's a little bit low to call it a 50, 50 race.

A (59:26)

Yeah. But my point is it's kind of shocking that predictive markets are saying 50, 50 it is.

B (59:34)

And there's reason to believe there's danger. Right. I think you look at historical measures like approval rating of the president, sometimes that's indicative of the, the ecosystem we're in in a particular election. And they're not very good, frankly. They're not, you know, it's, the independents are not happy right now and even Republican I've seen, you know, approval ratings for Donald Trump among Republicans in the high 60s and low 70s. That's, you know, not what we've seen even in, you know, through the first Trump administration. So it is. There are, there are dangerous waters for Republicans here, for sure. I just think maybe we're a little pessimistic on it right now.

A (60:14)

Yeah, there's. I mean, so much is going to depend on the war and whether or not he finds a way out of this mess and opens. I can't keep up. Like, the Strait of Hormuz is closed and open all the time. So I don't know where we're at.

B (60:28)

I can't either.

A (60:30)

I'm desperately waiting for President Trump to post a new missive to tell me.

B (60:34)

I keep thinking to myself what I need to do is every time there's a new development, I just need to go on the prediction market and find the market where I can bet the other side of it. You know what I mean? That's what I keep thinking. Why am I not doing this every day? Whenever said, they say the start of straight of Hormuz is open. I need to go on there and do the under on how many ships are going to pass through the state of Hormuz. And whenever they say it's closed, they do the over. Like that's because all of this is just words right now, you know, and everyone's trying to position and, you know, I'm sure as concerned as you are that it could spiral into something much worse and could last for a really long time. So I'm with you. I really hope that we could find a way to get this over with and focus on some of the things that I think have been good in the administration. There are some good news stories as well, and it would be good if they focused on them instead of all we do is talk about war and tariffs.

A (61:22)

Yeah, you'll be shocked to know that I'm pretty blackpilled on a peaceful, successful, quick exit strategy.

B (61:30)

Yeah, I would expect nothing less coming on this program than the black pill. Yeah, I believe you dissolved one in my drink.

A (61:37)

Yeah, we've been talking about these things. But so speaking of black pills, particularly for MAGA Republicans, I recall seeing on prediction markets some pretty substantial number that President Trump will get impeached again. And that of course assumes at least the House flips to Democrat because the House impeachment impeaches, the Senate convicts. I don't imagine the numbers are very good on conviction because that would be a big number. That would be a big turnover in the Senate. But what are prediction markets saying about yet another Impeachment.

B (62:09)

It's an interesting thing because

A (62:12)

one of

B (62:13)

the things to think about as you get into these is to try to avoid requiring multiple order effects to get to the outcome that you want. I got burned on this, actually, with the Strait of Hormuz, which was. I was. My thesis was they're going to come up and they're going to announce a ceasefire. They're going to come up with some sort of break here because, you know, there's a bunch of forces that led me to believe that. So there wasn't really a direct way to play that that I had seen, but I saw a Straits of Hormuz opening and I was like, well, you know, back in the day, when they're open, it's 150 ships a day go through there. So I went on there and I was like, oh, okay, well, let's look at that for a whole week. You could get a contract for over 150, very, very cheaply. And I was like, that's a good kind of long shot position to take. So I went in there and, you know, unfortunately, as we know, the ceasefire happened, and then two days later, they're like, actually, we're not letting anyone through. Like, the Strait of Hormuz is open, actually, it's closed. And so I wanted. Because I was. My thesis was actually right on that one, but I was depending on that second order effect. And a lot of times that's, that's, that's worrying. I bring that up because, you know, you're right, obviously, if there's an 85% chance for the Democrats to win the House, you have to kind of discount your idea as to what they would do once they're in. Right. It's only an 85% chance they're in. So if you think it's 50, 50% chance, once they're in, you need to discount that more to 40 than 50. Long story. To be able to say I am pretty concerned or pretty sure, honestly, that if they get in, they will impeach him again. You know, really, it's a political determination as to whether they think it will help them or not. At least that's the, that's the way you're supposed to think that through.

A (63:50)

Sure.

B (63:51)

I think the Democrats are so angry and so, so upset about Donald Trump and that, you know, they just, there's. There hasn't been a sensible interaction with the Democrats since 2016. So I think they will go and do this. They won't be able to, to maintain their composure, because I don't I think the American people, you know, I think certainly the first impeachment, the second one was such a crazy one as he was like leaving office. And I don't know what people thought about that one, but I don't think generally speaking, people like that tool utilized unless it's something really egregious. And, you know, you know, even what happened with, you know, you could look back at the Ukraine stuff, even the stuff they were accusing him with, I don't know if that rose to the level that the American people really believed, you know, kind of, you know, clip that level. So I, I think they'll try it. I think they'll do it if they get control of the House. I don't know the number off the top of my head. I would assume it's probably. And if I had to guess, it's probably one of the things we like to do is sort of predict the prediction. Like without having any knowledge of the market. What is that market? And if you think it's, I was going to say 65, between 65 and 70, I have no idea what it is. But to me, if right now, if it's at 40, I should be in there buying. That's how. Like, it's a way of knowing whether you should be in there. Kind of gives you a signal as to what your thoughts are before you look at the market and try to judge it that way. Kind of a little helpful tool maybe, you know, when you're thinking about something, come up with a number before you look at the market and see how mismatched they are. Because sometimes you'll find real value there and other times it'll make you question your thesis a little bit.

A (65:22)

Yeah. So where do people find predictable when it imminently emerges?

B (65:29)

Yeah, you could go there now and get content. We are on YouTube. YouTube.com it's redictableshow. Also predictableshow.com we have a substack there too where we have a bunch of written pieces. We'll be doing, you know, lots of live streams. There's these things called mention markets, which are pretty fun that basically you watch a speech and try to predict what words they're going to say, what topics they're going to hit, what's going to be their focus? Like what's Donald Trump's focus going to be in the speech? And you try to get out in front of that. I find that to be just more fun than I would say, you know, a deeply thought out investment. But some people are making hundreds of thousands of dollars on them. So you definitely can be smarter than I am on them. But we live stream those. We'll live stream the speech and try to figure out what's going on there. That's a lot of fun to do. And we'll have lots of content up there for people to everything from, hey, I don't know how to sign up to this website, all the way to, you know, trading strategies. And a lot of this will be trying to find opportunities in markets where you can profit a little bit, where maybe people aren't focusing as much. Maybe there's some room for this to move. Maybe the markets mispriced something. I want to try to lead people to those options. And then of course, we'll also help you break down the election so you know what's happening hopefully before it does.

A (66:37)

Cool. Sounds like a fresh, fun idea. I love it.

B (66:40)

Cool. I appreciate you having me on to talk about it.

A (66:42)

All right. Thank you, sir.

B (66:43)

Thank you.

C (66:44)

Thanks for watching. If you liked the conversation, make sure to like the video, subscribe and also ring the bell for notifications. And if you want to know more about Free the people, go to freethepeople.org.