← Tom Bilyeu's Impact Theory
Tom Bilyeu's Impact Theory
Hasan Piker x Tom Bilyeu: Why Gen Z Is Turning to Socialism - The Battle Over Banking, Inflation & the American Dream PT 2
00:57:47
Loading summary
Transcript157 lines
- [00:00]
Grainger Announcer
When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done. When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.
- [01:00]
Tom Bilyeu
I'm Tom Bilyeu and this is Impact Theory. Welcome back for part two of my conversation with Hasan Piker. If you have not already heard part one, you are going to want to go check that out right now. This is not one that you're going to want to walk into halfway through. Let's get right back into it. If you look at the timeline, this is a money printing problem. This is about debt and money printing. And people get so confused about what caused the real problem. So you have debt, money printing and globalization. That's it. And if people just talk about those things, then all of a sudden they're going to be able to map to reality what happened. This is why people always ask the question, what happened in 1971? Because in 1971, that's when all hell breaks loose. And in 1971, we broke our last remaining thread. We were about 25% tied to the gold standard. And so when we finally let that go, then it became unhinged money printing. But for a long time we actually didn't go that ham. And it wasn't really until 2008 that, that we just got unhinged. And if you look at the M2 money supply graph, it goes berserk.
- [01:58]
Hasan Piker
I don't disagree with you. It's just funny because, like, I think that that is just another aspect of like the, the way that the system has been designed. So we're just like basically unleashing the same forces because these are the, these are the exact same principles that, that create income and wealth inequality in general. So like, this is more of the same in Terms of, like, the super wealthy making out far better than the average person.
- [02:25]
Tom Bilyeu
Yes, but what the reason that I harp on this is because to get the problem right and the solution wrong, or more importantly, to get the problem right, but the cause wrong means that you will definitionally get the solution wrong, because you don't know what's actually causing the problem. The story I always like to tell is I woke up one day with a skin rash. And it got so bad that I would wake up in the middle of the night, and I just wanted to cry because it just itch so badly. I couldn't sleep. It was an absolute nightmare. So of course, I go see a skin specialist, and they're like, hey, you've introduced some detergent or something like this happens all the time. You just don't realize that you're having an allergic reaction. So we're like, changing everything. No, scented, like, all this. It's not working. And I'm like, if somebody came to me and said they had a skin condition, what advice would I give them? And I would say, it's something you're eating. And so I'm like, even though my diet is perfectly clean, there's clearly something I'm eating that's causing a problem. And so I completely cut out artificial sweeteners. 72 hours later, it was gone. So I was like, oh, my God. But everybody wants to give you a topical solution. And that was the first thing. They wanted me to put creams on it. And the creams helped and it alleviated. I was like, oh, my God. Thankfully. But that didn't address the underlying problem. And as soon as I actually got to the thing that was actually causing it, it went away, and it went away forever. And so what I'm saying is we all agree that the skin is itchy. We all agree that America has a skin rash. What we don't agree is what's causing the skin rash. What's causing the skin rash. 1913 Federal Reserve act says we can print money. 1971, our last, like, restraining thread gets broken. And then in the 90s, we go full globalization, most importantly, China. And so, like, once you put that very small, very understandable bundle on the table, it's like, there are all your problems, but people focus on more. The rhetoric is all about animosity towards wealthy people, which is why people got mad at you when you bought your house instead of going, oh, wait a second, I actually understand the fundamental nature of the system. It's broken at the level of debt, money printing. And when I Say debt, government debt's the right one to focus on, but there's personal debt, corporate debt, and government debt. But we are, we are in such a dark place from a debt and money printing perspective. And I just cannot get people to focus on it because it, it doesn't feel well.
- [04:49]
Hasan Piker
I think the difference in opinion stems from like you're saying the artificial sweetener in this situation is the debt and globalization and money printing. And I'm saying that the, the artificial sweetener, which is like the, like we are identifying the symptoms. And I think that the debt and the money printing is, is yet another, yet another factor in an even broader, in an even broader problem, in a broader systemic problem.
- [05:15]
Tom Bilyeu
But when you, the actual impact of what drives it. I did the math on this once, but it was like union negotiations is like 8% or something. So it's like it's not that it's nothing, it's that when you look at the totality of the problem, it's not even 10%.
- [05:32]
Hasan Piker
Oh, I don't, I'm not saying that unions are. First of all, I don't think unions are only the only impactful force here. I don't even think that unions are the only way to solve this problem. I think it's just one mechanism. It's kind of like you brought up rent control, right? Rent control in and of itself is not a solution. It's, it's barely a band aid. It's a, it's a move, it's an initiative to, to in the interim, to, to move in the direction of decommodifying housing. That's the reason why people utilize it. But I think without, like adjusting the supply, without actually either introducing some kind of market force, like new interest in, in developing housing projects or, and, and readjusting the inventory that's readily available so that more people can, can live in actually depresses the existing, the existing price, the average home price for the average person. And it, and it actually lowers rents as well because there's no now new inventory available. Even from a, a healthy market assessment, if a private industry is not going to do that, I say let the government intervene. I have no issues with that.
- [06:43]
Tom Bilyeu
Okay, but the, but it's just one
- [06:45]
Hasan Piker
aspect of a, of a much larger issue is what I mean. Like, labor unions are not the end.
- [06:49]
Tom Bilyeu
All underlying read of the situation that I think is incorrect. And if I'm painting you wrong, I consider you at least sympathetic to socialism.
- [06:57]
Hasan Piker
Oh, for sure I am. I am. I say I'm a leftist because like I'M big ten in terms of, of all the way from, you know, revolutionary socialists or even communists to, to people who want to implement modest social democratic reforms in the interim. I believe in harm reduction and I think the best possible way to achieve that is especially with the way the appetite that Americans have in general for these sorts of ideologies that they either completely don't know or have been propagandizing the being fearful of.
- [07:37]
Tom Bilyeu
But so that's where I'll say it's not propaganda like there is.
- [07:41]
Hasan Piker
I mean, there are mechan.
- [07:42]
Tom Bilyeu
I mean, but let's dig into it because there are mechanistic reasons to be fearful of socialism or communism and we can literally take them one by one. But some things work in the messiness of reality and other things don't work in the messiness of reality. And I think the reason that people are going so ham into socialism right now is that it feels right, but it's not actually going to yield the right outcomes. So it feels right because people have been propagandized that what you're actually up against is an evil capitalistic system where people are trying to take advantage of you. And they've come up in a system that is extraordinary. They've come up in the west and things are stable, people are relatively safe. Until recently it was like most people could get on the property ladder. It was like, yeah. So people have lost sight of what drives tax dollars. The very thing that gives people the money that they want to spend on these systems is the entrepreneurial class builds a thing, a company that outputs something more valuable than the inputs, it is excruciatingly difficult to do. And when you see only negativity in that system and think that somehow the money is still going to be there, even if you are punitive towards that class, which I think is what most people that are on that bandwagon want. And now you end up breaking the very goose that lays the golden egg.
- [09:12]
Hasan Piker
See, this is where we fundamentally disagree because I don't think innovation is immediate, immediately tied back to profits. I don't think that and, and I don't think it's even a historically how it's been. Like, I, I like to joke and say like, you know, people didn't invent the tire because they thought, you know, I can commodify this and sell it and make money. I think that there are many achievements that we take for granted throughout history, all the way from primitive accumulation down to the, the current existence of society, the current economic formation that we exist under where plenty of people have actually advanced humanity not on the basis that they'll make a lot of money, but on, on advancing humanity alone, like other factors that contribute to it, whether it be improving people's welfare or whether it be because you have a human first approach and beyond that. I think even still.
- [10:07]
Tom Bilyeu
You think that's gone now?
- [10:09]
Hasan Piker
No, I think it still exists. But we are, we're tampering with it at the. For the sake of greed. Because I think capitalism inevitably creates a system where people are focusing on short term profits. And when you focus on short term profits, you end up throwing aside all of these like technological leaps that we have made in times when there was a lot more government funding, a lot more public funding, a lot more public investment, both in other countries, even ones that we have declared foreign adversaries, even ones that had their own personal systemic failures. Mind you, I'm not saying the USSR was like amazing, but there were issues there as well. But ultimately we've lost sight of, of why people innovate, why people develop new things. And it's not necessarily just because they want to make money. I mean there's so many.
- [11:03]
Tom Bilyeu
I would say China has proven it's because people want to make money.
- [11:06]
Hasan Piker
Wait, really?
- [11:07]
Tom Bilyeu
A thousand percent?
- [11:08]
Hasan Piker
I was about to say China is the exact counter argument.
- [11:11]
Tom Bilyeu
China tried to kill everybody and to get them to fit in line, they killed 45 million people. In a pretty short stretch like that one's wild to me that people brush that one off.
- [11:19]
Hasan Piker
I think, I think there were USSR had a similar problem as well with like crop mismanagement and famines. But since that, since, since that happened, there has, there has never been another instance of famine in China.
- [11:36]
Tom Bilyeu
But China literally came to the west and said okay, what do we do? And they said how many banks do you have? And China said we only have one bank. And America said that's crazy. We have 30,000 banks. And let me tell you how we do this. You push the decision making down to the regional control element. You let them all be profit incentivized and then they will loan out to the people that are actually going to be successful. What is the thing that drives somebody to take that tremendous risk when something like 90% of all companies fail to make a million dollars, 94% fail to make $10 million. So that 6% of companies make more than $10 million, that means 94% of people effectively fail. So it's like you have this insane failure rate that still manages to give you America, the West, largely so the capitalist System ends up with problems and you have to be careful because left unchecked, it metastasizes. I like to say there's pathology on both sides, but China literally goes, okay, I'm tired of Deng Xiaoping comes into power and he's like, well, we're not going to keep doing what Mao was doing and starve people to death. So he comes up with the two phrases. Doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, which was something ish that you said earlier, just matters if it catches mice. So it doesn't matter if it's black or white, only matters if it catches mice. And then the second thing that he said was getting rich is glorious.
- [12:50]
Hasan Piker
Well, that was attributed to him. I say it all the time as well. Socialism is not. Socialism is not about poverty or the glorification of poverty. To be rich is to be glorious is falsely attributed. Deng Xiaoping, he never corrected it though. So people assume that it's actually something that he said. And it makes sense. I mean, I think it's an attitude that, that reflects in modern Chinese society as well. But Deng in and of itself is, is seen by, I guess some hardline Maoists as a, as a liberal or a reformist. But I think like, there's a reason why even Xi Jinping considers like, in China, they consider this like socialism with Chinese characteristics because it is evolved in accordance to the material conditions and the, and the global marketplace where capitalism is looking at some of the, even failures of the USSR in terms of global trade and trying to have a trade first approach to make themselves an undeniable force in the global marketplace, so that there is not a lot of tremendous foreign intervention in the way that, in the way that allows them to develop in the ways that they want to. But I think Chinese development isn't this, this profoundly impactful force around the globe now because of foreign capital just coming in simply on the, on the basis of foreign capital coming in. But I think it's what they've done with that foreign capital that has made China into this powerful hegemonic force that can even counter American influence around the world.
- [14:24]
Tom Bilyeu
I don't even think that it's necessarily. Sure, in the early days getting foreign capital in was huge, very transformational, and I'm sure they would love it if it happened again. But they're not going to change their strategy. But what they did learn was American capitalistic principles. They learned how to VC the way that we vc, which is massive. They learned how to bank the way that we bank, which was Massive. And so taking those characteristics, they're basically saying, we're the state. You're going to do what we tell you. But we recognize that by letting you get rich, as long as you don't get uppity, letting you get rich is exactly how we convince people to take all these risks, to regionalize things so that we can move forward, because it's just the way that human incentives work. Now, what I would. Obviously Xi Jinping is not going to agree with my assessment here, but I look at that and I go, hey, I'm Xi Jinping. You guys can keep doing this version of capitalism, what I call red light, green light capitalism, as long as you don't fuck with my agenda. And as long as you understand that I'm going to negotiate in the world, globally, with you as one big block. And so everyone here is going to be in lockstep behind what I want to do. And then within that framework, you guys can do whatever you want. We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead, so don't go anywhere.
- [15:39]
Grainger Announcer
If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need, all in one place, from H Vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more, and all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock, so your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need, all in one place, from H. Vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more, and all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [16:41]
Tom Bilyeu
Thanks for sticking around. Let's get right back into the action.
- [16:44]
Hasan Piker
I know, but their, their economy is, is built around central planning. Still. Were they like, hard pass? Were they false? Oh, okay, well, then we definitely disagree on this because, like, I use ghost cities as an example, right? Like where there is. For years and years we look to China and we were like, why are they developing these, like, fake cities? Oh, it's to just probably try to get people to work, like to try to get, like, fake work. So that's modern monetary theory. Yeah.
- [17:12]
Tom Bilyeu
Money printing.
- [17:13]
Hasan Piker
So but what we found out, at least now, is that all of those ghost cities have been populated. There are still other cities where they're like, still building, they're rapidly expanding, there's rapid urban development. But like, the reason why those cities were built was because they had a 15 year plan in mind of like inevitably moving people from rural areas into more urban tier one cities and tier two cities. And there are still issues with the structure as well. There's a Hukou system that I think needs tremendous reform. This like almost interior passport structure that they have in China. But that actually was, was a process in which, you know, 800 million people were, were able to, to escape extreme poverty in China. That was a direct consequence of good government initiatives that did not put the, the speculative interests of the market first, but instead put the interests of citizens first.
- [18:14]
Tom Bilyeu
I would say it's the exact opposite. So what they wanted to do.
- [18:17]
Hasan Piker
So you're saying China was doing capitalism better than America, and that's why they're at the place that they're at.
- [18:22]
Tom Bilyeu
They did capitalism with communist elements and they have pulled more people out of poverty faster than anybody else in history. It is absolutely insane. And anybody that sort of brushes that off and says that's not a functioning system, I think is a fool.
- [18:39]
Hasan Piker
I, I agree.
- [18:40]
Tom Bilyeu
You look at that and go, okay, what kind of system do you want to.
- [18:42]
Hasan Piker
There was one other historic example as well. It was the ussr. Well, again, tremendous pain in that process.
- [18:50]
Tom Bilyeu
So that one's probably not great. They used to joke that we'll pretend to work and they'll pretend to pay us. So again, going back to what is it that gets people to innovate? You have to let people get wealthy. In the 90s, what happens? The government collapses. They let people get wealthy. They rush into the modern economy. Then a strong man comes in and takes over again and is now you've got capitalism with Russian characteristics, which is basically, again, you can get as rich as you want as long as you don't get uppity. If you ever challenge me, I'm going to re educate the shit out of you until you're either dead or until you're back in line.
- [19:23]
Hasan Piker
I think social repression is, is a major issue in virtually every system, but certainly in these, in these structures as well. We also do tend to highlight some of the inequities while simultaneously refusing to see our version of that as well.
- [19:40]
Tom Bilyeu
Do you think I'm doing that because.
- [19:42]
Hasan Piker
No, no, I'm not, I'm not saying that you're Doing that. I'm just in general, I'm saying, like, broadly we look at like, like the example I always use is like, like America has slave labor built into its, built into a structure, right? We, slavery as a mechanism of punishment is still very much legal in the 13th Amendment, which was supposed to abolish slavery, right? And we look to other countries and we say, oh, they have gulags, right? Like, we technically have them as well. We have a, we have a structure. We have a similar very violent carceral state here where we house 25% of the entire world's incarcerated population, despite making up only 4% of the overall population in this country. This isn't to say that like the systems are similar. I'm simply stating that like sometimes we end up having blindsides to our own inequities while simultaneously highlighting the, the inequities and the forms of repression that other people do. This isn't to excuse their forms of repression. I think they're inexcusable.
- [20:38]
Tom Bilyeu
Are they worse?
- [20:40]
Hasan Piker
I think in some instances, yes, certainly, especially historic examples. And in certain instances is like, it can even be sometimes overblown, like the social credit system that they have in China where people will be like, oh, they have a mass surveillance and like a social credit system. But we have, we actually do have a credit system that is, I think, far more consequential for the lives of American citizens as opposed to like what we assume the Chinese social credit function looks like.
- [21:10]
Tom Bilyeu
Do you want a world where people have, where the government has that kind of control over your life? Because you don't put the ability to track how much meat somebody buys into your system unless at some point you plan to control how much meat somebody buys. Do you like that level of control or do you fear that level of control?
- [21:29]
Hasan Piker
There is a healthy fear to have under that kind of structure because you assume that it could be used for, understandably used for evil, especially when you have so much power in the hands of so few people. And I think the solution to that is like an unlimited, transparent democratic process that is constantly measuring the efficiency of the representatives. And there is a very swift mechanism of replacement when people fall short of the expectations or the demands that people are making. A democratic process. The Chinese style of governance, I think we assume is like super top down. There is a constant feedback that comes from the party system. It's, it's not technically one party, even though there is one governing party, obviously, but that governing party is still beholden very much to like every single locality and what what their local representatives are saying, what the demands are from the population there. I don't know if it's the best possible system, but I do know that we here as an American citizen have a tremendous amount of inequality and with no real way of addressing said issues. Which is why the organizations like the Democratic Socials of America try to work within the existing duopoly to try to push the Democratic Party to hear the demands of.
- [22:56]
Tom Bilyeu
So what do they want to see from a policy perspective? What does the DSA want to see actually happen?
- [23:02]
Hasan Piker
So again, I'm not even a, I am a big booster of the Democratic Socials of America. I'm not technically a card carrying member,
- [23:10]
Tom Bilyeu
but if you know their policies.
- [23:11]
Hasan Piker
But I do know, okay, I don't, I don't mind like broadly explaining some of their outlook. But like for example, Israel, Palestine, this is a major issue for many Americans, especially in the Democratic base right now.
- [23:28]
Tom Bilyeu
Moral issue or a financial issue?
- [23:29]
Hasan Piker
Both. It's both a moral issue and it's also a financial issue because you had
- [23:34]
Tom Bilyeu
to split the amount that they care. Is it moral or financial?
- [23:38]
Hasan Piker
I don't know what the exact adjustment on that would be, but I certainly, but I, I think it's, it's negligible, it doesn't matter. I mean it's, it's horrifying, it's immoral. But ultimately it's, it's also a policy decision that impacts Americans lives and, and it's not, it doesn't yield any benefits. If we want to make like a cold calculated adjustment there in terms of American foreign policy and our reliance on, on Israel being as violent as it wants to, to a captive population of Palestinians that doesn't actually return any significant benefits. And it's seemingly a system in which we're just like giving, you know, billions and billions of dollars of weapons and financial aid to a country that actually does have free health care, ironically enough. And they can do that because we handle all of their offensive and defensive weapons, 70% of it, since October 7, 2023.
- [24:32]
Tom Bilyeu
And why do you think we do it?
- [24:34]
Hasan Piker
The reason why we do it here in America and historically have done so is because it's a settler colonial apparatus that is, is smack dab in the middle of a, a region that has incredibly important choke points for trade, for global trade. And also it's a resource rich region, the resource that runs the global economy. Oil.
- [24:57]
Tom Bilyeu
So an unsinkable aircraft carrier that we can operate.
- [25:00]
Hasan Piker
That's part of it for sure. And that has given Israel a tremendous amount of freedom to operate within American politics in a way that no other ally has ever been able to exist under. Like, there's no level of influence that Saudi Arabia has on US Policy that to the same degree that Israel has had because it was an invaluable Cold War ally at times when there was pan Arabic nationalism that was taking place. And like, a lot of these countries were beginning to, to demand sovereignty and maybe were finding themselves on the, on the Soviet side in terms of, like, global trade or global partnerships. Right? And America did not like that. So they used Israel. And because of that, that profoundly important status that Israel had, it was able to develop a perverse network of influence and create a system where basically any kind of pushback against Israel or any kind of pushback against, like, the Israeli interests could be quickly squashed away.
- [26:09]
Tom Bilyeu
Is that because they gave us influence over the region or because they're spending money on individual politicians in America and those individual politicians want the money to keep flowing so they don't mind sending taxpayer dollars, so they're basically accepting both.
- [26:23]
Hasan Piker
Mershammer. There's two different minds on this. Noam Chomsky says it's an unsinkable aircraft carrier, and therefore it's profoundly important to American foreign policy, which I agree with. Mearsheimer says it's the lobby. Right. It's not just aipac, though. It's just like all of the different arms of Israel's, like, incredibly, incredibly sophisticated network of influence, a network of, of, like, mechanisms of control that it has over politicians in terms of, like, lobbying dollars and whatnot. I think it's a bit of both. I think it's, it's, it's not a chicken or the egg situation, because it's like, if it wasn't so profoundly important as a vassal or as a, as a mechanism of American imperialism or Western imperialism in the region, it would not have been able to develop this sophisticated network of influence. But without that sophisticated network of influence, there would have been numerous points where America could just like, pull the ripcord and say, you're done. And as a matter of fact, there have been times when American presidents have said, have enforced their tremendous power over Israel and tremendous influence over Israel, and we see that less and less now, especially after Trump won. We, we, we saw that with George H.W. bush in the past with settlement expansion. We saw that with Ronald Reagan with Lebanon. We saw that with Joe Biden in 2021. As a matter of fact, when Joe Biden said, made that one phone call, said, no, you're done, we're scaling this back. And Israel of course followed up on those demands. But Donald Trump unfortunately is a very malleable person. He's very persuadable and you can just buy his loyalty. And Israel certainly was able to do that. And that's the reason why we're experiencing, that's the reason why we're seeing what we're seeing right now. It was a failure on Biden's part as well, make no mistake, because on Trump 1, we started the Abraham Accords. Biden did not actually scale back on that at all and did not actually put Palestinians at the forefront of this conversation in any way, shape or form and only accelerated this, this same design that, that Trump had implemented initially moving the embassy to American Embassy to Jerusalem, very impactful. Did not actually scale back on the, the recognition of annex territory in Golan Heights, which supposed to be some Syrian territory, some Lebanese territory. Donald Trump made that annexation which is illegal, legal. He said, we recognize it and Biden didn't scale back on any of this. And of course this created the powder keg that unfolded in October 7th and
- [28:53]
Tom Bilyeu
then bringing it back though to the DSA. So are they protectionists, isolationists? Like how do they look at that? So they don't want to send money. They also see a moral injustice. Yes, but beyond the moral injustice, what like policy core principle is it that drives them to say we got to get out of this?
- [29:14]
Hasan Piker
I think many people in the DSA would be anti imperialist in the sense that like they don't want the system of dominance that America has created around the world that ends up having horrible consequences that we can see in real time like in Gaza to continue.
- [29:33]
Tom Bilyeu
So scale back America's influence on the international stage.
- [29:36]
Hasan Piker
Scale back America's violent influence on and it's violent interventions around the globe is, is broadly the idea here. And like one of the things that they voted on in the national convention that just took place that I went to in Chicago was like, do we continue endorsing politicians because they have a massive door knocking operation all around the country. Right. Like there are a lot of these guys are activists. They're at the forefront and also they are ready to go. They're ready to go and, and, and promote politicians.
- [30:12]
Tom Bilyeu
Right.
- [30:12]
Hasan Piker
That's something that's like very impactful. We saw that with incredible success with Zora in New York. And the question is like, does the DSA continue endorsing candidates that have a wishy washy position on this like otherwise black and white thing, genocide and what's
- [30:32]
Tom Bilyeu
the Biggest issue for the DSA is it Israel Palestine?
- [30:34]
Hasan Piker
Israel Palestine currently is one of the biggest issues I would say for sure.
- [30:38]
Tom Bilyeu
Okay. And that stems from America should not be violent around the world.
- [30:43]
Hasan Piker
America should not be engaging in violent intervention around the world. And America should not be supplying unlimited weapons to a country that is using those weapons on a captive civilian population.
- [30:57]
Tom Bilyeu
Taking a short break, but there's more impact theory after. Stay tuned.
- [31:03]
Grainger Announcer
This summer. Don't squeeze in, spread out. Find homes big enough for your whole guest list on vrbo. That's vacation rentals done right. Book your stay now.
- [31:17]
If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner offering the products you need all in one place from H Vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [31:48]
Tom Bilyeu
Thanks for staying tuned. Now let's get back to it. Okay. Is there a sense of because not only is it wrong, but we want to allocate those dollars to social programs here in the U.S. yes. Okay.
- [32:02]
Hasan Piker
Because every dollar spent, I think it was Eisenhower ironically said that but like every dollar spent on bombs is a dollar that could be spent on books, a dollar that could be spent on the roads here, a dollar that could be spent on hardening our infrastructure. And yet it's this endless, endless greed that we have in one of the only impactful manufacturing base that we have remaining in this country, which is weapons that, that we have this steady flow of subsidies going to the military industrial complex. And then those weapons have to be sold somewhere. And you know, Israel is one of the clients that we sell those weapons to and, and it's. We're burning the candle on both ends. We're first subsidizing, subsidizing these companies, they're not even taking those subsidies and then like evenly distributing it to their workers. They're just usually keeping it at the top in the same way that most companies do. They do stock buybacks and other forms of manipulation rather than, rather than just like get offer better benefits and better pay packages to their workers anyway. And then we send those weapons out to and someone's got to use those weapons. That's endless war. War not meant to be won or lost, but ward that is meant to be meant continue basically so that there is a consistent churn of weapons going somewhere and then this and then our tax dollars also then go to aid packages to these countries that then buy the weapons that we initially subsidized the development of.
- [33:34]
Tom Bilyeu
I'm still not sure why that's their biggest and most bread and butter if it isn't the just staunch emotional reaction that they have. But what would be their next like economically? What do they want to see happen in the us?
- [33:45]
Hasan Piker
I think they, once again, I'm not a DSA spokesperson, so I think there's probably better people to speak on this than myself.
- [33:52]
Tom Bilyeu
But what prescription do you want to see?
- [33:54]
Hasan Piker
Well, yeah, I can speak for myself. I think like there are certain inequities, certain issues in American society that broadly harm the, the largest, the, the largest group, working class Americans. I would say that healthcare is another great example of this. We have a for profit middleman that doesn't necessarily need to exist at all in the, in the form of, of healthcare, private healthcare, insurance companies that have been tremendous for the GDP overall but have led to an incredibly costly system that doesn't actually heal people and ends up putting them under tremendous debt, Tremendous financial pressure that needs to go away. I think that workers need to have more control over their own lives, have more autonomy, have more say in the process of labor.
- [34:52]
Tom Bilyeu
I think, I get that.
- [34:54]
Hasan Piker
I think the first step is unionization. That's the first immediate solution to this problem, is being able to have a say in the process. And I think that's the reason why capital earners have successfully combated the influence of labor unions in this country. And you can point to other countries, like European social democracies, where there's still the process of like sectoral bargaining, for example, that that has allowed unions to still have some kind of power or some kind of say in the process that have protected or that have allowed these countries to have more worker protections.
- [35:32]
Tom Bilyeu
When I look at the two biggest economies in the world, the US and China, I see those as countries that have won through innovation. When you look at the countries that have run socialism, obviously you see innovation pull back. So innovate. There are graphs that will show this. I've shown one so many times. Just the number of billion dollar companies that the US has created versus anybody else literally can aggregate every other country in the world.
- [36:00]
Hasan Piker
Oh, but I don't think there's like innovation. I don't consider like a billion dollar company to be innovative in and of itself because like there's a lot of, there's, there are a lot of billion dollar companies now that are just, you know, they're, they're. I don't necessarily think their output is that innovative. Like Uber is a great example of this. Uber in and of itself is a disruptive force. It's very, I mean it's, it's a billion dollar company.
- [36:23]
Tom Bilyeu
Not innovative.
- [36:24]
Hasan Piker
Yeah, I think it's, it was, it was innovative in the. Not in the sense that like they were able to build out a new technology. It was innovative in the sense that it created a massive gig economy of.
- [36:37]
Tom Bilyeu
You may not like the output, but in terms of innovation. They saw that, oh, everybody now has a phone in their pocket, drivers, people alike, we can completely disrupt this system by putting these things together. So from that perspective, it feels like you may not like the outcome, but to say that it wasn't innovative feels very strange.
- [36:57]
Hasan Piker
So it's, it is innovative in the sense that like you said, it's disruptive, but it's actually taking a.
- [37:03]
Tom Bilyeu
But it made my life better.
- [37:05]
Hasan Piker
Yeah, it. But it's taking. So there's again we go back to the multiple numerous ways to skin a cat. Black cat, white cat. As long as you're catching the mice, doesn't matter. Right? But there are differences here. Where like your life could be. Have you lived in other countries in the past at all or no? Yes. Where, where have you lived, if you don't mind me asking?
- [37:24]
Tom Bilyeu
London.
- [37:24]
Hasan Piker
So you lived in London. London is not necessarily the best example of this, but like you lived in a system where there was public transit. You I assume took public transit and privatized it. Yes, I know, which is why it's, it's bad now.
- [37:37]
Tom Bilyeu
But there was a by the numbers, it's better. So they do twice as many trips at roughly the same level of consistency as when it was private made public and that like if you look at across Europe, you see that over and over and over. So Sweden, private or public, makes public the telecom system only to reverse that realizing without the market forces you just get a degradation of service. This is why we protect against monopolies
- [38:03]
Hasan Piker
in the us I have the exact opposite, I have the exact opposite assessment of the situation where I think that privatization and at first looks like a better thing and it's sold as like innovative, but then inevitably leads to private companies corner cutting and actually giving a worse service overall. Whereas not being beholden to endless profit seeking allows some of these systems to thrive. Because ultimately it's not supposed to be for profit, it's supposed to make sure that people are transported. It's like the US Postal Service, right?
- [38:42]
Tom Bilyeu
So not supposed to be for profit. I get why you say that, but when you're dealing with the realities of the human psyche, it's like you have to do something to incentivize people, to work that hard, take those huge risks. And that always becomes the part where I think people are not being honest about how hard it is to build and scale a company. And so there's this idea, as my read of socialism goes, something like this. The miracle is redistribution versus the miracle is being able to create a system that outputs something more valuable than its inputs. And I've spent the last 25 years of my life trying to do that, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing, but it's always brutally difficult. And so the question becomes, why would I put myself through that? And the reason that you put yourself through it is you're playing a game where it's like, I can win. Like, I can really make something that the world loves, that people are like, man, you've made my life better. And that feels awesome. I've been able to maximize my talent and intelligence in a way that matters. So meaning and purpose means a lot to me. I control my own destiny. So I have autonomy.
- [39:44]
Hasan Piker
Yeah, you have autonomy. You're you. That's the reason why you want people to become entrepreneurs, so they have autonomy. I have autonomy in my life as well, because I guess technically own and operate, and I'm the sole labor of my own business. Right. And I want people to have those.
- [40:00]
Tom Bilyeu
Are going to be hurt to hear you say you're the sole laborer. Your editors will be hurt to hear.
- [40:04]
Hasan Piker
That's true. But I'm like, the key man. And if I wasn't actually streaming, like, there is not another person out there who is working that I'm paying so that they can stream. And then we ship off that footage to the editors. Right? Like, if I were to stop streaming, then my editors would also not be able to make any money in the process because the business would not generate any sort of revenue. You're right, though. You're absolutely right. I do have editors. I also have a cooperative owner, cooperative owned podcast as well. But the point I'm trying to make is that if I stopped streaming or if I stopped podcasting, like, these businesses would fall apart in and of itself. But I want everyone, just like my editors have, to be able to have autonomy and to have a say in the process of making things. And I think that actually helps with the efficiency or helps build better, more innovative products down the line in ways that we can't immediately Foresee.
- [41:09]
Tom Bilyeu
I agree, but why is the government the right way to make sure that happens?
- [41:13]
Hasan Piker
Well, the government simply acts as a, a regulatory mechanism here. This isn't to say that like everything should be state owned enterprises, but I think that even if you have a private structure, for example, like in many European social democracies, as long as you don't allow the, the profit seeking aspect that take complete control over whatever the services you're providing or whatever the goods that you're creating, then the government should implement certain regulatory checks to ensure that there is still this balance where workers do have fair wages, better benefits packages, and that the market is heavily regulated because it's already heavily incentivized through the form of subsidies. But we demand nothing in return in western liberal democracies for said subsidies. In most circumstances we just kind of give people money, we give companies money and we're like, do whatever you want with it. We trust you to make the right decision with this. I think when we do this subsidy process, there should be certain demands that the government is making. You have to ensure that all of your workers have a living wage. You have to ensure that you're not like employing children, you know what I mean? You have to ensure that they get paid time off, paid family leave. I think these are perfectly reasonable demands that the government should make from their.
- [42:32]
Tom Bilyeu
What happens when take minimum wage right where you want to increase it as much as possible. You want a quote unquote living wage, but when you do it, you get adverse from where I'm sitting, consequences like it increases the rate at which people automate that people have a harder time getting entry level jobs. Because as an entrepreneur, if you're making me pay somebody twice what I've would otherwise pay them for the entry level position, it's not an entry level position anymore. So now I'm going to look for somebody that's worth that amount of money.
- [43:03]
Hasan Piker
This is where labor unions come in. Labor unions are supposed to ensure that even in the process of automation you don't actually end up firing people. That automation is not used as a, as a mechanism to displace the existing labor forces we talked about already, but instead is to lower the burden of the existing labor force so that.
- [43:24]
Tom Bilyeu
How do you reconcile though that the average consumer wants everything as cheaply as possible. They seem completely blind to the fact that they as a worker are the reason things aren't cheaper. So it's like I want cheap goods, but I also want a much higher minimum wage. And that tension, which I honestly think the Vast majority of the public is unaware of where that problem comes from. Like, how do we reconcile that?
- [43:45]
Hasan Piker
I think in a weird way, we're kind of seeing a version of that with Donald Trump right now, who's, like, bullying companies to ensure that they eat the cost of the tariffs. Not sure exactly where this is going to go, but, like, do you like that? I dislike Donald Trump heavily, but that is one aspect of his administration that I was, like, genuinely shocked by that. Like, companies are openly admitting that they're currently eating as much as the tariffs as they possibly can, which means that there was room, there was some movement to, to, to shed away some of their profit rates in an effort to even improve workplace conditions and improve the benefit structures or the compensation that they are offering their regular workers. They just had never done so because there was no intimidation coming from the executive, whereas right now there is intimidation coming from the executive. So they're basically just eating away as much as that, as much as the profits as possible. And then in return, they're giving that, in the form of tariffs, the entry tax, back to this administration. God knows what they're going to do with that money. I don't think they're going to actually use it for anything good. And that's a, a totally separate problem. But on, on principle, it seems like there is more money to move around in, in a lot of these companies than we actually previously thought. And, and they're showing that reality right now.
- [45:12]
Tom Bilyeu
Okay, so is this a black cat, white cat thing for you where you don't mind the executive intimidating companies as long as it's yielding an outcome you think is.
- [45:22]
Hasan Piker
Oh, for sure. I, I actually. Well, I wouldn't say this about Donald Trump because, like I said, who knows what? Like, there's a better way to do this because it's not technically a redistributive policy if you don't redistribute the wealth at all. It is taxes, though, right? Like, Donald Trump has implemented this broad sales tax, which is a regressive tax. I'm not in favor of it for that reason, but he has been able to implement this, and it hasn't even turned into a broad regressive sales tax yet because companies are seemingly not actually increasing the costs in the ways that we thought they would. I think it's still going to happen down the line. It's impossible for them not to. But the, the very fact that they haven't done so in the interim implies that they did have room for, they did have more room to, to lower their profit rates without taking too significant of a hit. And I think in the best, in the best regulatory system, the, the same intimidation would exist by the state, but in the direction of, of taking, instead of giving it, you know, as an entry tax, taking some of that money and, and telling the companies to, to give it back to their workers so that they have more.
- [46:34]
Tom Bilyeu
What would you want to see Trump spend? The tax, the additional tax revenue.
- [46:39]
Hasan Piker
So many things, but he's just not going to do that. But I mean, surely there's a health and thing. I mean, health care, infrastructure, education. There are so many areas of need, I'm not even going to say improvement at this point, like areas in dire need of, of resources that they're not getting. Rural hospital networks are completely eviscerated at this point, and it's only slated to get worse with the new Triple B bill that he passed through with $800 billion of Medicaid cuts that are going to come after the midterms that is going to rip apart the existing network of, like, rural hospitals. Hospitals that rely on Medicaid to serve their patients are no longer going to have this financial. They're no longer going to have patients that are able to pay for their hospital bills at all. So it's going to destroy what remains of rural hospital networks in this country. That's devastating. And I think we should be moving in the opposite direction on that. Abolishing the interest of profit from health care in its entirety, because it's an inelastic. It's an inelastic demand. Good. So either you need heavy market intervention from the government or no, no market intervention whatsoever. No market whatsoever in that process.
- [48:00]
Tom Bilyeu
Okay, so what about debt? So if I have made any headway, which I'm, I'm fearing, I have made no headway. If I made any headway, some of that money, or in my universe, virtually all of it would go to paying down the debt. Mm, good allocation, Bad allocation?
- [48:19]
Hasan Piker
Oh, I don't necessarily care about that at all because I think that the, the international, the international financial markets are just dictated by the confidence that people have in American might, in the American economy in general. I don't think it's, like, tied to anything tangible. Like you said, it's not tied to any sort of commodity. It's not tied to gold. Right.
- [48:42]
Tom Bilyeu
And you don't think the debt can break that confidence?
- [48:45]
Hasan Piker
I think it is virtually impossible for the debt to break that confidence because in the same way that I was just talking about the stock market, which is like, no longer as associated with like a, like the real market fundamentals that we think of, or like an innovative product that we're talking about. And it's more so just like the overwhelming confidence or the overwhelming need for. For to. To have endless unlimited growth. The same goes for the international design that we have where people are just like, we can't break this apart. Even when Trump is forcibly trying to break it apart. Look at the design that we have around global trade, right? We built it. We built it in a way where we just give IOUs to other countries and, and we could then have them build the products, and then we could just say, like, okay, you know, the, the dollar is the, is the currency that trade is being conducted on. We have complete control over it, and we'll just give you IOU and then we'll buy these, the cheap goods that you are creating over there. So then our consumer base can, you know, enjoy endless treats. Donald Trump is trying to break that apart, or at least by his own admission, he was like, actively attempting to disrupt the system for no discernible reason whatsoever. He claims it's because he wants to build a robust manufacturing base and do trade protectionism, but you have to build that base first instead of just like, like deciding that all of these other vassal states are supposed to pay additional tithing to the American lordship in the way that he has done so far, where he goes to countries and says, you have to buy our chicken, you have to buy our F150s and you have to make up for this trade surplus. And, and in the process, you're supposed
- [50:32]
Tom Bilyeu
to pay, actually free up enough dollars to start paying down the debt.
- [50:36]
Hasan Piker
Great.
- [50:37]
Tom Bilyeu
It would actually be wildly advantageous for the very people that you want to help. But the hard reality is that everybody at this stage in the debt cycle thinks that it goes on forever. And this is when you're literally a small handful of years. I'm going to peg it at roughly 10 years away from mechanistically. It just can't go on. You're adding a trillion dollars in debt every 100 days, and already you spend more in interest on that debt than you spend on national defense. So it's like it eventually becomes bigger than all of your healthcare programs, then it becomes bigger than all of your healthcare programs put together, and it happens very, very fast. There is no country that's not true. 98% of every country that's spent any significant amount of time with a debt to GDP ratio of over 130 has ended up in civil war or revolution. So Japan is the only country that has avoided that. Now, Japan has cultural reasons why I think they'd be fine. I'm not even sure we have to go all the way to 130 before we start pulling ourselves apart at the. The seams. So it's like debt is the thing where I am like, banging pots and pans and screaming, trying to get people to hear me, but because it's not emotionally sexy, it doesn't feel like punishing the rich. I cannot get people to wake up to the fact there's one thing driving your problem. It is debt and money printing.
- [51:50]
Hasan Piker
Well, the reason why I just. Like I said, the reason why I don't think it's as consequential or as significant is, is precisely because there's this. It's almost like the red button, right? Once America collapses, the entire system collapses. And therefore, even when China will be like peace. No, I understand that empires fall, but even I know, and I think England fell.
- [52:15]
Tom Bilyeu
America.
- [52:15]
Hasan Piker
I think the American empire is slated to fall as well. But my point is, don't you want to stop that? I want the. I want America to be a force for good. It's currently not. I wish it was, but it's. It's just a force for endless unlimited greed. And when you.
- [52:31]
Tom Bilyeu
Force for good. Is that an international comment?
- [52:34]
Hasan Piker
Both international and also domestic.
- [52:36]
Tom Bilyeu
Okay. And so we talked about the external part internally, domestic. How do we economically become a force for good? Like, mechanistically, though, I want to know, like, what are the policies?
- [52:47]
Hasan Piker
We have unlimited wealth in this country. We have.
- [52:50]
Tom Bilyeu
Explain that.
- [52:50]
Hasan Piker
I mean, we have tremendous wealth in this country. It's the wealthiest country on the planet in the, in the history of mankind.
- [52:56]
Tom Bilyeu
Yes. Leverage to the gills with debt, for sure.
- [52:59]
Hasan Piker
But ultimately we have so much technological innovation. If we were. And we have a. We have an incredible infrastructure that we're relying on that we, that we made gains on in the New Deal that we're still basically eating off of. And we haven't necessarily improved it in ways that we could have for a very long time due to that same, you know, private public partnership structure that we've designed that makes it so that these companies get the benefits, get the subsidies, get the tax cuts, and don't actually deliver anything in return. And the regulatory thor agencies that are supposed to enforce these companies to follow through. Give you the example of like, ISPs in the 90s, they got like billions of dollars of tax cuts because they weren't. They were supposed to create broadband that was easily accessible. They were Supposed to move in the direction of fiber optic cables. I live in West Hollywood. I still don't have fiber. I have worse Internet than like Chattanooga, Tennessee. The reason why Chattanooga, Tennessee has better Internet than me living in West Hollywood and you know, and paying 50 plus percent in taxes overall year over year is just pure income is because they had a local government take control over the situation and said, no, we're going to deliver this unconditionally. I don't think that we should leave it up to, you know, private industry and.
- [54:16]
Tom Bilyeu
But you don't look at what Elon is doing and go like, this is
- [54:19]
Hasan Piker
pretty interesting in terms of what Starlink.
- [54:22]
Tom Bilyeu
Yeah, Starlink is going to bring high broadband, low latency Internet to everybody.
- [54:27]
Hasan Piker
No, I, I think, I think there are things that Elon Musk companies are doing that are a direct consequence of the brillian people that work there. And Elon is, is simply sitting on top of all of these.
- [54:40]
Tom Bilyeu
I don't need you to. Elon. I'm just saying.
- [54:42]
Hasan Piker
Yeah.
- [54:42]
Tom Bilyeu
All of this innovation, privatization, that's how, how do you get engineers to get behind you?
- [54:47]
Hasan Piker
Oh well, what I was going to say is, what I was going to say is like it doesn't have to be that because it's all still, it's heavily reliant on previous technology that was publicly funded. It's like, it's like sitting on top of a lot of, a lot of like NASA's Jeep JPL engineers for example, like they're, it would not exist without NASA.
- [55:08]
Tom Bilyeu
Elon, I'm the government. Like if they're going to spend our dollars on things that the private industry isn't going to tackle but could yield something advantageous. I love that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. The question just becomes what yields the most innovation. And if you look at SOEs, you can literally, so state owned enterprises, you can literally compare them to privatization and en masse. Not that there won't be examples here and there where SOEs somehow pull something off, but en masse privatization just always becomes more efficient, more innovative because humans don't want to work for free. And so they need that incentive. It's like when I talk to people that lean socialists, it's like they really get the need for workers to have dignity and to make enough money that they can exist in the economy and that they can make the promise to themselves and to their kids. My kids lives will be better than mine, but my life next year is going to be better than my life today. Like that's, that's so important and we have to facilitate that. But I'm saying they get that, but then when they translate it to what system yields that and it's letting those people go. For instance, Elon Musk is a moron. I want to spin off my own company. I want to do this myself. I'm going to outsmart him. I'm going to show the world and enough people do that that they end up creating something extraordinary.
- [56:22]
Hasan Piker
Well, like you said, there's also natural barriers of entry into, you know, space travel and airline. Commercial airline industries as well. So there, and then there is that problem in terms of industries that tend to monopolize. I mean, every single industry wants to do that.
- [56:41]
Tom Bilyeu
Monopoly is very important.
- [56:42]
Hasan Piker
Yeah. And that's another regulatory function of the state as well. It's just, it seems like it's a matter of like how much state intervention we want in this process.
- [56:54]
Tom Bilyeu
State intervention works. This is the thing, like watching you, you're a big supporter of Mom. Dummy Mom.
- [57:01]
Hasan Piker
Donnie. Yeah.
- [57:02]
Tom Bilyeu
And bro, like, I'm like, hey, he really seems like he has a good heart and he wants to do something rad. And I'm just like, go look at what happened in the Bronx when they tried rent control before.
- [57:15]
Hasan Piker
Well, he's not even doing, he's not even proposing rent control. He's saying rent freezes on rent stabilized units. Because that is an independent commission that is like appointed by the mayor.
- [57:24]
Tom Bilyeu
Literally part of what happened in the Bronx.
- [57:26]
Hasan Piker
No, I know, but I'm saying that that has actually happened in the past on numerous occasions and it hasn't led to.
- [57:32]
Tom Bilyeu
That's catastrophe.
- [57:34]
Hasan Piker
I don't, I don't.
- [57:35]
Tom Bilyeu
Literal catastrophe. You have to like go do like a breakdown of what happened in the 70s and 80s in the Bronx. It's wild.
- [57:43]
Hasan Piker
Well, I think rent, rent stabilized, housing having rent freezes, rent freeze means like increase in rent has been successfully implemented even during COVID and whatnot as well.
- [57:54]
Tom Bilyeu
So it's like, it's not maybe in like the world's most hyper, like right in this moment for 18 months or something, but the cost of maintaining building are going to go up. This is inflation. This is why I'm saying once people stop understanding inflation, they they themselves six ways a Sunday. Because all the plumbing is going to go up at the rate of inflation. Right. So if I'm a building owner and I've got to deal with plumbing issues and I know since 2020 we've gone up by 25% conservative estimates. That's from truflation. So you've got an increase in 25%, but if I'm the landlord, I can't up my rent. So that's just one of the many things that could go wrong. And so now all of a sudden you're putting the business owner in a position and the building is a business. And I get why you don't like that, but it's like, hey, I took all the capital risk and all that to build this business. I have to keep the ongoing stuff. This is why now people will actually advise people don't own because there's so many costs with owning, but the landlord has to like, upkeep that building. Now, as you force them into leaner and leaner margins through freezing rent, what you end up doing is changing their cost structure. And now they're like, okay, well then I have to cut back on servicing the building. And then it got so bad.
- [59:00]
Hasan Piker
I think, I think in many instances these, these buildings are not being properly serviced to begin with. And, and regardless, because you still greed. I think it's greed for sure. So 100%.
- [59:11]
Tom Bilyeu
Can we agree that deregulating and letting people build more housing is at a minimum part of the solution? Even if it's not the whole solution solution.
- [59:19]
Hasan Piker
I think building more housing is definitely part of the solution.
- [59:23]
Tom Bilyeu
But I agree government to be in control of that.
- [59:26]
Hasan Piker
I want, in my estimation and what I have seen is, is methods that are successful. I think the government already has tremendous power in this country and in all countries. And using that power for good in terms of even like eminent domain and like expansive public infrastructure projects which include like public housing would be a necessary intervention in the, in the. The market that is currently dominated by endless greed. And every, every type of regulation is actually used as a loophole for. For people to continue protecting their. Their speculative assets. Housing.
- [60:09]
Tom Bilyeu
All right, brother, I know I have to get you out of here as you need to go live.
- [60:13]
Hasan Piker
Yeah.
- [60:13]
Tom Bilyeu
I thank you so much for your time, man. Where can people follow along with you?
- [60:16]
Hasan Piker
I'm live every day at Slash Hasanabi and I'm on Twitter at Hasan and on TikTok and Instagram at Hassan Dpiker.
- [60:25]
Tom Bilyeu
And when he says every day, he means every day is wild. All right, everybody, if you have not already, be sure to subscribe. And until next time, my friends, be legendary. Take care. Peace.