Everything Is Breaking: Trade Wars, Birthrate Collapse & Free Speech Lies | The Tom Bilyeu Show

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: "Everything Is Breaking: Trade Wars, Birthrate Collapse & Free Speech Lies"

Podcast: Tom Bilyeu's Impact Theory
Host: Tom Bilyeu
Date: April 25, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Impact Theory, hosted by Tom Bilyeu, dives deep into today’s most pressing and chaotic headlines: U.S.-China trade wars, demographic shifts like birthrate collapse, and free speech controversies. Tom and his co-host Drew parse through political narratives, business conflicts, and cultural anxieties to uncover what is actually happening beneath the surface-level “team sport” discourse. Their aim is a clear-eyed, non-partisan analysis that puts outcomes and human flourishing above tribal victory.

---

Major Discussion Topics & Takeaways

1. Rejecting Team Mentalities in Political Discourse

[00:46 – 03:38]

• Tom outlines his core philosophy: avoid ideological teams and focus on predictive validity.
  • “My default stance is don’t be on a team. Really try to figure out what has predictive validity.”—Tom [01:15]
• He expresses frustration with media and public lack of nuance: people want fast answers, but real clarity requires patience and detachment from emotional tribalism.

---

2. Trump, Tariffs, and the Art of Chaos

[03:38 – 14:20]

• The segment centers around Trump’s shifting trade rhetoric, especially regarding China and punitive tariffs.
• Tom discusses possible interpretations:
  • Trump as a chaotic strategist (intentionally introducing disorder to gain leverage), or
  • Trump as in over his head, retreating after unintended economic turmoil.
• Both hosts stress the importance of judging policies by real-world outcomes, not “team wins.”
  • “We should be looking more as to what would be best for America in this moment. If Trump passed a whole bunch of progressive policies, would the left be like, ‘Oh, thank you, good job, Trump’? They’d still be mad.” —Drew [03:38]
• Notable Quote:
  • “In politics, you try a thing... and if it doesn’t work immediately, this is just my chance to be like, ‘You’re a loser.’ ...That won’t help you in your life. That’s not a useful way to do politics. If you want the country to win... I don’t care who’s in power.” —Tom [10:02]
• Both agree proper judgment of policy needs patience, referencing that we’re still in the first 100 days of the administration. Immediate judgment, they argue, is misleading.

---

3. Scott Besson vs. Elon Musk: Internal Trump Admin Tensions

[15:33 – 28:14]

• Discussion of a reported shouting match between Treasury Secretary Scott Besson and Elon Musk, highlighting internal divisions regarding China tariffs and economic policy.
• Surface drama masks deeper, structural disagreements about strategy and interests.
  • “You’ve got people that get to the top of their game because they are extraordinarily good and they realize they have to push forward... when they collide with somebody, it’s like, ‘How can you not see that I’m right?’” —Tom [24:01]
• Tom draws a metaphor to personal relationships—arguments often obscure the true, underlying assumptions or goals at stake.
• The narrative also touches on Elon’s personal sacrifices in the name of public service and how his private enterprise interests often blend with claimed public good.

---

4. Free Speech Controversies: Elon Musk Allegations

[33:03 – 38:14]

• The hosts examine accusations that Elon Musk suppressed right-wing commentator Dr. Anastasia Loopi’s reach on X (Twitter). Despite Musk's public commitment to free speech, there’s evidence her 1.5M follower account was throttled.
  • “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... anything other than Elon went in and did something to the algorithm seems pretty hard to believe.”—Tom [36:15]
• Debate over whether successful individuals (like Musk or Jobs) need to be “assholes/abusive” to achieve their goals or if balance is possible.
  • “I think you can be successful without being abusive.”—Drew [38:41]
• Tom argues, anecdotally, that being perceived as tough or abrasive is common among high achievers, but it’s not justification for unethical behavior.

---

5. Lessons from History: World Wars vs. Ukraine

[42:53 – 51:03]

• Using tweets and historical analogies, Tom and Drew compare U.S. attitudes before WWII to present attitudes about Ukraine vs. Russia.
  • “Everything is easy to negotiate until it happens to you.”—Tom [43:44]
• Tom reflects on how moral clarity and public opinion shift dramatically depending on proximity to danger.
• Discussion includes why the presence of tough, even sociopathic, leaders can play a necessary (if uncomfortable) role in crisis, drawing from WWII and evolutionary psychology.
• They connect this challenging ambiguity to present-day Israel/Palestine debates, emphasizing the need to embrace “messy reality” over black-and-white thinking.

---

6. Demographic Decline: Global Birthrate Collapse

[50:45 – 58:37]

• The hosts discuss startling shifts in birthrates, the correlation with women’s education/empowerment, and potential social/economic consequences.
• Discussion of global government responses (e.g., Trump’s proposed $5,000 baby bonus, Turkey’s no-tax-for-mothers policies, South Korea’s monthly incentives, etc.).
• Tom is supportive of incentivizing parenthood but skeptical about simple cash bonuses:
  • “It costs a lot more than that to raise a child. ...I think people are going to get caught off guard and realize that, oh, once you have them, there’s no sending them back.”—Tom [52:10]
• Greater meaning/purpose for women (and men) is increasingly found in work and personal growth, not just parenting—a cultural shift, not just economic.

---

7. Viral Moments: Shannon Sharpe Scandal

[58:41 – 64:50]

• The episode pivots to recent tabloid news: Shannon Sharpe facing civil—not criminal—suit over alleged sexual misconduct with an OnlyFans model.
• Tom expresses skepticism about high-profile civil cases that skip criminal proceedings, cautioning about manipulation and the importance of more evidence.
• Both hosts note the perils celebrities (especially men) face in the internet age, emphasizing prudence and the complexity of high-profile consent/assault allegations.

---

8. Final Reflections & Mental Models for Uncertain Times

[65:24 – End]

• Tom recaps his approach on tariffs, emphasizing a tools-based view rather than ideological: “Tariffs are a tool that can be used to get the thing that we actually need.” [65:52]
• Ultimate metric: track results, not tribal narratives or rhetorical consistency.
  • “I have no interest in saying I know how this is going to play out... If he starts doing shit that doesn’t work and is moving us backwards... I won’t know until I see the outcome.” —Tom [67:52]
• Tom advocates ‘strong convictions loosely held’—staying humble, updating one’s mental models as evidence emerges, and consciously rejecting the need for certainty amid turbulence.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The right way to map it, I think, is James Burnham: Man is a political animal. They will do everything they can to control the narrative. ...This isn’t about ideological terra firma. This is about, what way are the winds blowing? How do I position my message so that I get elected?” —Tom [04:03]
• “If you can’t prioritize things, it’s because you don’t understand your own end goal, you don’t understand your own belief system, and you don’t understand your values.” —Tom [20:14]
• "Everything is funny until it happens to you." —Dave Chappelle, cited by Tom [43:44]
• “As people are able to have individual freedoms to pursue the things that they want to pursue, that is one of the reasons [for falling birth rates].” —Tom [54:38]
• “You want people to have choice. I don’t want people to be forced to [have kids], but I think it is a wonderful thing to incentivize.” —Tom [52:10]
• “When it’s [a war] my backyard, I’ve had a real problem. When it’s somebody else’s backyard, I’m like, well, people are dying guys. And so I don’t want to blind myself to how radically it shifts.” —Tom [43:44]
• “This is why you should absolutely loathe the idea of a monarchy or a dictator. Because, bro, you don’t want one person to have the power to come after you.” —Tom [36:15]

---

Structure and Flow

1. Politics & Predictive Thinking

   • Opening philosophy: avoid tribalism, focus on outcomes.

2. Trump & Trade

   • Dissecting motivations and implications of tariff policy.

3. Internal Elite Drama

   • Musk vs. Besson; importance of arguing foundational principles.

4. Tech Power & Free Speech

   • Elon’s contradictions, the limits of billionaire ethics.

5. World Events Through a Historical Lens

   • Parallels between WWII-era isolationism and current Ukrainian conflict.

6. Birthrate Anxiety

   • Economic, social, and cultural roots; policy responses.

7. Culture & Scandal

   • Shannon Sharpe, media frenzy, and personal responsibility.

8. Closing Reflections

   • Tom’s approach summarized: follow evidence, not teams.

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Avoiding Team Politics: [00:46 – 03:38]
• Trump on Tariffs: [05:51 – 08:00]
• Besson and U.S.-China Balance: [15:59 – 22:09]
• Besson–Musk Conflict: [24:01 – 28:14]
• Free Speech on X: [33:03 – 38:14]
• WWII Parallels with Ukraine: [42:53 – 51:03]
• Birthrate Collapse / Incentives: [50:45 – 58:37]
• Shannon Sharpe Scandal: [58:41 – 64:50]
• Tariffs & Predictive Validity Recap: [65:24 – End]

---

Overall Tone and Language

• Direct, bold, analytical. The hosts don’t shy away from controversy or complexity, regularly citing sources and challenging their own frameworks.
• Candid and sometimes humorous — especially around personal anecdotes or pop culture segments.
• Committed to transparency and humility, emphasizing evidence over ideology, and introspection over certainty.

---

This summary aims to capture the rich, nuanced substance and lively conversational style of the episode. If you want grounded analysis of today's biggest issues—without the tribal noise—this episode delivers clear frameworks and honest reflection.

Transcript

[A]

With Vrbal's last minute deals, you can save over $50 on your spring getaway. So whether it's a mountain escape with friends, a family week at the beach or sightseeing in a new city, there's still time to get great discounts. Book your next day now. Average savings $72 select homes only. Dinner time. It's where little moments are cherished With Blue cash preferred get 6% cash back at US supermarkets and bring everyone together. I did say everyone. Learn [e-mail] Explore BCP terms and cash back cap apply with Blue Cash Preferred Trump changes his tone on tariffing China Bessant says China still needs to rebalance their position on trade Crack show and Trump's Admin as Elon and Besson get into a screaming match. Elon announces he's reducing time at Doge as Tesla profits plunge over 70%. Echoes from World War II give new perspective on Ukraine, Russia conflict. Trump Admin floats idea of incentivizing motherhood and Shannon Sharpe plays a literal game of FAFO with an OnlyFans model and boy oh boy, Drew is he finding out. Yikes. Now today's live on the Tom Billy show was very spicy and a lot of people think that I am sane washing Trump as they said. But I don't think that's true. I think the reality is I'm just willing to admit that I don't know how this is all going to play out for good or bad and my default stance is don't be on a team. Really try to figure out what has predictive validity. Is Trump nut job who is just throwing the world into disarray? Maybe there's a very real possibility that is exactly how this plays out. Uh, or is he somebody that actually leverages chaos as a stated tool, which I haven't read the book, but supposedly in the Art of the Deal it says exactly that you asked for the moon, you introduce a ton of chaos and then as you begin to cobble something together that people think is more reasonable, you're able to have moved them a lot farther than you otherwise would have been. I want to be very clear. What I'm not trying to say is that's what he's doing. What I'm trying to say is that is one of what I see as the two most obvious possibilities. Total lunatic who is not going to get us where we want to go, or somebody who has a strategy. He is deploying that which again, even if that is a strategy and he's doing all of this on purpose does not mean that it's going to work out. So. But, man, am I really trying to be heard on the way that I process information, because I think it has a lot of utility. And so my frustration right now is the very thing that I think makes this show valuable is that people are likely to go with their biological instincts. So to be on a team, to steer by emotion rather than to say, okay, I don't want to be on a team, because then I'm incentivized to think one way or the other. I want to be obsessed with an outcome and then simply ask, are the things that I'm doing actually yielding the outcome that I thought they would and moving me towards that outcome? And if they are, I'm going to keep doing it. And if they're not, then I'm going to adjust along the way. And I have a feeling that people don't know how to parse somebody in the political sphere that is very intentionally trying to avoid being on a team. It doesn't mean I don't have a perspective. I do. But it does mean that I really do want to break out of that mold whenever I can to remind myself, hey, what you actually care about is this outcome. And are you sure that the things that you think are leading you down that path are not?

[B]

And I think that we need to highlight the outcome a little bit more now, because a lot of times in recent politics, it's when my team loses, I want the president to fail. I want the country to fail, so that way my team can come back in power and save it again. And I think we should be looking more as what would be best for America in this moment. If Trump passed a whole bunch of progressive policies, would the left be like, oh, thank you, good job, Trump, or would they still be mad? Because it's.

[A]

They'd still be mad.

[B]

It's their person doing it, you know, so we want.

[A]

This is why the parties flip over time. Because what ends up happening is you. The right way to map it, I think, is James Burnham. Man is political animal. They will do everything they can to control the narrative. They will do anything they can to get and maintain power. And when they see that white space. Because when I was a kid, Republicans were very much in bed with business. They were all about giving tax breaks to the rich, all of that stuff. Never marketing their. They never tried to make the working man their base. That was always the bread and butter of the Democratic Party, and now it's completely flipped. And billionaires are far more likely to donate to the Democratic Party than they are the Republican Party. That the people that appeal to the working class, like, I'm going to bring jobs back to you is very much the Republican Party. It's crazy. And that's certainly the vote that they won. So. Because for sure, you can say, well, the messaging of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is very much tax the life out of the rich. So I don't want to blind myself to that. It's not super clean, but I think that's the Republicans seeing the space to get elected far more than I think that it's, oh, this is just how Republicans think. And this is just how Democrats think. I think that with enough time watching the two sides, you begin to realize, oh, this isn't about ideological terra firma. This is about, what way are the winds blowing? How do I position my message so that I get elected?

[B]

Yeah, to get the early win. Now, this conversation is on the back of Trump saying that tariffs on China will come down substantially. And I'm phrasing it and looking at it as this is him saying, I put up 145 to kind of goat them. Once we have those negotiations, we're going to find a number that's a bit more down at Earth. I don't know. Siri saying he's a failed or he lost the policy. Let's listen to Trump's answer directly.

[A]

Bessen suggested that it's a tariff rate as high as they are now. Trade between the United States, that's 145% is very high. And it won't be that high. Not going to be that high. It got up to there. We were talking about fentanyl, where, you know, various elements built it up to 145. No, it won't be anywhere near that high. It'll come down substantially, but it won't be zero. Used to be zero. We were just destroyed. China was taking us for a ride and just not going to have. It's not going to happen. We're going to be very good to China, have a great relationship with President Xi, but they would make billions and billions and billions of dollars a year and they would build their military out of the United States and what they made. So that won't happen. But they're going to do very well. And I think they're going to be happy and I think we're going to live together very happily and ideally work together. So I think it's going to work out very well. But, no, it's at 145%. There will not be anywhere near that number. So for me, the words that Trump is saying are not that different. But the way that he is talking, the tone, the tenor very much feels softened. And I think that you've got. I think it is a very reasonable thing to look at this and go, Trump realizes he's in over his head and that he's caused problems in the economy that he didn't think he was going to cause. Or it's possible China's just been like, we're not taking the bait. We're not coming to the table. Um, and Trump is doing the calculus on the game of chicken and realizing, I'm gonna lose this. And so he's backing off, and he's totally accepting defeat. That may be true. That may be how this plays out. It is. I don't think the most likely answer. I think the most likely answer is something that blends the two of. He does listen to signals. So if he tries something and the voting public is like, fuck you, then he will back off that. So I'm sure part of it is that. That people are just squawking loud, whether privately or publicly.

[B]

Anxiety.

[A]

Yeah. Like, look, there's too much uncertainty in the market, and so he's backing off. And part of it is that, yeah, this is what you do. You sow some chaos, you create this upended situation. His administration has been talking about that from the beginning. Besson has talked about this endlessly. Lutnick has talked about this endlessly. So I have no reason to believe they know how to message that point, but they're not actually doing it. That doesn't make sense to me. I don't think you have a cleanup crew, especially from what I understand. I have not read it, but from what I understand, he writes in the Art of the Deal that this is what you do. Like, you create that little bit of chaos. And we talked about it already. So that, to me, is, I think, a more logical read. That is a combination of, we have not gotten an easy win with China. We haven't been. We've had more turmoil in the market than they probably anticipated. And so now the sensible play is to begin bringing the house of cards back in order, to me, the KPI that people need to be looking at, because I think you have until the midterms. Like, I won't consider his attempts to have hit a brick wall until. If and when he loses the house, then I would say, okay, he tried and he failed. It did not work. So people want to know what would need to be true for me to go, oh, obviously, he just did not know how to play this well. The thing that would need to be true is he loses control of the House. If he loses control of the House, he didn't play this well as a catastrophe. Even if from a political standpoint, even if we end up getting the concessions that we want from China, it would be a catastrophe now if he holds the House. But we never get manufacturing returning to the US with or without jobs. I'd rather see it with jobs for reasons I've talked about endlessly before. But even if it's all AI, all robotics, we still have to bring manufacturing back. If that doesn't happen but he stays in power and the Republicans stay in power forever, that would also be, from where I'm sitting, a catastrophic failure. So I'm not judging this just by whether he stays in power, whether anybody stays in power, though I would consider that part of a. He had a strategy, and it clearly did not work the way that he was expecting. But for the end case that I want to see us move towards, I want to see us be prepared for a future in which we're dealing with an adversary in China right now, I'll clock them more as a rival, but if they become an open adversary, we need to be ready for that. So to me, that's a far bigger issue than who's in power. So those are the fail states until we get there. It is a question. It isn't a question of the way that Trump started to play. The game at the beginning needs to be judged as right or wrong. That's the team sport thing that drives me crazy, because it's not a question of I do a thing in business that I call the physics of progress. I do it in my marriage. Literally every aspect of my life is the physics of progress. The physics of progress is you try a thing and it's probably not gonna work as well as you think. And you adjust, adjust, adjust. In politics, you try a thing, and if it doesn't work immediately, this is just my chance to be like, you're a loser. And that's the thing where I really do feel like I'm screaming into the wind, where I'm like, that won't help you in your life. That's not a useful way to do politics. If you want the country to win, which I think your point about, people just want the other side to lose, even if it means it burns their own house down, which is insane to me, so that they can say See, I told you, you're dumb. And I'm just like, I have no interest in that. I don't care who's in power. I want to make sure that we get to the end state that I think is human flourishing for the people in our country, and I don't mind who gets us there. So the person that's in power now is Trump, and I want to see it work. I don't care if he had to change, adjust, adjust, adjust, adjust to get there now. I think it will be a fair criticism if he adjust, adjust, adjust to what people on the left were saying. This is how you should pursue it. And if that ends up being the case, that's important to recognize. Like, okay, hold on. There were people that saw this better than he did, than I did, whoever. Uh, that's really helpful to understand one from a. Are they the better person to listen to the next time we get into this? Or at a minimum, is there a cause and effect here that I can map that will help me make better decisions in the future? Um, that I think is the way to look at this. But I know the comments are going to be full of people saying, thomas, just doing mental gymnastics. And that makes me lament for people's ability to make good decisions in their own life because they prioritize being right over identifying the right answer.

[B]

I want to make sure we're all clear and sober, as we're calling this, to realize that we're still in the first hundred days, guys. We haven't even gotten into the second full quarter of Trump's presidency. So let's just kind of take a break and really let things materialize before we can concretely say it's a pass, fail, success, anything.

[A]

And I think the same curiosity. So I feel like I've articulated why I want people to do that. Do you want people to do that for the same reason, or do you have a different reason why you want them to, like, hey, pump the brakes for a second.

[B]

I see a lot of emotional reactions. I check every comment. I like.

[A]

You don't think emotional reactions serve people, or is there something else?

[B]

I don't think they serve people in this moment, at least when it's coming to things that are more complex. If somebody comes to your house and they're trying to kill you, guess your emotional reaction of trying to fight back is the right one. I'm not saying everything needs six days of understanding to know if it's a right decision or a wrong decision, but to categorize a internationally economic Policy implementation in the first two weeks to me, isn't something that's going to give you lasting predictive validity to still one of your words, like, if a workout routine should last longer than Liberation Day to where we are now, let alone. And you won't judge that as success or failure. If I go to the gym for two weeks straight, I'm not like, yep, I'm, I'm a bro now. Like, I'm ready to be a bodybuilder. I need at least three months, you know, 21 days to make a habit. Like, there's all these other axioms that we give ourselves grace for other theory for other scenarios in our lives. But when it comes to Trump, it's like he did something wrong. He did something on April 2, April 4, the market sells off. It's a failure. He should stop doing everything immediately. And it's, let's just take a breath and let things actually play out and then judge tree for the fruit that it bears versus just judging.

[A]

Agreed? Agreed. Yeah, quick break, but don't go anywhere. There's more to come after this short break from our sponsors. 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 safe, stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.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 granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done. All right, we're back. Let's get into it.

[B]

Scott Besson had a different take. So as Trump is kind of.

[A]

Scott has a different take.

[B]

Interesting as Trump is turning down his rhetoric on China and saying, you know, we're going to bring it down. That's not where we're actually going to end up. I hear from Besant, because some people might say Trump turning that down is we're giving something away to say, okay, now we're trying to start Those negotiations. Besant, saying that China's current economy is unsustainable to me, is reading as they need to make this deal more than we need to make that deal.

[A]

China, in particularly, in particular, is in need of a rebalancing. Recent data shows the Chinese economy tilting even further away from consumption toward manufacturing. China's economic system, with growth driven by manufacturing exports, will continue to create even more serious imbalances with its trading partners if the status quo is allowed to continue. China's current economic model is built on exporting its way out of its economic troubles. It's an unsustainable model that is not only harming China, but the entire world. China needs to change. The country knows it needs to change. Everyone knows it needs to change. And we want to help it change because we need rebalancing, too. China can start by moving its economy away from export overcapacity and towards supporting its own consumers and domestic demand. Such a shift would help with global rebalancing that the world desperately needs two things. One, I think the Besson is right about that. I think China does need us more than we need them. But we're obviously seeing that we are intertwined at this point. But I don't see Besant as, like, coming in hotter now. Besant's been pretty. Look, I'm sure there is some amount of Besson is always perceived in relationship to Trump. And I myself have pointed people towards Besson to say, hey, he's the calm voice. But Besson doesn't seem like he's changed his rhetoric much to me. He's just saying that, listen, what we were doing before is completely unsustainable. We can't live in that world because of where that it goes. And I. I don't understand how people push back on that. Like, if somebody is saying, we should have just kept doing what we're doing, I, I'm always open to being wrong, Drew. But, like, I immediately write them off. That. That is so nonsensical. So that to. To pierce my frame of reference on that, you would have to show me how a country can continue to rack up the kind of debt that we are on the growth trajectory that we are with the debt. To say that we should keep doing the same thing because history just says that ends in what's known as a debt jubilee, which is a lovely way of saying a lot of people die. So I don't understand anybody that's saying we should have just kept doing what we're doing. Now. If somebody's like, yeah, we have to make a change. I totally get that. I agree on where we want to end up, which is rebalance trade, a different relationship with China, Something where the US isn't just deficit, deficit spending their way to GDP that's 70%. We buy things that we need to make things that China is an adversary to our rival today, but could rapidly become an adversary. And, yeah, we have to address all that. I just don't think the way that Trump is doing it makes any sense. I think that this idea of introducing chaos, first of all, I think he's too dumb. I don't think, like, if they were saying that, I'd be like, okay, I get it now. Put forth the thing that you think is the thing that we should actually do, which is one of the things I think causes problems for me, is I will put forth, I think we should do this even knowing I have wildly incomplete information, imperfect information, I think, as they say, and that I will inevitably think I will refine my beliefs over time. But if I don't force myself to crystallize what I think the answer is, I'll never find out where the actual limits of my understanding are. And because emotions make dots feel like they connect that don't actually connect, when you're never forcing yourself to articulate out loud what you think should happen, you never find that, oh, wait a second. Actually, I don't. What would we do? People just never do it. And I see this with entrepreneurs all the time. Like, they think they have an idea, and then you just start asking them really basic questions, and it all falls apart. And the reality is they don't see it coming, that they don't have an answer. They think they do because it feels like they have an answer. Because they never force themselves to map out, like, oh, God. At the risk of derailing, if you can't prioritize things, it's because you don't understand your own end goal, you don't understand your own belief system, and you don't understand your values. So one thing I will ask parents, tongue in cheek, tongue in cheek. If you could only save one of your kids, which one would you save? I don't need them to answer out loud because I get it, you won't allow yourself to utter those words. But the reality is, what's skitching out in somebody's mind is that they've never stopped to ask themselves, like, what's my priority here? And they want it to be, well, I love my kids equally and therefore I would save them equally. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But if you could only save one and if you can allow yourself, if you can force yourself to prioritize, it means you have clarity. You may still be wrong. It may have been a poor choice, but at least then you can say, okay, I put them in this order for this reason, then you've at least got a shot of moving forward. If you're unable to articulate, like, what the priority of things is, you end up getting stuck. And so as we look at what's going on with the tariffs, specifically in the case of Besant, Besson is saying, here's what I think needs to happen for he's now talking from a really global perspective. And this is new in his rhetoric. I wouldn't necessarily say his tone, but his rhetoric of like, it's good for China to grow a middle class inside of their country that are able to buy the things that they make. And he wouldn't say the word out loud, but this is the intimation that they're currently dumping on the rest of the world. And by constantly just manufacturing literally as much as they can manufacture and sending it to the rest of the world, they're making it hard. Like, we already see how it's playing out in America.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And it also puts them in a very fragile position. And it creates. And this isn't Besson talking. This is like, if you start researching, like, why would this be a problem? You're going to run into economists just around it saying things like, you're incentivizing people to do a trade war against you to stop you from dumping cheap goods into their country, which stops them from having a manufacturing base, which is exactly what America is doing right now. And then also, you make your own economy very fragile because if America does, if the people that buy things from you do the thing that America is doing right now, now all of a sudden, you're in dire straits. So anybody that thinks that a trade war won't impact America is delusional. Anybody that thinks that a trade war won't impact China is delusional. And in terms of if we were racing towards demise, China probably dies first, but we would do so much damage, it's not worth. It's like chemotherapy. It's not a game you want to play. It's definitely going to shorten your life. But the cancer cells do usually die first. And that's the whole game.

[B]

In other Besant news, apparently him and Elon Musk got into a screaming match earlier this week. Besant slam Mux Musk over promise and undervalued Doge plans. While Musk called sort called Besant a Soros agent and him out for a failed hedge fund as like a failed hedge fund manager. Per Axios. People in Axios itself said that it was two billionaire middle aged men thinking it was a WWE in the hall of the West Wing. I know egos and pride does a lot of crazy things, but to me this sounds like two guys getting into a heated argument. I got into a heated argument one of my friends like a week and a half ago. I still love them. But do you think that this might be a crack in the Trump administration?

[A]

Probably. I mean, look, if everything was going smoothly and America was like, no, we're here for it, you're probably not going to see these kind of fights. But at the same time, like, this to me is not some gigantic red flag. You've got people that get to the top of their game because they are extraordinarily good and they realize that they have to push forward. They've developed a mindset that nobody's going to think through this problem as well as I am. They've learned to trust themselves. They've been right a lot, which is how they've gotten to where they're at. And if they don't want the dynamic tension as a fundamental part of their psyche, then when they collide with somebody, it's like, how can you not see that I'm right? Now as an outsider watching countless debates, the thing that I see is people argue with the level of the tea instead of getting to the base assumptions. What I mean by that is the biggest fight my wife and I ever got into was over a cup of tea. Two hours into a screaming match, I realized there's no way that this is about tea. I just don't care about tea that much. So I was like, what is this actually about? And so that was in our lives when we realized, oh, you always have to talk from a position of base assumptions, insecurities, like what are the things you believe, what are you afraid of? And if you lay all that out, then we can drill down into that and we can say, okay, this is why I think that base assumption is incorrect. But if you're arguing on the surface. So from what I hear, the argument was over. Elon pushed through a interim leader of the irs, and the head of the IRS reports to Besant and Besant wasn't consulted. That's pretty crazy. So from where I'm sitting, it's like, if you're. And I wasn't there reports coming out are all second hand. People say they wrote it down. Who knows. But I would not at all be surprised if what they were arguing about was the person, this guy either should or shouldn't be put into the irs instead of saying here are the base assumptions that make me think he's the right person. So here's where I'm trying to end up. Here's the things that I think very specifically he's going to do that will lead us to that. Then you can actually argue about those points and you can say, here's why. Either I disagree with your end goal. I don't want to end up there, I want to end up here. Cool. That's what we have to debate on. Or if we agree on that, then it's like point number three. I don't think it's going to happen. And this is what I think is going to happen. And then at least we're arguing about that point. Doesn't mean that they don't end up in a screaming match. But it does mean that it's a screaming match that's far more fruitful. That isn't about that surface layer thing. Now I wasn't there, so maybe they were. They handled it brilliantly, I don't know. But dude, when I say it's 90 plus percent of the time where people are yelling at each other, they don't want tension. So they have cobbled together a belief system that says I'm smart enough to solve all these problems by myself and so I want you to shut up and just do what I say. And or they're not arguing about the actual point of conflict. And so this is certainly what I see in the Douglas Murray Dave Smith debate. They weren't arguing about the thing that they actually disagree on.

[B]

Yeah, I'm getting vibes like that about this argument specifically because there was a rumor that Elon Musk is frustrated with the tariff policy because the China embargo on rare earths is going to delay Optimus and some of the other minerals that he needs to fund Tesla and the projects that they have for that. That's our next story. That Tesla Elon Musk is taking a step back away from Doge to focus more on his individual companies. But do you think that second order consequences like that could lead into these frustrations? So maybe Elon is actively struggling and getting hurt on his businesses, arguing with a guy who's championing those policies that are hurting his business and then now a IRS debate comes up and then it's just to your point, that becomes the T over a much held resentment for other things for sure.

[A]

I have a feeling it goes something like this. I don't think anybody has damaged their personal life more than Elon Musk by getting involved in the government. If it is true that Elon is doing it because he believes, I think we were headed down a path where America as we know it would cease to exist. Not saying that you have to believe he's right, just that he believes it. If he believes that that's true and he is paying Drew a freakish price for again, that he believes he's helping, and not just helping himself, but helping all Americans, he's paying this incredible price. Whenever you're going through something like that, whether it's sleeping in the hallways because you're working on Doge or it's just the watching your stock price plummet, seeing your staff be demoralized because everybody hates Tesla or it has become very popular to hate Tesla. Hopefully it's just a minor number of people, but nonetheless obviously very, very loud minority. And you will ask yourself the question, why am I doing this? If nobody wants me here, if nobody's listening to me, why am I doing this? And if you couple that with I really believe I'm right, I really believe that if we do this it will be better for Americans, then you can imagine how much frustration there will be and that it can spill into that and then make it even more complex. For as first principles thinking as Elon is, there's going to be emotion in this man from it can't be fun to be hated by that many people. It really can't be fun to watch your company drop in stock value. That's probably the most brutal profit. Super brutal, but probably temporary. Same with stocks for that matter. But that, that's rough. You start getting a ton of pressure. And also I just can't fathom how many people actually want him dead. And so now you've got to worry about security, you've got to worry about your kids. Like it's just a level of brutality. So I get how they end up clashing. But I think that to map his behavior, you also have to put in but this is also a guy that understands how if he can position things right, it's going to be good for his companies. And there's no way, even if it's subconscious, there's no way that he's not influenced by that. I think people are right to be paranoid about that. I don't think it is wise to map Elon as somebody who's purely altruistic. He may have the altruistic impulse, but it's certainly not going to be only altruistic. I mean, look, as somebody who understands, like, there are even down to. I do have an algorithm in the back of my mind running that says you gotta find a way to be more entertaining. And so there are times where I'm like, okay, do I give this in a droll way? Even when I read the intros, I try to, like, give a little bit of bounce because I am highly cognizant that I have end goals that that will help me move towards. And so I'm trying to walk an ethical line and not fake it, not be wwe. So it is inevitable that. And look, it's entirely possible that he is just an unethical human being and in the wash we realize this guy's a total, total sociopath. I would admittedly be surprised by that. It's possible, though, but it's. There's no way his motives are pure, but I don't think anybody's motives are pure. I think you can always trust people to be selfish. And the good news is, I feel like the things that he's fighting for, from free speech to getting rid of waste in the government, to upgrading the technology in the government, to wanting to unlock innovation, to grow gdp, through all of that, I think all of that makes a lot of sense. Quick break, but don't go anywhere. There's more to come after this short break from our sponsors. 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 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. All right, we're back. Let's get into it.

[B]

Yeah, speaking of Free speech. He's actually under fire right now. Friend of the show Ian Bremmer retweeted this that he got into a feud with Dr. Anastasia Loopi. She's like a right wing commentator. At the end of the year, last year, after their feud, her impressions pretty much got throttled. So much to the fact that you're

[A]

not looking at your phone like, this is dramatic.

[B]

It's what, like 90 drops? So much. So she created a second alternative account, brand new, that has gained more traction and gotten more reach than her current account, which was 1.5 million followers. He got called out for faking his ranking in the video game.

[A]

I still don't know how that didn't become a bigger thing.

[B]

Like, that's egregious. So he already kind of.

[A]

That one's crazy.

[B]

Got exposed from gamer side. The gamer side got exposed. It seems like with this, his exact exposure is there too. I'm starting to see those chinks in the armor with Elion. I love him. He's a great entrepreneur. He's done a bunch of great things. Love is a little bit of a strong word, but I do feel like this is the second time that I'm like, okay, your pride got hurt and you did something that I personally against

[A]

your own stated like, morals, like, yeah,

[B]

this doesn't look good.

[A]

This is horrific. And listen, it's possible that the people on X just stopped enjoying her content once they knew that she got in a beef with Elon. And their ex is so full of people that love Elon that anybody that goes against him, they just lose interest. That doesn't strike me as true. That feels like it has low predictive validity, given how much people love to hate inside of social media full stop and like, dial it to 11 on X. So this strikes me as the thing with the highest predictive validity is he was like, okay, what is a way, Even if he did it at the level of policy where it's like, that would zero in on her like a biological weapon? I mean, it just seems tough to read that any other way. So, yeah, this one feels gross. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So anything other than Elon went in and did something to the algorithm seems pretty hard to believe. So, yeah, I, I chalk this up to, here's a guy that's done incredible things. He is wildly imperfect. Here's an example of his imperfection. This really bothers me. I do not like this. This is one of those sayings, bro, if you're gonna beat the free speech drum, if you're Gonna go out of your way. He, for a while, really made his life worse with X. From, like, he looked like a financial fool. I don't think that's gonna last for very long because I think he's so good at product that he'll build something incredible. And if it isn't already, because I think at one point they were either breaking even or losing very little, which was already one of the greatest, if not the greatest, corporate turnaround ever. So very, very impressive. And I think it will just get better from here. But I hate everything about that. That is some pettiness that. Look, people have it. This is why you should absolutely loathe the idea of a monarchy or a dictator. Because, bro, you don't want one person to have the power to come after you. Yeah, that's what it looks like.

[B]

Musk responded indirectly, stating he doesn't silence critics, even on his platform, but also indicated that accounts engaging in certain behaviors, like blocking or meeting others, could face reduced reach.

[A]

Look, this is where it's like, okay, if you do it at the level of policy, that's better, because a lot of people are going to get caught up. But if you make a policy that's like, your name has to rhyme with Octor Anastasia or whatever, you know what I mean? And so I was like, okay, like, I see who this is aimed at, and I don't know what he changed. But if there. And this is fair, if there are a bunch of accounts that at that same time period, they just made a change in the algorithm and it happened to punish, you know, whatever 1.6 million people that were engaging in that same behavior, and there's a whole bunch of people that you could pull up and show that same graph. Then I would update my thinking. Um, but certainly at the level as presented there, it's like, that's pretty icky.

[B]

Yeah. So we'll keep monitoring the situation. It does seem like he got caught. I don't know, Elon, you. You used two. Two of the strikes already. After the third one, it's gonna look real iffy.

[A]

I mean, I'll take a slightly different stance, which is everything is about on balance. On balance, is he better or worse for moving people towards human. Human flourishing, I would say right now is way, way, way, way, way, way on balance, better. But I hate that one. I hate that one. This is why, dude, people have to distrust themselves. Distrust. Now, every time I say that, there's an algorithm that runs in my brain that says, hey, Elon has built things way bigger than what you've built. So it's entirely possible that it's actually from a functional standpoint, it's better to have a little bit of that. I don't know if we want to call it sociopathy, whatever that is that lets you say something in public but secretly be like, nope, psychological. Doing it like this, I want to be honest with myself about that. And then I can make the decision whether I think from a value standpoint I would be willing to go down that path. I don't want to blind myself to what's true.

[B]

I don't know that that makes me nervous because that's a cop out. That was kind of like the.

[A]

What's the cop out? Exactly.

[B]

I'm going to give you the example. There was a wave of entrepreneurs who thought they had to be assholes, so that way they can be like Steve Jobs. So they left all of the innovation, all of the creativity, all of that to the side and just overworked and abused people. So I think there is a balance between talent, effort, the things that you.

[A]

So you believe that it's been proven that that's not necessary.

[B]

I think you can be successful without being abusive.

[A]

Agreed. Now, do you think that you can be that? On balance? If you are going to look at the entire population of people that end up being successful, do you think that more or less than 50% of them will have a trait that will be frequently perceived as being an asshole?

[B]

I think more would, yeah.

[A]

So do I. So instinct, both of us are just going off gut. We've not run those experiments, but I have a feeling that it is a strategy that is more likely to be found in the bag of tricks of people that are successful than less likely. Now, I was very careful to use the word perceived by many to frequently be abusive. But the things that I have witnessed up close, the times where I've had to really push, like, there are guaranteed to be people that think I'm an asshole. And I'm like, yikes, man, I've really gone out of my way to try to uplift people and make sure that they have a voice and that they feel heard and seen and appreciated and all that. And even within that context, there are times where I do something and I'm like, yeah, that that moment right there gives them the fuel that they need to walk away and go, this guy's a. And if they were to recount what just happened, it would sound like I'm a dickhead. Now, if I give you the full context, I feel like people would be like, Okay, I get it. But the reality is that, yeah, the. When you are aggressive, forceful about an issue, when you are just point blank and don't give somebody an out and you just say, you that thing up, you, nobody but you, you made that mistake. I didn't want to be here saying it like this, but I've tried to like, steer us in a different direction and we're just. You are not getting there when you do that. And I have had to do that when you do that. I have perceived with my incomplete skill set that that was necessary. That's a more honest way of saying works. And now you can move forward again. And some percentage of the time that person quits and is like you and I never want to speak to you again. And you're an. And you just accept your lumps and hope that on balance, enough people go actually on balance, like, he was decent. But anyway.

[B]

Do you think there's a bell curve for, like success? Like, my frame of reference is that I think there's really smart people that are really rich. I think there's really dumb people that are really rich. I think there's really ambitious people that are really rich. I think there's some lazy people that are really rich. I think that it's kind of a assortment up there, like within the group of 1%, 5%, whatever top group we pick.

[A]

If you didn't inherit your money, yes. I think odds are far more likely that people that have prolonged success. So you didn't win the lottery, your parents didn't give you money, you didn't. Your friend said, hey, buy bitcoin when it was at 13 cents and you put $100 into it. And then you lost your USB drive and so you couldn't sell it. And so all the times you would have sold it, you couldn't. And now it's worth whatever, $84,000 and you're stupid rich. Setting those aside, people that build something, people that, you know, it took them years and years and years to finally get successful, the odds that there's somebody who's really, really dumb there is very low, very low. Because you are trying to create order out of chaos. What I think you will find is, oh, this person isn't any smarter than me. And that will be startling. And that is true. And I think that Steve Jobs got directionally correct with something where he said, the world is built by people no smarter than you. Not entirely true. You're going to run into some really smart people, but you will also find that there are people that are just good at organizing people and getting them pointed in the right direction. And so those people are far smarter than them, but they are not as good at a concept called VMG Velocity made good. It is very hard to explain very quickly, but that is the difference between extraordinary entrepreneurs and like good entrepreneurs, is the ability to, no matter which way the wind is blowing, to get your company moving in the right direction.

[B]

Happy? All right, let's hop in the time machine. Go back to 1941. On the precipice of the Second World War. 30,000 people were in New York for an America first rally. They were protesting to try and keep the USA from going to war with Nazi Germany. Celebrity aviator Charles Lindenberg says it's obvious that England is losing the war and they must seek negotiated peace with Hitler. If I change Hitler into Putin, if I changed 1941 into 2024 and I changed Charles Lindenberg into some type of progressive celebrity, I don't know, George Clooney, a lot of this will be kind of what we're going through right now.

[A]

I think it would actually be the right. It's the right that's saying it's obvious that Zelinsky is losing and he needs to come to some sort of negotiated.

[B]

So instead of aviator, it'll be Elon Musk saying it's obvious.

[A]

Elon David Sachs. Like a lot of people, by the way, that I respect. But the reason I pulled this tweet is when I saw it, I was like, ooh, that's a good reminder. Because my default stance is if China invaded California, I would relent at nothing. I'm getting every grain of sand back. And I'm like, huh, Interesting. Because when I look at Ukraine, I'm like, guys, they've got it. Like, let it go. The Donbass, Crimea, it's done. So I'm like, okay, that's important to map. When it's my backyard, I've had a real problem. When it's somebody else's backyard, I'm like, well, people are dying, guys. And so I don't want to blind myself to how radically it shifts. There's a little bit of the oh, God, Dave Chappelle where he says, everything is funny until it happens to you. Everything is easy to negotiate until it happens to you. So I want to be honest about that. But seeing that did give me pause. That, like, it seems self evident to me that Ukraine is not going to be able to militarily take that land back. But then in World War II, it really did seem like Germany's just unstoppable, bro. Negotiate something. And Churchill just wouldn't go for it. And this is part of the big, like, kerfuffle around Martyr Maid is his Twitter name. I forget his real name. Darryl Cooper. Darryl Cooper. Thank you. That he's like, well, tongue in cheek a little bit. But maybe Churchill wasn't such a good guy after all. A. If you could know all of Churchill's thoughts, you'd probably vomit in your own mouth. Because I'm sure that he had a murderous, unrelenting, fucking kill them all mentality that would creep people out. I'm sure he did super shady shit, but I'm pretty happy with the fact that Germany lost. And he really was. I mean, for a hot minute, that guy was standing alone, man. And that's dope. And so I'm not saying that he's a perfect human. I'm not saying that I want to emulate his morality. But I am saying if I'm being attacked by people who exterminate people, I want said sociopath in the lead. I'm going to fractal for a minute. Drew this one. This one is interesting. So look at the Vikings. Study the Vikings. Ask yourself about the berserker idea. Ask why did the Vikings fight? The Vikings started doing Viking things like what we think of as Viking shit, like going and conquesting because they had surplus males who weren't getting laid. That is the real truth. And we're like, well, we have to go into other areas, get access to resources, get them access to women. And that's the human experience. And so these guys, would you find the sociopaths among you, and you put them at the front and probably give them drugs, and they would literally fight naked and just kill, kill, kill. Now, if you're being attacked, like, they roll up on your house and Lynn is inside, and your friend happens to be hanging out, and your friend is that guy. I'd be like, there's a front door. There are the motherfuckers. Let's go. I would be stoked that of all people to be hanging out at the crib, Even though I'd be a little like, oh, God, I don't know if I love it when he's here in that moment. I'd be like, let's fucking go. Because you have to account for why do they exist? Why do sociopaths exist? From an evolutionary standpoint, there has to be a reason. It's either a byproduct of something else, or it actually has an evolutionary advantage. And when you look back at history and you see a never ending string of death and murder. You realize, oh, the Jessups of the world. The Colonel Jessups of the world, they really are a role. They really do a thing. I know we've looked him up before, but there was that guy, I need to memorize his name that I saw on Joe Rogan who was like, I don't understand these stories like Lone Survivor where you're being pursued by seven Taliban. You want to see seven dead people real fast, have me pursued by seven Taliban. And I was like, the way he said it was like, this guy's not posturing.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

All he does is kill.

[B]

Yeah, he's seen some shit.

[A]

Yeah. Like he said, I'm almost certain it was the same guy. He said, oh, we stopped counting after. In one fight after we killed 100 people. I was like, he's just like, we're killing so many. I'm going to keep fucking counting. It's like, God damn. But hey, the. You need somebody who sits on the wall, man. But that's really hard to look at nakedly. Anyway, it's an attack vector on me that I just accept that that is true. Not saying I like it. I accept that that is true.

[B]

That's a good point though because it brings me back to that Jordan Peterson quote of, you know, if you're in Nazi Germany, don't think you would be the, the person in the prison camp. You might be a guard and in

[A]

a lot of these likes their job. That's the Jordan Peterson part that I'm always like, oh yeah, yeah, don't think you would hide Anne Frank because almost nobody did it.

[B]

So. And even in these moments where we're. It seems so apparent that Zelensky is going to lose and we should rally against it. There was a time where people thought Hitler was going to win and we need to just give up. So to that don't, don't trust yourself completely. Like there is these moments that our emotions get the best of us that we need to look at history and see in all these other turning points, it was high stacked odds. People didn't believe in us and we overcame. We should still make sure we're sober and we're looking at these things in a different way versus just, well, the proof is in the pudding. We should just give up.

[A]

And then now I'll go back to. But it's not my country and at some point negotiating a piece is probably a very good idea. So I don't know, man, it's tough. You don't want dictators to feel like they can just barge in and take shit. We lived in a world where that was clearly unacceptable on the international stage for, like, 80 years. And it was awesome. Um, but it also came with a lot of drone strikes. So this is not. It's. There's no easy moral answer. And this is why I think Israel and Palestine just won't give up in the public consciousness, because it is the thing that forces us to say that's actually the moral answer here and there. There are exceedingly compelling arguments on both sides that will be unpopular because people like to team up. And so you're either on the side of the Palestinians, which even that is. Careful how you phrase it. Yeah.

[B]

That's aside.

[A]

Or you're on the side of the Israelis. So it's. I think that's unwise. I think looking at the messy reality is the only thing that's going to help you find a solution. So we'll see. We'll see.

[B]

Yeah. Speaking of messy realities, women aren't getting pregnant anymore. There was a study you quoted in the Live that said the more educated women get, the less babies they have. So I think we just need to.

[A]

Correlation, not causation.

[B]

Very clear. But, yeah, Trump is. Tom is saying take away all the degrees so that we can have more babies.

[A]

Oh, Jesus. I didn't even think about people reading it that way. I'm just saying we don't know if it actually caused it, but don't do that. You want women to have options. I love that the most. However, it is a real thing that in the developed world, people stop having kids.

[B]

Yeah. And right now, our birth rate is 1.6 births per woman when it's supposed to be 2.1. To keep the country alive, to keep

[A]

the country growing, I think. Can you look up, please, what is the replacement rate? Because I don't think we're far off the replacement rate, but we're not growing and we're trending down, and that's the real problem. And so when you look at the US replacement rate is 2.1. Okay, well, then that's where you've got to be. Just to tread water.

[B]

Yeah. So to incentivize this, Trump is considering paying new moms $5,000. This will be a $5,000 bonus paid out to every woman after she gives birth. Some people are saying it'll be a tax incentive, but it's. It's still in the idea phrase. It has not been in bill or been proposed in any legislation. What's Your take on the $5,000 baby bonus.

[A]

I love the idea of doing something to incentivize parenthood. And trust me, I no one understands the irony more than me that I don't have kids. But still think wonderful idea. I want people to have choice. I don't want people to be forced to do it. But I think it is a wonderful thing. Like, if you want to know where I'd be, like my tax dollar is going to good work. That would be one of them. So I just don't think that the one time payment is going to have the outcome that they want. First of all, it disproportionately incentivizes people that don't have access to that kind of cash to have kids. And they're going to find out the very hard way that it costs a lot more than that to raise a child. So I think it is better to do it as a tax incentive that lasts a lot longer. So instead of being one time payment, it's something that like serves them on and on and on. And so doing something like if you have a kid, you get 20 years of tax breaks or if you have two kids, you get forever tax breaks for the mother. That is something Turkey that put that forward. Somebody put that forward. And I thought, oh, that's actually pretty interesting. So something like that feels a lot better than a one time payment. Just because I think people are going to get caught off guard and realize that, oh, when it's once you got them, there's no sending them back. And by the time they realize, oh, this wasn't a lot of money, now they're in trouble. And oh God, Drew, if you're in debt and you start having kids just to try to pay off the debt and then only to realize, oh God, like now my monthly nut is skyrocketing. And so you get out of debt temporarily only to put yourself way, way, way back in debt. That would be a poor outcome.

[B]

Yeah, countries around the world are doing this. To your point, Turkey proposed a no tax idea. We covered South Korea during the live that was doing $750 a month from the government. And then companies were incentivizing employees up to 22,000 per baby. Like, so there are other.

[A]

I still don't get why the companies,

[B]

the company was like, did have government subsidies, but so I guess they were aggregate. But it's just, it's one of those things that there is a global push to increase the birth rate around the world. Do you think there's something else tied to this because to me, it was. When I first heard this, I was like, oh, easy. Like, housing is too expensive. Cost of life is too expensive. Like in the 80s, I can make 65,000 and take care of my wife and three kids, no problem. Now if you double that amount, I'm still struggling, so that's why I'm not having baby. But to see South Korea, Japan, Turkey, like all these other countries, also dealing with the same exact thing, is it a change in, like, culture mentality, or is it really.

[A]

It's a change in culture. Because that's certainly not why I didn't have kids. So money. Maybe in the beginning I was like, well, let me get established. Certainly that was some of my early pitch to Lisa. But also the first thing I remember saying to Lisa when we first got married, because she was like, oh, when do you think we should start having a family? And I was like, hey, I want to enjoy being married for a second. And so in the beginning, it was just like, I just really enjoy this. And given how many opportunities there are for meaning and fulfillment now in the modern era, for me, that has been the thing. I've been able to generate the meaning and purpose that would traditionally come from running a family by running a business. And I'm not saying they're the same thing. And I don't even think it would be wise for most people to consider them correlates. You do need meaning and purpose, though. And because I have found so much meaning and purpose in my work for such an extended period of time, I've long held the belief that as long as I keep my eye on, I will always need to feel like I'm contributing to the group in some way. I don't think I will ever. I certainly won't be caught off guard because I've thought so much about this by not having kids. But kids are a huge time commitment. And that, for me, has been the thing. Like, I love my life, and there was never a point where I said, I don't want to be doing this thing. So I think that has a big thing to do with it, which is probably why it correlates with being industrialized, is there's just so many opportunities. And as people are able to have individual freedoms to pursue the things that they want to pursue, that is one of the reasons now, one of the reasons that society's really going to have to contend with is what if a woman is getting a sense of meaning and purpose out of traditionally masculine pursuits like a career and finds herself at 40 with no kids, and deeply unhappy with her career because there are evolutionary algorithms running in her brain. Lisa and I have talked endlessly about the odds of me ending up going, oh, I'm so sad I didn't have kids. It's not zero. I. I am convinced that when I'm 80, I'll be like, oh, why the fuck didn't you have kids? That's a long story. I won't fractal us down that path, but trust me, I've thought a lot about that. But my wife, it's far more dangerous for her. And so we routinely. You sure you don't want kids? You sure? If you really thought about this, what are you going to do? Like, if you either don't want to do what you're doing now from a career standpoint, like, how would you find meaning and purpose? And so we've mapped all that stuff out. This is exactly how I'd pursue it, but it's a high risk game. So anyway, I think as especially women get more options, they are less likely to have kids. But I do think people have to be careful because evolution wants you to have kids, which means that there are things in your brain you will have to contend with if you don't.

[B]

I found this interesting, things that I seen earlier this month, but I never pulled it up, that for the first time in US history, more women over the age of 40 are giving birth than teenagers.

[A]

Whoa.

[B]

So teen moms are smaller compared to women over 40, which is like a crazy stat. Growing up, teen moms was a whole show. It was a whole thing.

[A]

Sixteen and pregnant.

[B]

Yeah. Like there was all of that.

[A]

That's crazy. Teens aren't having sex anymore. They're not drinking, not having sex.

[B]

It's so women over and give them more birthdays here. So crazy. So to your point, that's shocking.

[A]

And it's giving birth, so it's not even having kids.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

Yeah. So I'm curious how this culture would play out and what's going to happen to your point? 10, 20, 30 years from now, once

[A]

you start getting in the 20, 30 years, it's all AI and all robotics. It almost certainly will not matter. But in terms of economics, let me be very clear. Not in terms of what humans will

[B]

care about, but women and babies. But they're going to be AI babies, right?

[A]

So. Well, that's a whole. That's a whole episode, Drew. I don't know that we want to get into that now.

[B]

All right. I don't know if you've been on Twitter But Shannon Sharpe got into himself.

[A]

You put this on my radar.

[B]

Popular ESPN commentator, podcaster. He's the one who had the viral Cat Williams interview at the beginning of last year. Amen. Let's hear a statement first and then we'll, we'll go through the actual, like, hilarity of it all.

[A]

To my family, friends, supporters and colleagues, I want to speak to you directly and from the heart. This is a shakedown. I'm going to be open, transparent, and defend myself, because this isn't right. This is all being orchestrated by Tony Busby, who has targeted Jay Z. Tony Busby targets black men, and I believe he's going to release a 30 second clip of a sex tape that tries to make me look guilty and play into every stereotype you could possibly imagine. That video should actually be 10 minutes or so. Hey, Tony, instead of releasing your edit it. Put the whole video out. I don't have it or I would myself. You know what happened and you're trying to manipulate the media. The encounter in question took place during the day at her invitation. And now that appears to be a deliberate setup coordinated by Gabby, also known as Carly. On only fans. Gabby and Tony Busby want $50 million. What they're getting is sued for defamation and trying to take me down. My career is all about real talk and honesty. I know my family and fans know exactly what this is about. And I'm going to be out there telling you whatever I need to say, just like I always do. I love all you guys. Thanks.

[B]

Seems like a shakedown case. There's allegedly. He offered her $10 million for Make Everything away. She declined. She's being. He's being officially sued for $50 million on the accused being accused of sexual misconduct, sexual assault. It's not a criminal. This is 100% a civil.

[A]

That's what's weird to me. Yeah, like if he really did sexually assault her, straight to jail. But then make this a criminal case. When you make it a civil case, then I'm like, that seems super sus. At a minimum, do the criminal case first. If you feel like it's a wild injustice, then do the civil case. When you go straight to the civil case, that's. That's weird. Now I don't know the facts of this case. It's entirely possible that it's legit and for whatever reason that she could convince me of that. I don't, I can't imagine right now. It makes sense to start with the civil case. Okay, I'm, I'm open, but it Certainly does not strike me as outside the realm of plausibility that this is about money, and the guy's got to be way more careful. Now, as somebody whose brain is squeezed very hard by sex, I get it, man. I find it funny. But I'm laughing at myself as much as I'm laughing at anybody else. That guys do this kind of stuff. It. There is a funny to it. I feel bad for. If she was assaulted, red light, straight to jail, no bueno, all bad. Obviously, if he's convicted. If not, like, how many times do guys have to see this play out before they go? It's a trap.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Like, I saw photos from her Instagram, and I'm like, there is a reason that they call those thirst traps. They're a trap. I think it was her, but there's one shot, and again, I don't know if she was sexually assaulted. And so I will immediately take this all back if she was. There's no excuse for that. I don't give a fuck what you wear, what you dress like, how provocative you are on camera. Literally none of that matters. That is not an invitation. But I have a feeling that if this was a sexual encounter gone wrong, there's a photo where she is posing so provocatively and looking back over her shoulder, and I'm like, yeah, that does something to my brain. I get it.

[B]

Yeah, I get it. I get it.

[A]

I get it. But, bro, like, you're 54. That's 19.

[B]

That's where I'm at, man.

[A]

Yo, yo, Danger. All the alarm bells are going off, Drew. All the alarm bells are going off. This is a high risk, gay man. I understand the impulse, but yikes. It's so risky. So risky, Drew.

[B]

That's my thing. You're 54. She's 19.

[A]

Jesus.

[B]

So even at the origin of your relationship, y' all not talking about nothing deep? Y' all not trying to solve world hunger.

[A]

How dare you say it wasn't deep, Drew.

[B]

This is.

[A]

Hey. Oh, how dare you?

[B]

This is a transaction of relationship. She's an only fans model. This is a transactional lifestyle she's living. I feel like you just have to pay the transaction. Like, to me, like, to get yourself in this type of water is just like, come on, man. Like, you seen this coming a mile away. It should have been all. It should have been a monetized relationship. We should have already had our checks and balances allocate, like, and then he. His lawyer released a bunch of text messages. So they were talking provocatively to each other. So this Is definitely. It seems like it was consensual based on the text messages they're sharing and things like that.

[A]

But now, again, just so that it's all stated and this is not taken out of context, sending hot, steamy messages to somebody texting them, I want you to come over right now and have sex with me. And then they get there and you say, no, perfectly fine. He should back the off. So I want to be very clear that these are merely breadcrumbs that say, well, I'm going to need some more information before I just assume that this was sexual assault. But is there a sex tape? He's saying that there's video and they just haven't released.

[B]

They were threatening to release it. Some audio has been released, like an audio phone call has been released.

[A]

So that's where it gets into. Oh, my God, 73 point whatever.

[B]

But that's the. That's the hard part, though, is that Shannon's lawyer is saying they're only releasing snippets, so that way they can manipulate the audio.

[A]

Of course, you're being spun at all times, boys and girls, at all times.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. You got to be real careful. Interesting scenario. Wrap it up, fellas. That's it. Streets is trash.

[A]

Yeah, boys and girls, be more careful. Shout out to Shannon Sharp, though, on the podcast. Like, damn.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Done a great job. Great job. We now live in the world where all this stuff plays out in full public view.

[B]

So we shall see. Yeah.

[A]

All right, Shannon, best of luck. And to the young lady, if she was sexually assaulted, as horrific as you can imagine, and I wish you justice. We'll see how it plays out. If you guys aren't already watching the lives you need to start, here is a highlight clip from today's live.

[B]

When Trump first talked about terrorists, you got into. You were talking to Destiny last November about it, and you said, across the board, terrorists. I'll be a terrible idea, but we need strategic on re. Ensuring we need strategic industries to come back. That was at day one. April 2nd, Liberation Day came. That happened, and now April 24th, we're there. Now give us through the evolution of your perspective of terrorists from when he first talked about it, from the campaign trail to his implementation of it 94 days in.

[A]

I don't know that my stance on tariffs has changed in the sense that tariffs are a tool that can be used to get the thing that we actually need, which is, given that we are in a headlong collision with China, you cannot allow them to control your manufacturing. Now, there is a big difference between tariffs are a potential tool that we can use to rectify that situation, and Trump is wielding those tools. Well, I am doing my best to map Trump's thinking to see if the way that I'm viewing his movements actually has high utility. So in the future, when he is talking, I can predict whether he's going to do something well or not. So that part I don't know. And how tariffs in Trump's hands end up being. I don't know. I don't know if it will be good or bad.

[B]

And then.

[A]

Why is that funny?

[B]

No, because I was expecting more and then it just kind of ended. Taking a step back now, so we see what Trump's doing. We understand Trump's art of the deal style negotiation tactics. We understand that he sows chaos. I am not. I don't think you're advocating for his chaos. I don't think you're advocating for the changes in sentiment and the swings. I think you're looking at it soberly and saying, okay, if this has the necessary outcome that makes America better, that leads to human flourishing, I'm for. If it does not, I'm against it. Was that a clear representation of your position?

[A]

Yep.

[B]

Okay, so then when these things change, like his rhetoric changes or maybe his negotiation strategy tactics change, it's not that your opinion on the topic changes. It's just now you're like, okay, I'm still waiting to see what the end result is, because a lot of people in the chat are saying you're doing mental gymnastics, trying to rationalize it or sane, wash it. And it seems to me like you're not changing your position. You're just waiting for the other shoe to come.

[A]

I'm super open to changing my position. I think what people are confused about is my position. Is the thing you're trying to do is figure out cause and effect, period. There aren't more words to say to that. So when I go ham on this is what I think we should do, it is because I feel like, okay, I have a mental model that has high predictive validity, and I'm going to say with sincerity what I believe to be true. But they are strong convictions loosely held. So I'm perfectly willing to say, oh, actually, I thought that that was going to be the way, but that isn't working. And what I. What I have no interest in doing is saying, like, I know how this is going to play out, because I know that people clamor for certainty. Okay? So whenever I'm faced with a problem to which the answer is not immediately clear. I go to what's my goal? My goal is to end the war. Then I start saying, okay, what would need to be true to end the war? But I'm already running a side algorithm in my brain that says, is ending the war the right move? Or is making sure that we live in a world where people that invade are slapped the fuck in the mouth? My honest answer is I am now relying on emotion and I hate the idea of how many people are dying. I am not in that country. And so I don't have the emotional, like, just cannot give this up mentality that so many people have. So I, Tom Bilyeu, would go to Europe and this is, I remind my wife and business partner of this. Always the first thing you do is listen. I'm gonna sit down with Europe, I'm gonna get their take. I'm gonna sit down with the Ukraine, I'm gonna get their take. I'm gonna sit down with Putin, I'm gonna get his take. I'm gonna recognize everybody spinning me. So I'm being lied to by everybody. But there, there is a quote that I live by. When we speak, we cannot help but reveal ourselves. So I'm going to trust that I'm going to be able to some degree see through what they're saying, be able to at least come up with a plausible hypothesis of what's really going on and then lay things out. Now, I have a bias not being from the country, so I don't have the emotional sense of like, yo, this is California. These motherfuckers have taken a piece of. And that right out the door, which is the emotional response that I have to putting myself in the similar shoe. But I think that's not my role in this. My role as a President of the United States is to bring a steady hand to point out that we've got to start extracting ourselves out of these wars. There are real consequences to all this shit. Remember, if, if you want high predictive validity of me thinking that I like Trump is not going to be the thing that will give you high predictive validity, because if he starts doing shit that doesn't work and is moving us backwards, which may be doing right now, and I have no idea, and when I look back on this, I'm going to be able to say, that kid, what the was he doing? I won't know until I see the outcome. If you guys haven't left us a five star review, wherever you get your podcast, be sure to do so. And until next time, my friends. Be legendary. Take care. Peace. 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.