← Tom Bilyeu's Impact Theory
Tom Bilyeu's Impact Theory
How Power Really Works — From Tariffs to TikTok | The Tom Bilyeu Show
01:12:55
Loading summary
Transcript193 lines
- [00:00]
Host
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.
- [00:30]
Sponsor Voice
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.
- [01:00]
Host
China makes it clear they're not currently negotiating with the US on tariffs, and fentanyl is the US's problem alone. Besant breaks down the US's master plan for rebalancing world trade. Trump drops Trump 2028 merch. I hate it. India threatens to go 911 on the Pakistani terrorists. UK is running tests on dimming the sun. Justice Jackson shows her hand on not wanting parents to opt out their kids out of questionable books. Drew Cold wars are the best wars. Let the games begin, man, because we are certainly in one.
- [01:35]
Co-host
And China's like clapping back. That is my new favorite Twitter account, mfa China. They're like, yeah, no, we're not negotiating. Trump didn't call me. I don't know what he's talking about. The US needs to stop creating confusion
- [01:46]
Host
without using the word liar. They were like, this man is not telling you the truth. Now, what's really going on? I have no idea. I am being spun at all times. I am well aware of that. Both sides are gonna say what they want you to hear. So I don't know. It's very possible he's literally not been able to get in contact with Xi at all. It's entirely possible he and Xi are actually talking. But you're gonna see a PR battle going back and forth between the US and China. Everybody trying to control the narrative, everybody trying to position like, hey, we're the ones that have it. It's interesting that is now moving his rhetoric on to actually mapping out what they're trying to do. Talking openly about China as they address the IMF and the world banks The International Monetary Fund and the World bank in terms of, hey, these are the things that we need to see happen, which to me could be yet another counterpunch. So we do the tariffs, they tariff us back. We're like, okay, maybe we're not going to get the movement here that Trump wanted. They move on to something else. And so everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the face. All the sort of bullying rhetoric from either side, man, you cannot expect the other team to roll over. Neither the US Nor China are just going to be like, yeah, cool, I'm going to adopt your worldview. So I have a feeling that this is going to drag on for a long time. And Trump is in a race to the midterms, man. And every day that passes, if they don't have some real wins they can put on the board, it's. It's going to be tough. Like, if he loses at the midterms, it's game over. That's where I'm like, he's not going to be able to pull this off at that point if he loses a house, because already, like, he's being stymied by just public opinion and the judiciary branch, they're constantly blocking him. So I'm sure people will take exception to my read that they're losing the will of the public. But that early energy where it just felt like these guys had the mandate, they could do whatever. If anybody feels like they still have that, they are living in a different universe than I. I'm not saying he's not going to be able to pull this off, but if I'm a betting man, I think the odds are against him at this point. So we'll see what happens. Now, because I'm an American, I want to see us win. And so this is the guy that I have. And so I'm going to constantly be trying to explain what he might be doing in the Fingers crossed, hope that, that we're able to get this across the finish line. But I think that we have. I think that the positioning that the Trump administration has want us to have over, like, I've got a great relationship with Xi. This is all going to be great. No worries. We're going to have a deal. It's going to be easy. This. This is probably protracted.
- [04:26]
Co-host
Yeah.
- [04:26]
Host
Like, as in definitely not weeks, probably not even months. You're probably north of a year before you get something really settled.
- [04:34]
Co-host
Wow.
- [04:35]
Host
Would be my instinct, given how aggressive both postures are.
- [04:39]
Co-host
All right, now let's go to the China MFA spokesperson's actual Twitter account so we can read it from the dragon's mouth. I was gonna say the horse's mouth.
- [04:46]
Guest Expert
Look at that.
- [04:47]
Host
The dragon. Let's go.
- [04:48]
Co-host
China in the US are not having any consultation or negotiation on tariffs. The US should stop creating confusion. And then they also tweeted that fentanyl is the US problem, not China's. The US and the US alone has the responsibility to solve it. Despite the goodwill China has shown, the US slapped tariffs on Chinese imports and blames it on fentanyl. This is bullying through and through and highly damaging to dialogue and cooperation on counternarcotics. The US should know that vilifying others will not hide its failed responsibility to punish those who try to help will not solve any problem. And intimidation or threats are certainly not the right way to engage with China.
- [05:26]
Host
Okay, so I'll admit that I felt some kind of way reading this tweet. And as I pride myself on not steering my life by emotion, I know that this kind of escalatory rhetoric is going to further push people into their camps here in the us. There are going to be plenty of people that read that and go, yeah, the US is acting like a bunch of bullies, and we've got to stop immediately. And they're going to hate everything about the US's policy. And then other people are going to say, like, yo, if China thinks that they can slap us around, like, they've got another thing coming. So this is going to get weird before it gets better. And I have now taken up a daily routine of reminding myself, China is full of a lot of amazing people that just want to love their kids and they want to do rad things and that we need to hold on to the idea that while they may be our rival, they don't need to be our adversary. I don't want to live in a Pollyanna world. I certainly understand the idea of great power politics, and neither of us are going to accept second place, but one of us is going to end up in second place. Uh, so this is a. This is a careful battle, and I find that the more that they escalate, the more I find myself wanting to de. Escalate, even though I consider this to be a very big problem. When talking to Mike Baker, former CIA analyst, yesterday, I was like, yeah, I consider China to be our second biggest problem, only to debt. And this is something that we have to take very seriously. But we also have to understand that that if we allow ourselves to get goaded into being more and more aggressive, then the other side will get more and more aggressive, and we'll end up in a dust spiral. And that would very much be the antithesis of where I want to see this end.
- [07:09]
Co-host
Yeah. A year is a crazy, like, announcement, though. Like, I. If it takes that long, Trump has to be done because the tariffs. I feel like he hung his head on this. He got a lot of early wins with the border crossings. He had a lot of early wins with crypto. And then it was like, okay, now I'm going to take on this tariff thing. And China's not backing down. Apparently. We met with 90 countries. We haven't seen a signed contract yet. So it sounds like it. Maybe he did just bark up a tree that was bigger than he thought. Maybe he just.
- [07:39]
Host
I don't know yet. So this is where people think that I'm defending Trump. I'm not. I highly advise everybody in the world to try to understand what is happening versus first trying to decide who's right. So I'm trying to map out what exactly is happening. It's entirely possible that Trump is just an agent of chaos. He can't help himself, that constitutionally, that's just what he does. It's also possible, as I've outlined several times, that he believes that chaos is a part of how you get people off of a stubborn spot. And so as I see Besant moving now to talking specifically about the IMF and the World bank and saying, hey, this is ridiculous, that China is being treated as if they're a developing nation, when, in fact, he refers to them as the second biggest. Uh, I think he just said country. But if you take it economically, because you could be the first biggest country just by population and be developing. So I'll assume he means economically. Uh, so I assume he means behind us and not India on a population level. So when you look at it through that lens, it's like, yeah, it's pretty ridiculous that they're one. There are credible people that will tell you that they're the largest economy. Uh, and. But even if they are the second largest economy, the fact that the IMF and World bank are still treating them like they're a developed, developing nation that need special treatment, that is pretty crazy. So whether this was always part of the plan, and we were just sowing chaos in the beginning, and we're now moving on to the second part of the plan, which is we begin to offer structure, or this was just, no, no, he's unhinged and he creates chaos and then he makes something of it or Maybe he just creates chaos and Besant and Letnik come in behind him and put structure. It almost doesn't matter to me at this point. The question becomes, are we going to be able to take advantage of this movement? And I was very impressed with the speech that Besson gave at the. It was like IIM conference or something. I have to look at it in a second. Iif, whatever. And at that conference, and we're going to go through this and we'll stop occasionally to talk about what the different things mean. But he's really trying to focus people on. This is exactly what we're trying to achieve. This is what we're doing. This is what success looks like. These are the specific things that have to change. And at one point it felt like he wasn't going to mention China by name. And then he obviously thought better of it and just started naming them, which I thought was smart because you. We've got to say what we're really trying to do here. You can't give me a president that is a WWE fighter and then not have somebody behind him that's like, okay, now we're going to talk about what this really means. Where the rubber meets the road. I'm not a big fan. I'm not a fan of on the international stage, the way that Trump talks. I do find him entertaining. I'd be a liar if I said that I didn't. It's nice to have a politician that really just says what they're thinking. I won't even say that they only say the truth because that almost certainly isn't true. But he really does say what he's thinking. And so he reveals so much of himself, which I find very refreshing. But on the international stage, he sounds like a lunatic. And you don't have to look farther than what's happening to the Dow Jones with all the big swings that we're seeing in the S and P to know that he's creating a tremendous amount of uncertainty. But every time I listen to Besant, every time I listen to Letnick, these are people that have a string of logic that I can follow. Quick break, but don't go anywhere. There's more to come after this short break from our sponsors.
- [11:09]
Sponsor Voice
At vrbo, we understand that even the best of plans sometimes need a little support. So we plan for the plot twists. Every booking is automatically backed by our VRBO Care guarantee, giving you confidence from the very start. Whenever you need help, it's ready before your stay, through the moments in between and after your trip, because A great trip starts with Peace of Mind and maybe a good playlist, but we've got the peace of mind part covered.
- [11:37]
Host
All right, we're back. Let's get into it.
- [11:41]
Guest Expert
In the final months of World War II, Western leaders convened the greatest economic minds of their generation. Their task, to build a new financial system. At a quiet resort high up in the mountains of New Hampshire, they laid the foundation for Pax Americana. The architects of Bretton woods recognized that a global economy required global coordination. To encourage that coordination, they created the IMF and the World Bank. These twin institutions were born after a period of intense geopolitical and economic volatility. The purpose of the IMF and the World bank was to better align national interest with international order, thereby bringing stability to an unstable world.
- [12:32]
Host
Okay, so I don't think a lot of people realize that we are living in a world order that was the result of a conference that World War II happens. Everybody's exhausted, everybody's in debt to the U.S. so many people have died. It is the debt jubilee that Ray Dalio talks about so eloquently. So you have that moment. Britain loses its empire. They realize we're so in debt to the U.S. at this point, we have basically no leverage. But you have this collision of Britain, and this is going to be, from memory, a high level retelling of it. So if I get any of the details wrong, trust me, the gist is there. But you basically have a collision of economic worldviews where how are we going to move forward with this? And what we end up with is the US Saying we are going to be the world's reserve currency. We are the biggest player here. We've still got the manufacturing base. We're in the strongest economic position. And so the worldview that we want, Pax Americana, as he called it, is going to be what happens. And that's exactly what happens. And we brought a guy on to talk about the details of this a while ago. Graham Moore. Graham Moore, thank you. Wrote a whole fictionalized retelling of this story. Absolutely fascinating. Anybody that's interested should read it. And it tells the behind the scenes maneuvering of these economists as they collide long. And the short of it is we end up with a world where America basically agrees to be the world's policeman. America agrees to help rebuild all these countries, to loan a bunch of money to make sure that everybody can get back on their feet, to make sure that there's, like you said, stability of currencies that we have a way to manage if there's a country that's having a crisis, that there's a way to manage it to. For the World bank to pull people out of poverty and use lending practices to try to help raise everybody up. And it's worked extraordinarily well. And a lot of the. When we talk about capitalism has pulled more people out of poverty than any other thing. What we're talking about is this, the Pax Americana world with the imf, the World bank, and lending money to people that meet certain requirements, and it helps them all rise. He's going to get into more details about it, but it's to understand that you are in a constructed world rather than, oh, this is just randomly how it all sorted out is the very important thing to understand, because the very thing I don't need you to believe that. Trump understands all of this, though probably understands more than he's getting credit for because he hired these guys. But certainly Besant understands it and he understands that for reasons we'll talk about as he goes through this, but for very specific reasons. We have to now come up with a new world order. And if we're going to leverage the tools that already exist, there are very specific things we have to do.
- [15:25]
Guest Expert
My goal this morning is to outline a blueprint to restore equilibrium to the global financial system and the institutions designed to uphold it. I have spent the bulk of my career from the outside looking in on financial policy circles. Now I am on the inside looking out. The IMF and World bank have enduring value, but mission creep has knocked these institutions off course. We must enact key reforms to ensure the Bretton woods institutions are. Are serving their stakeholders, not the other way around.
- [16:02]
Host
The idea of we need to rebalance things so that. That's very plainly a conversation about America and Russia the most. There are other things with Europe, whatever, but the, the big collision there is between the US and China. first he's coy and then he does call it right out. And then the other thing is this idea of mission creep and what he's talking about with mission creep, he does end up stating it, but this is the thing that for me felt a little bit late was the idea of like, DI policies.
- [16:34]
Co-host
Climate change.
- [16:35]
Host
Climate change. Thank you. Things like that, where it's like, that's not what this was meant to be in the beginning. And so let's re. Narrow the focus back to economics. How do we get energy stability? How do we make sure that the countries actually need the money, get the money, and then how do we make sure that we're not putting China in a privileged position.
- [16:53]
Guest Expert
I wish to be clear. America first does not mean America alone. To the contrary, it is a call for deeper collaboration and mutual respect among trade partners. Far from stepping back, America first seeks to expand U.S. leadership in international institutions like the IMF and, and the World Bank. By embracing a stronger leadership role, America first seeks to restore fairness to the international economic system.
- [17:29]
Host
That admittedly feels like a word game. That feels like Trump has given me this thing that I have to work with. I can't contradict that. That's what he's saying because that is the world's worst marketing on an international stage. Like, it's not like in Bretton Woods. I don't think they actually use the term like we're building Pax Americana. I think people would have said if we do that, we end up in Pax Americana. He'd be like, no, no, no. Like it's not going to be like that. So I do feel like he's a bit lumbered with that. So if anybody feels like, oh, God, this, this feels awkward. Like, why are we trying to do this jiu jitsu with. America first actually means all of us first.
- [18:03]
Co-host
No, that's what I mean. You mean specifically America First. Like that's.
- [18:06]
Host
Well, it really will work out that America is trying to put itself in pole position. There's no doubt about that. Now we're sort of in the waning days of being able to make that claim. China is very specifically saying, no hard pass. You've already lost that. That doesn't make any sense. That world existed for a while. That period is over. And they have a very credible case to make along those lines, given how many allies they built, given how much they're doing from a manufacturing standpoint, given how big their economy is. So we're, we, we are either already past the point where we have the cards to play. And that's why I'm saying this may take longer than we expect. We'll see. Or we're in the waning days and you better while you still have it. So. But that idea of America first is God awful when you're trying to build international cooperation.
- [18:57]
Co-host
So we still have the most voting power in the imf.
- [19:00]
Host
We do. And we contribute the most money and all of that. But we only have like 16.8% or something like that.
- [19:06]
Co-host
Still big dog in one way.
- [19:07]
Host
So. Yes. But when you make up less than 20%, you're going to have a hard time, like getting your way without building coalitions. So you got to Build coalition.
- [19:15]
Co-host
Yeah.
- [19:16]
Guest Expert
The status quo of large and persistent imbalances is not sustainable. It is not sustainable for the United States, and ultimately it is not sustainable for other economies. Now, I know sustainability is a popular term around here, but I'm not talking about climate change or carbon footprints. I'm talking about economic and financial stability, the kind of sustainability that raises standards of living and keeps markets afloat. International financial institutions must be singularly focused on upholding this kind of sustainability if they succeed in their missions. In response to President Trump's tariff announcements, more than 100 countries have approached us wanting to help rebalance global trade.
- [20:09]
Host
They've got to start delivering on those, man. Yeah, first it was like 50, then it was 75, now it's 100. But where are the deals?
- [20:17]
Co-host
Where the signed paperwork, where is it?
- [20:19]
Host
Yeah, look, maybe it's something. It's unreasonable for it to be this soon, but I think this is part of why Trump has had to back off some of his messaging. Because it's like, bro, we're not going to get these deals done as fast as we thought we were. And so you've been promising people like, oh, we're going to get it done like, asap, Rocky. And now it's like, that's not happening. So you need to chill. You can either close these deals fast and be like crazy with your language or rein your language in and give us time to do this, but you can't like both expect me to do a six month process and deal with the manic language.
- [20:53]
Guest Expert
China in particular, 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.
- [21:27]
Host
It's so interesting to me, the more I look at the way that the global economy works, that you get, it's a spectrum for sure, but you get economies that are like, we're big and strong because we buy a lot of stuff. And then you have to ask the question, well, how are you able to buy a lot of stuff? You build the middle class up, you get wages up. Like, there's a whole host of things that you do within your own country, including how you deal with capital controls, who you loan money to, blah, blah, blah. You do all of those things and then people are able to buy. And then other Countries like China who are like, we make a bunch of stuff. And. But that's not great for all the people inside their country now because they've moved so many people out of, like, I have nothing to eat and I am quite literally watching my family starve to death. To. We now make, you know, $12,000 a year. That's a huge move. Huge move. But people in America would be mortified if they were making $12,000 a year. So that is where this gets interesting is understanding how these games are played. And when you are the. We make a bunch of shit. First of all, you're getting strong from a manufacturing standpoint, which is always good. From. We can choke you out if this ever. If we go from rivals to adversaries, if this becomes militaristic. Just like the US was able to be so influential in World War II because we just shifted all of our physical manufacturing over to building war stuff. And China has. I believe that China, because of their 100 year plan, this was not an accident, that they were like, cool. Guess what we need to get good at. We need to get good at physical manufacturing. And so when I first started, started learning about this, I was like, this is really weird that the U.S. wants them. Like, what do you mean? Why are you mad that they're making stuff cheaply? Like, you should want to be doing it in your own country. Like, I get that, but how can you look at them and be like, you can't do that.
- [23:13]
Co-host
Yeah, of course.
- [23:14]
Host
Again, the reason is that they're artificially driving the value of the yuan down so that the exports are cheap. So they do currency manipulation. They artificially hold their people's wages down. So here in the us, like beating the drum, gotta raise wages, all that, like, trying to more, more, more. And not that that doesn't get fought, but, like, compared to what's going on in China, we're way farther along that road. But that means you're not gonna be able to make goods as cheaply. So basically what he's saying is stop manipulating your currency. Stop holding wages artificially low. And that is the thing that's allowed you to become this manufacturing powerhouse. And it's not quote, unquote fair. It's not balanced.
- [23:57]
Co-host
Yeah.
- [23:58]
Guest Expert
The IMF's mission is to promote international monetary cooperation, facilitate the balanced growth of international trade, encourage economic growth, and discourage harmful policies like competitive exchange rate depreciation. These are crucially important functions to support the US and global economies. Instead, the IMF has suffered from mission creep. The IMF was Once unwavering in its mission of promoting global monetary cooperation and financial stability, now it devotes disproportionate time and resources to work on climate change, gender and social issues. These issues are not the IMF's mission. And the IMF's focus in these areas is crowding out its work on critical macroeconomic issues. The IMF must be a brutal truth teller, and not just to some members. Today, IMF. The IMF has been whistling past the graveyard. Its 2024 External Sector Report was entitled Imbalances Receding. This Pollyanna's outlook is symptomatic of an institution more dedicated to preserving the status quo than answering the hard questions. Here in the United States, we know we need to get our fiscal house in order. The last administration ran up the largest peacetime deficit in our nation's history. The current administration is committed to fixing this. We are open to critique, but we will not abide the IMF failing to critique the countries that most need it, principally surplus countries. In line with its core mandate, the IMF needs to call out countries like China that have pursued globally distorted policies and opaque currency practices for many decades. I also expect the IMF to call out unsustainable lending practices by certain creditor countries. The IMF should push more proactively official bilateral lenders to come to the table early to work with borrower countries to minimize periods of debt distress. The IMF must refocus its lending on addressing balance of payment problems, and its lending should be temporary when done responsibly. IMF lending is at the very core of its contribution to the global economy.
- [26:45]
Host
KPIs, man. Like, you've got to have KPIs and be like, either we're. The things that we're doing are moving people towards that, or they're not the people that are coming and asking for us to lend the money, either they're doing things with the money that makes sense or they're not. And a failure to hold people accountable to the actual stated results that you're trying to get are how you find yourself in this situation. So, yeah, I am, needless to say, very excited to hear these kind of words being said.
- [27:11]
Guest Expert
The bank can use its resources more efficiently now by focusing on increasing energy access. Business leaders the world over identify unreliable power supply as one of the primary impediments to investment. The World bank and African Development Bank's joint Mission 300 initiative to expand energy access to 300 million more people in Africa is a welcome effort. But the World bank must respond to countries energy priorities and needs and focus on dependable technologies that can sustain economic growth rather than seek to meet distortionary climate finance targets. We applaud the recent announcement that the World bank will seek to remove prohibitions on support for nuclear energy which could revolutionize energy supply for many emerging markets. We encourage the bank to go further in giving countries access to all technologies that can provide affordable baseload generation. The World bank must be tech neutral and prioritize affordability in energy investment. In most cases this means investing in gas and other fossil fuel based energy production. In other cases, this may mean investing in renewable energy coupled with systems to help manage the intermittency of wind and solar. The history of humanity teaches a simple lesson. Energy abundance sparks economic abundance. That's why the bank should encourage an all of the above approach to energy development.
- [29:02]
Host
Energy abundance equals financial abundance. Man, I can't stress that enough. The fact that we got in some weird twist about nuclear is deeply troubling. I get why people look out at the world and they're like, I don't want to see gray skies. I don't want my kids or myself breathing tainted air. Like I get it, yes, clouds, yeah. But from the perspective of nuclear, you want to see innovation, you want to see them made safer. But the reality is the amount of energy, clean energy that they can output is crazy. And if energy is so tied to prosperity of the country, you've got to give people the ability to generate that kind of energy output. And if you don't, by the way, they're just going to be doing a bunch more coal, gas, like all the things that are creating the gray skies and the hard to breathe air. So yeah, I'm very excited. I hope that this obviously takes root where the US is not able to force through these agendas. So they are going to have to get people on their team. But like you said, they've already announced leaving that prohibition. So that's really exciting.
- [30:16]
Guest Expert
In addition to increasing energy access, the World bank can use its resources more effectively by starting to apply its graduation policy. This would allow the bank to focus on lending to poorer, less credit worthy countries. This is where World bank support makes the biggest difference for poverty and growth. Instead, the World bank continues to lend every year to countries that have met the criteria to graduate from World bank borrowing. There is no justification for this continued lending. No one who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be eligible for funds earmarked for Ukraine's reconstruction. No one. To conclude, I invite our allies to work with us as we Rebalance the international financial system, refocus the IMF and World bank on their founding charters. America first means we are doubling down on our engagement with the international economic system, including at the IMF and the World Bank. A more sustainable economic system will be one that better serves the interests of the United States and all the other participants in the system.
- [31:35]
Host
I thought that was great, great talk, great vision, love what they have in mind.
- [31:40]
Co-host
Yeah. When you says China needs to like graduate up, what do you just get away from? Manufacturing and.
- [31:46]
Host
Well, when he said that specifically, he was talking about being eligible for certain lending from, I think from the World Bank. So yeah, basically countries go through a period where they're a developing nation. The whole goal is that you're lending the money that they otherwise wouldn't be able to get that they can then drive into, especially energy, which is, he was saying like intermittent energy is one of the reasons other won't come in and invest. Other wealthy people won't come in and invest. So if you're trying to seek getting the dollars that you need to build the infrastructure or build the technology, all the things you'd want to have in your country, then you've got to have a reliable energy source. So anyway, they do things like that to help countries move through that phase into being a developed nation. And the problem is right now China's still being treated as if they're in the developing nation status or, and I don't know if that's the exact name, but they're basically still claiming to be in the status that they're clearly not in anymore. Especially not if you look at what China's been able to do from an infrastructure city standpoint. I mean, clearly these guys are a full blown developed nation. They're a big boy economy. They're, they're not at the kids table.
- [32:53]
Co-host
Yeah, when I heard this, my immediate like reaction was like, who are we to dictate international terms? Like who are we to get on these stage? And then I realized I did some homework on Gemini and this was established in the US in Bretton Woods. So we did create that first, that first world order. So now that we are renegotiating it, it does make sense that Best in America is leading the charge. But the economies have changed, the perception has changed, culture has changed. Do you still think we are the drivers and we have that good North Star? Do you think that other countries will get on board? Because I think at the end of World War II, it's easy to get everybody to sit down and excuse me Negotiate where there's a conflict on every other continent. It seems like they have other things that are a bit more important than serving the needs of America in this moment.
- [33:43]
Host
I mean, there's no doubt that the US and China are pulling harder against each other than they would have historically, but the reality is that your voting is proportional to the amount that you contribute. And so currently we still contribute more than anybody else. And if people want to knock us down a peg, then they're going to have to pay for the privilege. So we still have to get people on board. Like I said, we're less than 20%. So it's not like we can just go in and say, well, because we say it is going to be, but by ourselves, we are the largest quote, unquote shareholder. So we have the. From an individual voice perspective, we have the loudest voice. But if everybody bands together and says, nope, we don't want to do it your way, then it won't happen because we're not able to outvote them. The only thing, I mean, this would be truly the nuclear option would be for us to say, then we're ejecting out of the IMF or ejecting out of the World Bank. And if we did that, then I don't know that it would dissolve, but it would be dramatically impaired.
- [34:41]
Co-host
The United states has a 16.5% voting share. China 6.1 to 6.5. I mean, Japan is 6.1 to 6.5. China 6.0 to 6.4. We have France, we have Germany and some of the other players in there as well. Africa, the entire continent, is 6.5%. So it basically skews by how much you contribute and what you were there. So us, China and Japan being the top three, seems like the power players of the global economy. So the people who need to establish this are at the table. So we'll see.
- [35:11]
Host
Yeah, depending on how you group Europe. Europe as a bloc is very powerful. Individual countries, less so. But as a block, they're massive.
- [35:19]
Co-host
Yeah. And this through the IMF lens, at least. Each country is its own block.
- [35:24]
Host
Yeah. But if Europe is operating in a coordinated fashion, this is how you end up having to really get people on board. You've got to have allies because, yeah, first of all, people don't want to piss off China because they control so much of the manufacturing. Second, with the size of the other economies, it's a dance. We don't want to make everybody mad. We're obviously the most willing to piss people off, both because of Our strength and because of Trump's personality. But this is a game of alliances.
- [35:55]
Co-host
Yeah.
- [35:56]
Host
Quick break, but don't go anywhere. There's more to come after this short break from our sponsors. All right, we're back. Let's get into it.
- [36:07]
Co-host
Well, we know Mother's Day is coming up, so if you have any.
- [36:09]
Host
Oh, God. I know where you're going.
- [36:11]
Co-host
If you need any ideas, the Trump Store has a fantastic new collection they just dropped, and it's the Trump 2028 hat. But wait, everybody, constitutionally, this shouldn't even be a thing. I said it at the top of the show, man. Trump had an early win with immigration. He had an early win with bitcoin, and then he turns around and feeds the trolls. I think this does nothing but hurt his image and just propagates the Nazi fascism dictatorship rhetoric.
- [36:36]
Host
The people that hate him already hate him. The people that love him love this. And people like me that are on the fence are gonna break one way or the other. I hate it. I mean, I get the troll of it all, but it's like, for the reasons that you mentioned, I don't want to see him leaning into any of that stuff. And I think he's. I think if people offered him a third term, he would take it.
- [36:57]
Co-host
Absolutely.
- [36:57]
Host
And that is the part that I don't.
- [36:59]
Co-host
Absolutely. Wouldn't pass go. Wouldn't collect 200. Nothing. Yes. Sign me up right here.
- [37:04]
Host
So, yeah, I do worry that he's using all of this as a way to normalize it.
- [37:08]
Co-host
Yeah.
- [37:08]
Host
And then he's just going to be like, well, they're under this act. If we pass that, then I can either suspend the election or whatever. And it's like, oh, God, I hate everything about that.
- [37:21]
Co-host
He used a special act to start the tariff war by saying it's a crisis through fentanyl trafficking. He used a special act to enforce the immigration. So that way he was able to deport those illegals in Venezuela and El Salvador very fast. So I don't know if there's an act that can make us suspend an election or some people, of course.
- [37:41]
Host
Well, the bad news is I think that I. I would have to look at it, but certainly in a lot of countries when you're at war.
- [37:47]
Co-host
Yeah.
- [37:47]
Host
You don't have to. Huh. So the last thing I want is to incentivize him to go to a war. Now, he's been very verbal about being anti war, but given everything that's going on with, I think Iran is probably a way more like current thing that could Pop off. They don't scare me nearly as much as China. But in terms of actual kinetic war, Rubio was saying that Trump doesn't want to go to war. He's not somebody who campaigned on war, but he reserves the right to use military force. They are not getting a nuclear weapon. So that, that's one of those where Lord knows, I don't want to see that play out.
- [38:31]
Co-host
I love peace. I love that we act like we're in peacetime. American bombing people since like 1975. So we bombed this, we bombed the Houthis a couple weeks ago. So, yeah, by no means we're not in the war, but there are weapons flying, there are ammunitions being expounded.
- [38:45]
Host
They are stared nakedly at that truth, that is for sure. But policing things is far less scary than another Iraq, another Afghanistan, another Vietnam for that matter. Like that. That's when it gets really gnarly, really fast. And then if we collided with China, I don't know if would they be able to get drone carriers close enough that they could launch drone warfare on our own soil? I don't know. I, I just don't know the technology. But I in my sort of mental nightmares about that escalating. It's, it's that it's not nukes or anything like that. I think we're still not there. I think that that would be so unwise.
- [39:35]
Co-host
I think our side, I think the drone thing, Andro released their microwave technology. Drones is less of a threat now. We'll see. Some will get through, of course, but instead of a swarm of a million, it might be a swarm of a thousand which still can do damage. I'm not still terrifying, but yeah, cyber, Cyber. Yeah. Cyber attacks is definitely the first. That's the first thing.
- [39:52]
Host
Well, the first thing is economic. You're already there.
- [39:55]
Co-host
And then they're going to weaponize TikTok and then. Well, that dance trend is fair enough. So they're going to activate the Chinese.
- [40:01]
Host
That they've already done. That they have already done. I already did it.
- [40:05]
Co-host
Already did the economics.
- [40:06]
Host
Yup.
- [40:07]
Co-host
The, the, the lab leak has been confirmed.
- [40:10]
Host
There's no way they did that on purpose. The COVID up.
- [40:12]
Co-host
Yes. Tin foil hat, they got hit.
- [40:15]
Host
They got hit just as hard as anybody else. So I don't buy that they did it on purpose, but I do buy that they did the COVID up. They don't want to talk about it. And I am surprised that even we're like, let's just roll on. That was sloppy. And by the way, we have to stare nakedly at what was our role in that? Were we funding it?
- [40:35]
Co-host
Yeah.
- [40:37]
Host
That's where you got to know now. I'm not like, my, my default impulse isn't lock them up. Like, I'm not a go get Fauci guy. I'm like, we need to understand if we've been doing dumb things as a country so we can stop doing dumb things. Because if we're funding gain of. Gain of function research still, we should stop. So we'll see.
- [41:00]
Co-host
It's kind of like when they clone that sheep in the 90s. And then we never talked about cloning. Yeah. And then we never talked about cloning ever again. Like the America was like, yeah, we found. We figured it out. We're done now. Oh, come on now.
- [41:10]
Host
But I wonder if that's the same technology that allows people now to use skin cells to create sperm and egg.
- [41:16]
Co-host
I say all that to say we don't go backwards in technology. Once the cat's out the bag, it's only going to go forward. So function. They got the COVID strand. I'm sure there's a COVID67 that they're working on right now.
- [41:26]
Host
Yeah, probably not the one you have to worry about. It's going to be something else. Some other biological weapon.
- [41:31]
Co-host
Crazy. Well, India is. I don't want to call this active war because, you know, they did have a terrorism tax. So this is a response. But their prime minister Modi had some strong words for the attackers that attacked 20s. They were responsible for 26 deaths last week. They're claiming it was a Pakistani attack. Pakistan has refuted attacks that they had nothing to do with it. It happened by a resort near Kashmir which is an Indian controlled territory. It killed at least 26 and there are a bunch more in critical. Critical condition. Yes. So this is the PM Modi's words to his populace.
- [42:10]
Guest Expert
Today from the soil of Bihar, I say to the whole world, India will identify, threat and punish every terrorist and their back earth. We will pursue them to the ends of the earth.
- [42:45]
Co-host
To the ends of the earth.
- [42:47]
Host
Yeah.
- [42:48]
Co-host
And almost on cue on Friday, Indian officials say that troops exchanged fire with Pakistani soldiers today, today, earlier this morning. So I'm hoping this doesn't go full kinetic. But India is clearly on the hunt and Pakistan, its nearest neighbor, is trying to protect themselves. But it seems like they might have some responsibility. This is still a developing story. I don't have all the information, but I hope this is not another conflict because we already got something in the Middle East. We already got something In Ukraine and Russia. I don't think we want anything in India, Pakistan either.
- [43:19]
Host
Yeah, I mean, given the scale of this, I would not expect it to spiral too far out of control. If this were closer to something on the scale of October 7th, then this could really escalate fast. But, yeah, I mean, look, what a deep and devastating tragedy. And I certainly get the energy coming off of him. It really does remind me of 9, 11. This was how we were talking after that attack, but this isn't on that scale. So my hope is that these are words to make the country feel good and that they really are going to be aggressive trying to track them down, but that in no way, shape or form are they going to. Are we going to see that kind of escalation. That would be bad.
- [44:02]
Co-host
Happy? Yeah, we'll still. We'll monitor the situation closely and see what else comes out of it. All right, I got a speedrun of some stuff that. This is crazy. The UK is currently running tests to dim the sunlight. We're still getting breaking news. They have to officially vote for it to make it official. But some reports are saying that they're going to inject aerosol gases. Some reports are saying that it's going to be a method used to brightening the clouds to reflect sun. The whole point of this is to reduce global warming. I want to just help put that to the side for a second. I read Freakonomics years ago and they talked about Bill Gates run, like, not startup, when it's the people all in the same incubator, a Bill Gates incubator that solved climate change. And this was like 2007 or something. Something. And they were like, oh, we could just put up 17 balloons across 16 different hemispheres and we'll be good. I know hemispheres are 16, but like, over, like North America over South America. But they'll need to be like, one over Iraq, three over China, one over Russia. So just politically geo. Like, there's too many geopolitics. Nobody's going to allow us to release a mysterious gas balloon in their atmosphere. So that's why they kind of hit like a wall of, like, truly reducing global warming. But to me, for UK specifically to go as far as, like, block the sun or dim the sun, that seems a little crazy to me. Dystopian. Like, I get science, but I'm like, where's the.
- [45:31]
Host
I don't know. I don't know enough about the science to know if we should be worried about this. But this is something that you want to be very Skeptical of in terms of there are going to be second and third order consequences. If we release this into the air, how does it dissolve? Where does it go? What else is it going to affect? Does it end up in the soil? Does it end up in the water? Like, there are going to be a lot of things you can to want to make sure that you think through and make sure that you have a sense of like, how is this going to play. But we already do seed clouds and things like that, so we're already running some pretty big geological experiments. So 1. Are those working? Are they creating problems? What are the knock on effects? But yeah, I mean, to be honest, I look at global warming and I say that the way out of this is innovation. The way out of this is not asking people to do less with their life, to have less energy. All that. That doesn't make sense. You want to find ways to innovate. So without knowing the specifics of this, I'll say directionally, yes, innovation is the right answer. But I would very much want to know that there's global cooperation and this isn't one country going rogue.
- [46:34]
Co-host
Yeah, exactly.
- [46:36]
Sponsor Voice
All right.
- [46:36]
Co-host
Round robin for some judges. So there's been. Trump has been running against activist judges his entire campaign so far. So on the first lens, Supreme Court Ketanji Brown Jackson released a statement.
- [46:48]
Sponsor Voice
I'm struggling to see how it burdens a parent's religious exercise. If the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with. You have a choice. You don't have to send your kid to that school. You can put them in another situation.
- [47:03]
Co-host
That was on the ruling of whether LGBTQ friendly curriculums are allowed to be taught in schools because they, the parents claimed that it was stepping on their religious freedoms.
- [47:13]
Host
I don't even understand this argument. This sounds crazy to me. Now, you know my stance in the Supreme Court. Whenever I have an intuition that goes against this, I'm like, this is why we have a Supreme Court. It's their job to know constitutional law a lot better than me. And so whatever they end up voting, I'll roll with. But this strikes me as absurd. All as far as I understand, all parents are saying is I would like to use the religious exemption, that if there is curriculum being presented that I don't want my kid to hear that they can opt out. So let's make it about something that I'm into. Let's say it's evolution. Should parents be able to opt their kids out of learning about evolution? Yes. Like, what the. I don't understand the mentality that the state owns your child is like such a hot button issue for me, which is weird because I don't have kids. But like, I. My problem with authority, all of that kicks in. Like, that's crazy to me. So I, I think we should be striving to offer the best education on planet Earth. But if a parent says, I think that that's bad education, that's not how I want my child educated. They should be able to go all the way to pulling their child completely out of education doing homeschool. But if they don't want to go that far and they just want to say, I don't want my kid in that class while you're talking about that, fine. Literally, what I don't want them to hear about calculus. Calculus is the devil's math. Great. I'm sad because I think you're wrong and I think that your kid will be disadvantaged. But your job as a parent is to say, these are the values that I want my kids raised with. And if you're violating one of those values, that's what the first Amendment's for. I'm gonna pull them. Yes. Yes. Like, on what grounds? It. Drew, it always comes back to the thing that I hate, which is, I know better. I know better, Drew. But your kid isn't gonna opt out.
- [49:00]
Co-host
To her point, it's, if you don't like it, go to a different school.
- [49:03]
Host
But damn, that's. That's a way bigger thing, man. And first of all, what if all the schools offer it? What if now it's like, well, but you can build your own school, which you can. They're not wrong about that. And you should have the right to do it if that's how you wanna respond. But something is like, if they were saying, you can't teach this in school, then I'd be like, fuck you.
- [49:21]
Co-host
Yeah.
- [49:21]
Host
But if they're saying you can't let your child opt out of it, I'm like, like what? Like, of course your child should be able to opt out of it. Even if it's something that I think this is empirical truth.
- [49:33]
Co-host
Yeah.
- [49:33]
Host
Like, this is evolution. You're going to want to learn. This is calculus. But if you're. If your family, for whatever reason, has a value against it, let them opt out.
- [49:41]
Co-host
Landon McCaffrey, an Obama appointed judge, just blocked the Trump administration from cutting funding to schools that promote dei. She's a circuit judge on the other side. Another circuit judge in Milwaukee was just arrested by the FBI for allegedly helping undocumented immigrants evade arrests. Now we just talked about it from the Supreme Court. If it's an interpretation of the Constitution, I'm with it. I'm here. These judges have then blocked the Trump administration from doing something that they put on the table. Is this a different lens or is this still. The judiciary branch has this power. Let them.
- [50:15]
Host
This is going to have to be adjudicated because right now we're in a war of EO versus Judiciary. And I just need an answer. So I have an intuition, which is that EOs have been being used for a long time. And so there's got to already be precedent on this. So unless Trump is going way beyond that precedent, feels like they should be leaving this alone. If they want to march something up to the Supreme Court, then they should, and then the Supreme Court can put their ruling. But being in a position where every time the president. Because let's make it about a president that I don't like their policies, every time that it's a president trying to do something through the already established mechanism of executive order and they get stopped every two seconds, it's like, guys, let's just make a ruling on executive orders. When can they be used? When can't they be used? Now you have one policy and it is what it is. And then we don't say, do we like the pol. Do. Do we like the thing that the President is writing the EO about or not? We stop asking that and we just say, is this how EOS work? If how EO's work, great, no problem. This guy was elected and we can do it. But right now, this does feel like this is breaking along. I don't like what he's doing. Not. He doesn't have the right to do it.
- [51:23]
Co-host
Exactly.
- [51:24]
Host
And so I just want a ruling on do presidents, the ones I like and the ones I don't like, do they have the authority to use executive orders to push things through? And that is the only level at which this conversation should be happening. And so I want a once and for all decision that then Trump either knows I can or can't use eos, and then period. And when the next president comes in that they're held accountable to the same ruling. That's. That's all I'm looking for.
- [51:49]
Co-host
Yeah, and that's the interesting thing about it, is that he, he passed 80 EOs in his first. Not even 100 days yet. And I would probably say like 65 of them are just passed and good. And they're not as scrutinized as ones that trigger dei. Trigger immigration trigger, federal cuts, the schools, things like that. So to your point, it's interesting that they're picking and choosing which ones are unconstitutional, which ones are just like, yeah, that's fine, you could do, you could do a bitcoin sovereign front, nobody cares. Or yeah, you could do this thing. But wait, wait, wait, wait, no, you can't cut funding for this over here. And they are making that choice.
- [52:20]
Host
Correct.
- [52:21]
Co-host
Okay, that's all I got.
- [52:23]
Host
All right, everybody, if you're not already joining us for the lives you're going to want to Tuesday, Thursday, Friday at 6am and here is some highlights from today's live. Let's say that the Republicans stay in power for another eight years after Trump. So you have a 12 year run and they go in and appoint just a ton of federal judges all over the place, place. And now the Democrats take power again and the Democrats are like, God, we got to use executive orders to unwind some of this. And then you've got federal judges everywhere that are like, nope, we're not doing that. And all those things you want to do hard pass, can't do it. I think they would be just as pissed. So anyway, we need the clarity from the people that are meant to interpret the Constitution, the Supreme Court, as to whether executive orders are even a thing that we should be pursuing. And if they are, we need very clear guidance on what can and can't be blocked. Now, recently on the immigration case, the Supreme Court very clearly said, hey, you, the court owe the executive branch deference, but they didn't go into detail about what deference they owe them other than to say foreign policy. So we at least know in foreign policy there is a very substantive amount of deference that the Supreme Court believes that the lower courts owe to the executive branch. So, yeah, anyway, that you get into these fights specifically so that you can remap the territory and say. Exactly. Constitutional, not constitutional.
- [53:53]
Co-host
Yes. Yeah, I don't have a, I feel like that's literally that was the point of the entire Constitution. Because if it's just one man can do whatever he wants for three, four years, to me that yields a most likely negative outcome and brings us back to king rule, brings us back to the early 1800s. Whereas in this system at least there's a back and forth. If he did something that I don't want to say is universally accepted because he shouldn't have to make sure the judges like it, he should be able to do it as long as it's constitutional. But I mean, if judges want to do Think he's crossing a line. They do have that right to say, hey, I think you're going a little bit too far.
- [54:33]
Host
What I'm saying is, where is that line? Yeah, because, yeah, it comes down to me, what. We just need to look this up. We need to do research. I need to do research offline.
- [54:44]
Co-host
Now.
- [54:45]
Host
We can do a little bit, but yeah, I mean, by all means, pull it up and see what we can see. But at a glance, you're probably not going to get the nitty gritty. But I want to know what, what does the Constitution have to say about executive orders? When are they expected to be used? How much authority do they have? How does the judiciary, like, get in the mix of all this? That will be very interesting to do a deep dive on. The US Constitution doesn't explicitly mention executive orders, but it grants the President broad powers within the executive branch, which are often exercised through them. Specifically Article two, Section one, which vests the executive power in the President, and Section 3, which requires the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Yeah, I'd have to do a lot more digging on that to see Supreme Court rulings, how they've mapped that out. If it's not specifically called out, that that means that it's an interpretation of something else. When they talk about executive power, speaking
- [55:44]
Co-host
of interpretation, I think that's where limitations comes in. Executive orders cannot override constitutional rights, federal laws, or fundamental rights. And I think that's the.
- [55:52]
Host
That's all so open to interpretation.
- [55:54]
Co-host
Exactly. That's a wiggle room that. Yeah.
- [55:55]
Host
I mean, this is exactly why you need very clear Supreme Court rulings. I have a bad feeling that I'm going to be reading a lot of rulings and all of that stuff to try to map this out. So for now, all I can give you is intuitional. You want the tension between the two, but you don't want to put the President in a position where they can't do anything. The whole point the. You as the public want to actually be doing something that isn't just ceremonial when you elect a president, and we are a federal system, meaning that the states are subsumed under federal law, they can give you additional rights, but they can't take federal rights away. And this has, at least in my read of this, this has to do with the tyranny of the minority, the tyranny of the majority that you're trying to make sure that people, even if in my state, like, like, I hate the way that they act, but at the federal Level, at least I can vote for somebody that's going to take me to the place that I want to go to. And if you put an executive in that doesn't have any authority. And remember, this was the hotly contested thing when they were deciding to ratify the Constitution, was they didn't want a king, but they also didn't want an inert executive who is merely ceremonial. And so we. This was. Again, Alexander Hamilton was really worried that we would have an executive that didn't have any ability to get anything done. And so he really pushed for that, and that got ratified. That's the other thing. I've got to read the Federalist Papers. Must, must, must.
- [57:35]
Co-host
Super Chat.
- [57:35]
Host
Let's go.
- [57:36]
Audience Member
Super Chat from Super Chat. Mr. G. II as neurological experience person. Read Adam's book, reframe your brain and have him on, please. Worth the research and conversation. The quotes he's racist is crap. I'm a black guy who uses his info as much as I use yours.
- [57:55]
Host
Wait, who are we talking about? Who's Adam? Oh, oh, Scott Adams.
- [57:58]
Audience Member
Scott Adams.
- [57:59]
Host
Scott Adams wrote a book called reframe your brain. Wow. All right, I'll have to check him out.
- [58:08]
Co-host
Yep.
- [58:08]
Audience Member
Yep.
- [58:08]
Host
But didn't he say some crazy shit?
- [58:10]
Co-host
Drew, I don't know who Sky Adams is. I'm sorry, guys, really?
- [58:13]
Host
The Dilbert guy?
- [58:14]
Co-host
Oh, he's a Dilbert guy. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [58:17]
Host
But, like, he's. He said some things. Chat. I'll need somebody to tell me exactly what he said. But here. Here is a idea that rattles around the back of my mind. It was something like. Oh, God, I don't want to misquote him, Drew. Chat, chat, chat. I beg you. This is just the thing that's rattling around in the back of my head. I don't know that this is true, what he said. I've never. Oh, can you.
- [58:39]
Audience Member
In a video on YouTube, Scott Adams, who is white, said black Americans. Black Americans were part of a hate group and that white people should get the hell away from them.
- [58:49]
Co-host
Wow.
- [58:51]
Host
And then that thing rattling around in the back of my head. So I. I'm sure there's context, but that doesn't seem Great.
- [59:02]
Co-host
Well, Mr. G just spoke for all black people, so I feel like he ipso factoed it already, and that was me being sarcastic.
- [59:09]
Host
I was gonna say Drew. Okay, so I've got a G said in the.
- [59:14]
Audience Member
In the chat, he's. He's rebuttaling. He said he got taken out of context. Again, I'm black, and you have to have context.
- [59:20]
Co-host
You keep saying you're black. The more you say you're black, the less I'm believing you're black. Sorry. And it's not like a Joe Biden, you're not black if you don't vote for me thing. It's. You have a cartoon, like, profile picture. There's like, Twitter got exposed over the pandemic. I don't know if you saw this part of Twitter, because there was a lot of people that had black profile pics, but they were white people.
- [59:41]
Guest Expert
Oh.
- [59:42]
Co-host
They were, like, cosplaying as different things
- [59:44]
Audience Member
in all segments of Twitter.
- [59:46]
Co-host
Like, and I'm sure there's like. Yeah, there's somebody cosplaying as an Asian person and all types of things.
- [59:50]
Host
Okay, but wait, wait, wait, wait.
- [59:51]
Audience Member
Yeah.
- [59:52]
Host
Am I racist if I buy a black skin in Fortnite?
- [60:00]
Co-host
I'm going home, everybody. I'm sorry.
- [60:01]
Audience Member
All right, we're cutting the stream short.
- [60:02]
Co-host
Yeah, let's wrap it up.
- [60:04]
Host
We are going to answer that question. Where we at? Where we at? Am I racist if I not only buy, but play as a black character in Fortnite? Answers, please.
- [60:16]
Co-host
What are we talking about? What are we talking about?
- [60:19]
Host
Yeah, what are we talking about? I need answers. These motherfuckers won't give answers.
- [60:22]
Co-host
Race is a construct. Race isn't real. Race is made up.
- [60:25]
Host
So I'm not a racist if I play as a black character?
- [60:28]
Co-host
The term racist is made up.
- [60:29]
Host
So why do we have beef? If somebody is a white person and they have a black avatar on Twitter who has.
- [60:34]
Audience Member
Wait. But I don't think it's that. I think it's that they were culturally and pretending to be the exact race and also saying things that are not.
- [60:42]
Sponsor Voice
Look at.
- [60:43]
Co-host
Look at Eunice.
- [60:43]
Host
So you're saying I was on Twitter.
- [60:47]
Audience Member
I saw.
- [60:48]
Co-host
So you're saying you're emotionally intelligent. Look at you over there.
- [60:51]
Host
Hold on. If it's a construct, why do we care
- [60:55]
Co-host
that race is a construct? Yes. Cultures are not. So that's like, if I was to have a profile pic of a dude in a cowboy hat and I had a Theo Vaughn accent, and I was like, hey, man, me and my truck and we gonna do, do, do. And I wanna live in the trailer. And I love country music, and that's not who I am. I'm making fun of that group of people. That's not.
- [61:13]
Host
So you think they were making fun of them how?
- [61:16]
Co-host
They were using. There's this thing, like, people think Ebonics is just like broken English, but it's like a language just like patois is broke, like in Jamaica is broken. Like. So there's a way to use certain, like ebonics and culturally nuanced words and sentences. The way they were constructing their tweets, they were cosplaying. They were. It was the digital equivalent of blackface.
- [61:39]
Host
Right?
- [61:40]
Co-host
No, in the sense that I'm going to say inflammatory things. I am going to argue points to against black people in certain spaces. I'm using this as a cover so that way I can infiltrate those spaces and then say disparagingly thing. So it's not that somebody just wants to be a black person and they made a Twitter and they just reply to stuff. There are those account too. Adam22 got a whole podcast about that. But it's different when you're actively trolling that community as if you were one of those people from the community.
- [62:09]
Host
I agree. But now let's talk about my initial question, which was if I play as a Black Fortnite character, you guys have no beef with it. That's what I'm taking away. Even though for some weird reason you guys want me to say that's not problematic. It's because, say the words, it's not problematic so that I don't feel okay. Why is it worse for the ambitious builders? It's worse for the ambitious builders because you are going to be taking on all the risk. You're going to have all of that stress of having to build and create something. And I think companies are going to pop in and out of existence like bubbles in a bubble bath. Like you're just part of the foam. You blink out of existence. Nobody notices. Yeah, there's going to be none of this staying power. So you can already look at the. There were. If you got on the S&P 500 back in the 60s, you were likely to stay on the S&P 500 for an average of 67 years. That number is now 16 years. And they expect it to keep dropping. So growing as a company is no longer a sign of longevity. And so that's brutal. And I think when it's a four person company, they will nail a moment and then it will go away. And this is like a tick tocker that has one viral Smash that does 350 million views and then they. They're never able to replicate it. And some people will be able to, but I think most people will not. So it. Running a company is extremely stressful.
- [63:48]
Co-host
Coming from Wally in the chat. What's up, Wally?
- [63:49]
Host
You have R Wally. What's up, brother?
- [63:52]
Co-host
You have every right to make anything in public style all you want. The issue with AI that needs discussion is do you have the right to let machines photocopy that style based on just a prompt?
- [64:01]
Host
Yes, yes, indeed you do. You just, you ought not like, here's the thing you shouldn't be allowed to do. Somebody films something and you then use that. Like you take that shot and you say, just turn this into a different style and then you release it as if you created it. That would be ass. And I see people aren't monetizing it now, so it's not a big deal. But if somebody were going to monetize, like, oh, what I did was I took the underlying, like this is actually a shot from Jurassic park and I just made the dinosaur a big chicken. And now I'm selling that movie that I think is, you can't do that. So just like you can't sample a song without paying people. It would be like that. If you're going to use the underlying shots, you should have to pay. But if you're just using the style of that thing or you're taking that shot, feeding it into AI and you're saying, hey, I want the camera to move something like this, but I want it to be in this universe, this shot, whatever, that's totally fair game. Life, freedom, not to have your mind controlled. The ability to pursue the things that you want to do that don't impinge on other people's freedoms. I mean you could probably get pretty close just by enumerating the rights in the Constitution. But the idea, the reason that so much of capitalism is built on property rights, which is absolutely critical, is that I have this thing and I now own it. And it can't be taken from me, not by government, not by anybody else. And that allows people to create financial momentum. And that is a hundred percent what you need to do. This is exactly why people that were victims of discrimination are like, fuck all of you. Because you have been able to build on the back of the momentum that even if it's just your great grandfather was able to own property and even if his kids squandered all that money, his kids got educated. So they educated their kids, so they educated their kids. And that alone is such a leg up. But that's all on the back of private property. You don't want people to be able to take your, not the government, not anybody. Like that's crazy that people would ever vote against that. But they do. And yeah, read, read about Mouse China, please. Read about Stalin's Russia. It's just when you violate people's property rights, everything deranges.
- [66:24]
Co-host
The color of law is another one about imminent domain and how certain highway systems and things were ran right through communities to split them up and break them up and get people to move. But somebody said Pedro P. In your post capitalist world, who gets the house and the keys on the golf side with ocean access? When we think of capitalism we think of acquiring capital. We think of the rich people getting buying a nice thing and people who can't afford it living in subservient like quarters in post capitalism.
- [66:54]
Host
Now if Eric Weinstein is right, geometric unity is like a record player. You can pick the needle up and move it anywhere that you want on that thing. So I don't remember asking him if he means time as well, but he probably does. But certainly what he calls pinch to zoom is how you would travel through space very rapidly. So if we want to get into math and numbers, I think that's the most interesting thing happening in math and numbers right now. Because if that's true, our fundamental understanding of the universe is just wildly different. Though I grow more convinced by the day that we're in a simulation like for real. For real. Or at least what we think of as real life operates on the same principles and that computers are our way of sort of mimicking that information theory. But man, if this is a simulation, they could do a lot better. I won't lie. I won't lie.
- [67:49]
Co-host
Here you go again. I can make. Although maybe I could make a better vagina. I could make a better industry. I could make a better.
- [67:54]
Host
A better vagina would be the easiest in the world. I can't believe this one's even controversial. But certainly we can agree the space travel could be a lot easier. Like if we were making. And here's. Here's basically what I read from Eric. Eric. I'm about to say a sentence that Eric is going to scream into the void and say this is exactly what I'm trying to fucking say. This simulation would be a lot cooler if we could travel around the cosmos instantaneously. Cue Eric screaming. That's the whole idea behind geometric unity is you can that the layers like those distances collapse as you do what he calls pinch to zoom. So I don't know, I don't understand it. This is way. It requires a way bigger brain than I have my brain hands back a null signal when I try to conceptualize deep mathematics. It's very interesting. Mr. G2 says we should have Scott Adams on the show ASAP. Okay. Scott Adams falls into my early days sense of Jordan Peterson. So I didn't have Jordan Peterson on the show for, like, two years because I just kept hearing he's a misogynist. So I didn't look closely at him. I have seen some headline stuff about Scott Adams that freaks me out. Now. I have no idea if it's real or not, but it was enough where I just haven't looked at him. So I don't know enough about him to know if I want him on the show. That's the real answer.
- [69:12]
Co-host
All right, back to Trump and his tough week.
- [69:15]
Host
Let's go.
- [69:16]
Co-host
It's not just about the markets. It's about the activist judges. I'm not even calling them activist judges. I'm gonna call them judges because that's their job. He had one judge, Landia McCaffrey.
- [69:27]
Host
This is a federal judge, I assume.
- [69:28]
Co-host
Yeah. Who blocked his funding cut to schools that promote dei. He had another judge block the SAVE act from being implemented, which would require a proof of citizenship for voter registration. There seems to be a. He's done very much. I'm gonna do it quick and fast. I'm gonna break things and put it back together later. And I feel like a lot of his ambitions have been cut at the waist by these judges. Checks of power, checks and balances. This is what the system is built for.
- [69:58]
Host
Yeah.
- [69:59]
Co-host
How do we navigate around this? I like this tension because I think it then brings it up to Supreme Court. If it's that big of a deal, they'll weigh on it. If not, they'll kick it back down.
- [70:09]
Host
I think the thing that needs to go to the Supreme Court is how can executive orders be used? I want a ruling on that so we don't have to do all of this back and forth where no matter what Trump does as an eo, somebody's going to try to block it. That. If that is how the system works. And the Supreme Court says, yeah, that's exactly what we want. Eos, they're not a thing. Eos, this is a. It has to go through Congress. And that's simple as. And we're no longer going to tolerate. We believe it is unconstitutional. That is the right way to say it. We, the Supreme Court, believe it is unconstitutional for the executive to use executive orders as a way to manage the. Those should be reserved for some, like, very narrow case that we are now clearly defining. Okay, if that happens, great. But what's happening now strikes me as wacky. And wacky meaning. And this is a paraphrase of something that Elon has said and I think makes sense conceptually as an orienting device for me to go look at this thing. I won't say that I absorb it, that on any level other than emotionally, it feels right, but I know not to trust my emotions. But the emotional statement that, the statement that feels emotionally right is if a judge can block any executive order anywhere, then how is it that we live in a democracy? You have the executive branch for a reason, and they put forward executive orders and say, okay, this is how my mandate is meant to be read. And if, and again, we're in a motion, we're in early days of me trying to orient myself to what the issue really is. So all anybody should hear right now is journaling and process thinking. If you don't have the executive order, then all you have is basically a PR machine and the ability to veto. So there have to be things where the President can take action, whether it's firing people, hiring people, whether it's doing executive orders, where you say, okay, we're no longer doing that thing. We're going to be doing this thing. And they have to carry some weight. Otherwise you're, you're going to have a battleship that you can't turn. And you need the President to be able to move quickly on certain things at certain times. And I think that there need to be severe restrictions on those things. But it does feel like right now, unless there is already clarity on this from the Supreme Court, and I'm just not aware of it, which is very possible, that what we're in now is a political battle where judges are throwing their weight in politically and flip it. So imagine now Trump, let's say that the Republicans stay in power for another eight years after Trump. So you have a 12 year run and they go in and appoint just a ton of federal judges all over the place. And now the Democrats take power again. And the Democrats are like, God, we got to use executive orders to unwind some of this. And then you've got federal judges everywhere that are like, nope, we're not doing that. And all those things you want to do, hard pass, can't do it. I think they would be just as pissed. So anyway, we need the clarity from the people that are meant to interpret the Constitution, the Supreme Court, as to whether executive orders are even a thing that we should be pursuing. And if they are, we need very clear guidance on what can and can't be blocked. Now, recently on the immigration case, the Supreme Court very clearly said, hey, you, the Court owe the executive branch deference, but they didn't go into detail about what deference they owe them other than to say, foreign policy. So we at least know on foreign policy, there is a very substantive amount of deference that the Supreme Court believes that the lower courts owe to the executive branch. So, yeah, anyway, that you get into these fights specifically so that you can remap the territory and say. Exactly. Constitutional. Not constitutional. All right, guys, if you haven't already given us a review, make sure that you do. It helps more than you know. And until next time, my friends. Friends be legendary. Take care. Peace.
- [74:24]
Sponsor Voice
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 granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.