Millions Gaining Benefits Without Citizenship? Shocking Data Everyone Is Debating | The Tom Bilyeu Show

Summary

---

Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu (April 2, 2025)

Episode Title: Millions Gaining Benefits Without Citizenship? Shocking Data Everyone Is Debating
Theme: A provocative, wide-ranging analysis of controversies around immigration, public benefits, economic nationalism, global power shifts, law enforcement, regulation, vaccines, and the boundaries of public discourse.

---

Episode Overview

In this incisive episode, Tom Bilyeu, joined by co-host Drew and a panel of guests, unpacks the week’s most debated and polarizing headlines. Fueled by Elon Musk’s viral Social Security chart, the conversation challenges core assumptions about citizenship, benefits, and American identity. The discussion pivots from data-driven scandals through populist rhetoric to global geopolitics, dissecting the narratives and the underlying value systems that divide America. The hosts seek to guide listeners through the noise, advocating for clarity of thought, transparency, and robust debate—even when confronting uncomfortable truths.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Elon Musk's Social Security Chart: Fraud or Fodder?

[01:00 - 02:45]

• Focus: Elon Musk presents a chart claiming noncitizen Social Security numbers issued have “10x’ed” from 2021 to 2024.

• Guest Analysis:

  • Guest 2: “In ‘21 you see 270,000 people; goes all the way to 2.1 million in ‘24. These are noncitizens that are getting Social Security numbers.” (03:21)
  • Explains administrative policy shift from criminal to “administrative offense” has let millions await court dates for years, meanwhile accessing documentation and benefits.
  • Automatic Social Security numbers sent upon work authorization—“No interview, no ID.” (04:17)

• Debate Context:

  • Guest 1 offers the “partisan” suspicion that this is a deliberate effort to “import as many illegals as possible ultimately to change the voting map of the United States…” (04:47)
  • Guest 2 notes 1.3 million of these individuals are already on Medicaid, with others found registered and voting.

Tom’s Take:

• “I have a feeling that the truest statement ever made about statistics is that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics… Elon and anybody else that's pulling these numbers is going to pull the politically expedient numbers.” (09:30)
• Thought experiment approach: Regardless of the data’s accuracy, ask yourself what values and outcomes you support.

[Quote]

“What do you think each beat of this process should be? Once we have that mapped out, then we can say, cool, this is how we want to vote. But everybody's arguing at the right level, which is the level of the value system that will then drive the policy.” (08:30, Tom)

---

2. Immigration, Tax Loopholes, and Welfare: Who’s “Gaming” the System?

[16:30 - 17:53]

• New Angle: Tax preparation firms allegedly helping migrants claim large refunds—with host Drew citing reports of up to $14k for those with dependents.
• Analysis parallels Social Security issue: The notion that migrants can access more net benefits than veterans or low-wage citizens.
• Tom’s Prioritization:
  • “A veteran should have like top, top, top priority… then a long standing citizen, then a noob, the person who's paid the least into the system…” (18:30)
• Systemic Moral Questions:
  • Hosts urge the public to form rankings and policy preferences in the light, not under “the covert of night.”
  • The real debate: Should noncitizens have access to benefits, and if so, on what terms?

[Quote]

“If they're able to get something out, then they're paying something in, right? ... But if they pay the minimum and we give them the maximum payout, but we don't do that for other people, how do we feel about that?” (18:20, Tom)

---

3. Economic Nationalism: Trump's 'Tariff Apocalypse' and Global Repercussions

[24:12 - 37:06]

• Tariffs Enter Effect: Reciprocal tariffs hit automotives, steel, aluminum, and Venezuelan oil; American manufacturers and consumers brace for turbulence.

• Short Term: “Chaos… all insecurity, the unknown, paranoia, turbulence in the markets.”

• Long Term: If successful, onshoring could “reignite the middle American male in a belief in himself” and boost national security, especially in the context of the US-China cold war. (25:00-28:30, Tom)

• Secondary tariffs are explained as a Treasury tool of “economic warfare” to break adversarial economies, with special attention to Russia and Venezuela.

  • “This is how you break the back of an economy...” (31:38, Tom)

• Historic Alliances:

  • China, Japan, and South Korea’s new cooperation is likened to “Palestinians and Israelis holding hands…”
  • Drew speculates on a “new Asian dynasty,” which Tom affirms is basic geopolitics: “Who’s got the baddest military,” “Who has trade…” (37:06, Tom)
  • US unpredictability—due to constant executive order swings—is driving global realignment.

[Quote]

“China has got you, man, by the shortened curlies, as they used to say.” (29:18, Tom)

---

4. Law Enforcement, Lawfare, and Political Optics

[41:41 - 46:56]

• Pam Bondi’s Aggressive Law and Order: Federal charges and severe sentences for Tesla "bombers" and a high-profile murder suspect.
  • “Let this be a warning. You can run, but you cannot hide. Justice is coming.” (42:45, Pam Bondi)
  • Tom finds the tenor “cartoonishly aggressive”: “I want Law and Order...but there’s something cartoonish about the sort of exaggerated way that we’re going about it.” (44:04, Tom)
• Lawfare Concerns:
  • French populist politician Marine Le Pen sentenced and banned—a direct parallel to US political prosecutions.
  • “You want people to be held accountable, but when you’re talking about a political opponent that you’re pursuing, you’ve got to raise the bar. Otherwise, the look of impropriety is absolutely horrible.” (46:10, Tom)

---

5. Housing Affordability, Market Forces, and Gov’t Regulation

[50:21 - 55:55]

• Luigi Mangione (Real Estate Agent) Clip: Housing costs only fall where new supply is unleashed.
  • “Austin rents are crashing down 22% from the peak...”
  • “If it’s difficult to add units and the demand is high, that makes it so that rents stay up and prices stay up… for California, if you want to solve the housing crisis, you have to make it easier to build...” (50:21, Luigi)
• Tom’s Analysis: Overregulation profits builders, hurts consumers. True corrections require market self-regulation, not distortion via government intervention.

---

6. Science, Censorship, and Vaccine Debates: What’s "Settled"?

[55:55 - 67:04]

• Format: Dr. Mike, a pro-vaccination YouTuber, debates 20 anti-vaxxers and confronts the limits of consensus, evidence, and what constitutes "settled science."
  • Emphasis on RFK Jr.'s controversial medical opinions (e.g., “HIV doesn’t cause AIDS”).
  • Testy exchanges about consensus, censorship on platforms, and the utility of placebo-controlled trials.
• Tom’s Analysis:
  • Science is about disconfirmation; “The act of disproving the things… you're left with one where you're like, I can't disprove it, but I'm open, because that still might be wrong.” (60:00, Tom)
  • Any idea prominent enough should be seriously debated and refuted—no speaker or idea is above challenge.
• Calls for humility, transparency, and openness to being wrong—what matters is utility, truth, and honest debate.

[Quote]

“Whenever I hear somebody say that the science is settled, I honestly want to chew through glass.” (60:00, Tom)

---

7. The Nature of Public Discourse & Frame of Reference

[67:59 - 71:55]

• Listeners are challenged to “look at the data through someone else’s lens” and to treat frame of reference (confirmation bias) as a vital analytical skill.
• Tom explicitly positions his show as a platform for honest, utility-driven examination of the hardest questions, regardless of whose worldview is challenged.
  • “My invitation to people would be to say skills have utility and that you can develop a way of looking at the world that allows you to do things in the world that you’ve always wanted to do.” (71:22, Tom)

---

8. Cultural Chaos: Kanye West & the Boundaries of Artistic Provocation

[72:00 - 81:58]

• Brief, intense foray into Kanye West’s latest extreme public acts (KKK imagery, “God complex” rhetoric).
• Tom laments the evolution of artists like Kanye from original frame-shatterers to self-parodic irrelevance.
  • “It started with the Kanye arc of no one will listen to me, but I believe in myself so much that somehow I’m going to bend the world to my will… and then at some point he lost the plot…” (77:12, Tom)
• Drew contextualizes Kanye’s provocations as consistent in challenging taboos, but acknowledges that some boundaries (e.g., anti-Semitism) remain culturally off-limits.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Data and Values:

  “You don’t need to know the final answers to know what you think about each beat in this process… everybody’s arguing at the right level, the value system that will then drive the policy.” (08:15, Tom)

• On Prioritizing Benefits:

  “A veteran should have like top, top, top priority... then a long standing citizen, then a noob, the person who's paid the least into the system.” (18:30, Tom)

• On Geopolitics:

  “China has got you, man, by the shortened curlies, as they used to say.” (29:18, Tom) “When I say China, Japan, and South Korea hate each other, I mean HATE in all capital letters. So seeing the three of them... this is historic.” (35:29, Tom)

• On Science:

  “Whenever I hear somebody say the science is settled, I honestly want to chew through glass. Like, what are you talking about?” (60:00, Tom)

• On Public Discourse and Frame:

  “Frame of reference controls both what you look at and what you see. Elon's frame of reference is the government is defrauding you...he's going to seek that confirmation bias out.” (68:52, Tom)

• On Institutional Trust:

  “If you try to do things under the covert of darkness, what you're saying is I don't think that the voting public is going to be trusted to make the right decision here. I want to sidestep the political process. I don't trust it to yield the outcome that I want. That is a group of people that trust themselves, in my opinion, too much.” (06:30, Tom)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:00] — Headline rundown; Elon Musk Social Security scandal introduced
• [02:45 - 06:00] — Deep dive into Social Security numbers for noncitizens: mechanics, stats, voter registration claims
• [10:18 - 15:47] — Tom’s “thought experiment” and value system approach
• [16:30 - 22:52] — Tax loopholes, benefit prioritization, systemic morality in immigration policy
• [24:12 - 31:38] — Tariffs, executive chaos, onshoring vs. globalism, cold war context
• [35:13 - 41:35] — China/Japan/South Korea alliance, Thucydides Trap and the nature of empires
• [41:41 - 46:56] — Aggressive new law enforcement, political prosecutions, “lawfare” and legitimacy
• [50:21 - 55:55] — Housing market analysis and the consequences of over-regulation
• [55:55 - 67:04] — Vaccine debate, Dr. Mike vs. anti-vaxxers, science philosophy
• [67:59 - 71:55] — Nature of public discourse, confirmation bias, frame of reference
• [72:00 - 81:58] — Kanye West, art, provocation, and cultural boundaries

---

Summary Tone and Guidance

Tom Bilyeu and guests offer a tough, direct, but ultimately constructive lens on polarized national debates. The conversation navigates hard data, competing ideologies, and the messy interplay between policy and narrative, always returning to the imperative for honest debate, transparency, clarity on personal value systems, and humility before reality. This episode is highly recommended for anyone seeking to escape news cycles and memes, and instead asking: “What’s actually true, and what do we do about it?”

---

Transcript

[Grainger Announcer]

If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need, all in one place, from H VAC and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock, so your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need, all in one place, from H VAC and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock, so your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Tom]

Elon sparks ferocious debate with a single Social Security chart. Jackson Hewitt coaches immigrants on how to file for tax returns. Trump's tariff D Day is upon us. And coincidentally, historic enemies across Asia unite. What could be going on there? AG Pam Bondi pursues Tesla bombers across the US and and seeks a death penalty for. Luigi Mangione, a real estate agent explains why governmental regulations are keeping renters broke and builders rich. And YouTuber Dr. Mike battles anti vaxxers in the ongoing debate of what is science. Actually, Drew, the world continues to fight for its immortal soul and I'm honored to be here on the front lines. Let's do this.

[Drew]

That was poetic. Yeah, that's way better than what the headline said. Feels true.

[Tom]

We are in a global debate for what is true and what is going to help us. And boy, oh boy, people do not agree. We look at the same thing and we see something extremely different. It's a troubled time we live in, Drew. Yeah, that is for sure.

[Drew]

We saw this in the live jumping right into the Social Security alleged fraud. I'm gonna leave it there. Elon was on stage presenting in Wisconsin as he continues his political push to elect certain judges there. He had a chart that showed that just. I'm just gonna say it flatly and plainly that the number of non citizens who were issued Social Security numbers have 10x from 2021 to 2024.

[Tom]

Yep. So taking all the spin out of it, we're just saying what the presented numbers say. During the Live Today chat got very lively at this point in the discussion. All right, let's hear it from them. And then we can talk about what we think is spin, what we think is real. Is there any outright fabrications? Go, let's hear it.

[Unknown Guest 1]

You'll notice there's a strange trend here where how many Social Security numbers were issued? Do you want to.

[Unknown Guest 2]

Yeah. So let me, let me tell you what happened here. We started at the top of the system. We started at the top of the system mapping the whole system of Social Security to understand where all the fraud was. And there's a lot of great people there that showed us really a lot of waste. And so that came up with a big list of stuff that working on. You've heard some that already but this is what jumped out at us when we saw these numbers we were like what is this? In 21 you see 270,000 people goes all the way to 2.1 million in 24. These are non citizens that are getting Social Security numbers.

[Unknown Guest 1]

Yeah. This is a mind blowing chart.

[Unknown Guest 2]

Yeah. This literally blew us away. Like we went there to find fraud and we found this by accident. And this isn't political by the way. My parents, immigrants. Yeah. This country's been great to us. My brother and sister all born in Spain. I'm pro legal immigration. They have a couple of choices. They could charge you with a misdemeanor or a felony under 1325 or they can make an administrative offense like a parking ticket. Basically they were told to do that. Make an administrative offense under the last administration and you could walk across the border. They do what's called a release your neuro recognizance and they give you an NTA notice to appear which to appear to judge. The wait times on judges are like average six years. Look at Grok. You'll see it on immigration judges. There's only 700 of them. This is 5.5 million people. Okay, so what happens then once you're in the country and you got asylum through one of these pathways and we map the whole thing out. You can apply for a work document. You file a 765. It's the work form. You get this form called the 766. That's the authorization. And then Social Security administration automatically sends you in the mail your Social Security number. No interview, no id.

[Unknown Guest 1]

This is worth like just reiterating. It's not that. It's not. People sometimes think that under the Biden administration that he was simply asleep with the switch. He was asleep. They were asleep at the switch. It was a massive large scale program to import as many illegals as possible ultimately to change the entire voting map of the United States and disenfranchise the American people and make it a permanent deep blue one party state from which there would be no escape.

[Unknown Guest 2]

We found 1.3 million of them already on Medicaid as an example. We've gone through, on every benefit program we went through, we found groups from this particular group of people, this 5.5 million people in those benefit programs. And then what was really, really disturbing us was why? We're asking ourselves why. And so we actually just took a sample and looked at voter registration records and we found people here registered to vote in this population. Yes.

[Unknown Guest 1]

And who did vote.

[Unknown Guest 2]

And we found some by sampling that actually did vote. And we have referred them to prosecution at the Homeland Security Investigation Service. Yeah, already, already, that is already happening.

[Tom]

There's a lot of information that still needs to come out. One of the things that I hope in the way that I approach the world will be useful to people is the idea of running a thought experiment. Rather than needing every shred of evidence, you can begin to map out your own value system. Make it something very conscious to you by asking yourself, okay, where, where do I have a problem here? Rather than getting into the squabble. And this is what was happening in the live. It was all squabble about, let me see the proof. I need to know that these numbers are validated. I don't trust Elon Musk. There's no way any of this is true. That's one layer to have the debate. The other layer is to say, okay, well, how would I feel about this if this is true? And then we can get to, okay, well, if it is true, then I feel this way. If it's not true, then I feel that way. But if you understand what value system is driving your thinking, you're going to get a lot of clarity. So I would ask people to ask one simple question. Should people be able to come into the country illegally? Okay, that's question one. If you agree that no people should not be able to come to the country illegally, we need to update our policies so that we're not playing favorites to anybody. It's just this is our immigration policy. And the reason that I think, and I mean this from myself, and I hope that people would adopt this, that the reason that you want to do that is that you're allowing yourself to be beholden to the voting public. When you say, I'm going to make a policy, you're saying, I'm going to drag this into the daylight. I'm going to let Everybody, look at this. I'm going to let Congress decide what they want to pass as laws. I'm going to make them battle it out to get on the same page about what we're all going to agree to moving forward. When you try to do things under the COVID of darkness, what you're saying is I don't think that the voting public is going to be trusted to make the right decision here. I want to sidestep the political process. I don't trust it to yield the outcome that I want. That is a group of people that trust themselves, in my opinion, too much. You should want to go through the voting public as a way to go. I have biases, I know that. And so I want to involve everybody in this decision making process or at least the people that are going to be politically active. Cool. So should people be allowed in the country legally or illegally? Should we do things as a matter of policy or do we want our representatives to do things under the COVID of darkness? Should somebody that is not a citizen be allowed to vote? That's another thing. So again, let's say that, yes, I am perfectly fine for people to come in legally or illegally. I don't care. I think the policy should be such that people should be able to come across the border. We're a nation of immigrants. Let's not be hypocrites. Come on over, everybody. But if that is your stance, do you think that they should have to go through a process of becoming a citizen? Like all of these questions are answerable whether or not you think this data is real. So we'll get to where I think the spin begins in this, so that people can begin to separate spin from just objective facts. But you don't need to know the final answers to know what you think about each beat in this process. And that's where I think that this gets deranging, is we saw in our own live that people deranged immediately off either believe Elon or I don't believe Elon. Forget all of that. What do you think each beat of this process should be? Once we have that mapped out, then we can say, cool, this is how we want to vote. This is how we want to move things forward. But everybody's arguing at the right level, which is the level of the value system that will then drive the policy. Rather than saying that I think that this graph is fake. Okay, now do I think that this graph is fake? I have a feeling that the truest statement ever made about statistics is that there are lies, damn lies. And statistics and that you can look at something from any angle to tell the story that you want to tell. And I have no doubt that Elon and anybody else that's pulling these numbers is going to pull the politically expedient numbers. That goes for the Biden administration, that goes for the Trump administration, It goes for every administration ever. All through human history is we are going to pull the numbers that tell the story that we already believe in, that tell the story that we think is good for us, that 100%. So that's why I think that running these at the level of thought experiment is going to be far higher utility than just getting lost in the numbers.

[Drew]

Okay.

[Tom]

To me, I'm willing to believe that these numbers represent while admittedly you're going to go in and find the thing that you want to find that they really do represent the number of. And their chart technically says new non citizen acquirers of a Social Security number. So the. I don't know why when they talked about it, they dropped the word new, but that's very clearly on the chart. When do we want to be issuing Social Security numbers? As somebody who's married to a green card holder, we had to go through this process. There was all kinds of filing and waiting and all of that stuff before she could get her Social Security number. And because she's not a citizen, has never attempted to vote. So it seems like a very important question to ask ourselves. Do we want noncitizens, full stop, to

[Drew]

be able to vote?

[Tom]

And should there be any time period or process to vet them, whether that's checking that they are who they say they are, that they have legal United States identification, you know, so on and so forth. What are the hurdles that we're going to put before somebody now where it becomes spin is when they're telling you what the story is, when he goes, here's the data. And then we started asking ourselves why everything after that is conjecture. Now, it's entirely possible that their narrative is accurate, but it's pretty easy to steal. Man, a totally different argumentation about we're doing this to keep costs low for the American consumer. We're doing this because these are people that are being persecuted in their homeland. They. So sure, some people are getting by the system, but this is really about doing the moral thing that also happens to be good for the American people because they can get their costs lowered by having immigrants who will take jobs at a cost that American workers simply wouldn't do. Very easy to spin that. So again, to me, both of Those are narratives, and thus they are no longer tied to just pure objective fact. But the narrative that they're putting forward is one, as somebody who lives in California, is like, there is a second and third order consequence, whether it is the intention or not, that when you allow people to come to the country that are like, oh my God, there's such an incredible safety net here. It's opportunity, it's safety net, it's wonderful, it's way better than where I'm coming from. And you allow them to flood over the border with no expectation of assimilation. They will be fools not to take from the system to say, hey, what they call maximum payout, that I'm going to contribute, illegal or not, I'm contributing to the system. But now I'm getting a disproportionate payout, partly because I've only been here for a very short period of time and I don't have the math to back this up. But where I really expect people's alarm bells to go off is either when there's a disproportionate payout, meaning as a percentage that as a recent immigrant, that your benefits are set to the max and that the like veterans is the one that people always go to, You've got veterans who are struggling and you've got immigrants that are able to take advantage of these systems. Why is that? Yeah, so that's where I would expect people to really say, okay, hold on, this shouldn't be disproportionate. Hold on. If we're going to rank order people, veterans should come first, then a normal citizen, then an immigrant, or just say what your rank order is. So again that we can draw it in the light, we can debate about it, we can set policy and move forward together as a nation. But that isn't how this is playing out. People are getting stuck on the very true fact. This is story, this is spin. We don't know that they're doing it to create a deep blue state to which we can never escape something. Whatever his exact phrase was, though, judging by what happened to the amnesty granted in California by Reagan, like somebody who, when he was in California, I'm not sure if he was a Democrat or Republican. Ultimately, he starts as a Democrat, becomes a Republican at some point. I actually don't know the timeline, but he creates amnesty in California. Ever since, California has been a deep blue state because you're going to get people that are going to vote for the policies that best take care of them and whether that bankrupts the country or not becomes irrelevant. Everybody does what's in their best short term interest. So given how we've seen that play out in California, which has not been positive, it isn't something that I, as somebody who has a bias, want to see play out on the national level. So there's certainly is internally coherent logic that Elon is laying out, but it is very important that people understand where the data which is already going to be. Whenever you see data it's always going to be cherry picked to tell a story to give people the confidence to move in a direction. It's not always nefarious, but that's where the spin picks up. Both sides spin it like crazy. That's why I think hitting this at the thought experiment level is the right level of analysis.

[Drew]

Yeah, that seems logical to me because in the live the first thing somebody said was this is a partisan chart. And to me you can't even get to the facts or you can't have the narratives about value systems. You can't open it up to debate when the data presented is already skewed. So I think taking a step back and establishing your independent value system and then seeing how do you feel about this many Social Security numbers being issued and then looking at the data, that's when I think it's a bit more like productive versus it's just Elon says it lie talking point, talking point, talking point.

[Tom]

100%. Yeah, quick break but don't go anywhere. There's more to come after this short break from our sponsors.

[Grainger Announcer]

If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner offering the products you need all in one place, from H VAC and plumbing supplies to lighting and more and all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-granger. Visit grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Tom]

All right, we're back. Let's get into it.

[Drew]

This came out at a similar time where Americans are filing their taxes. There's Savannah Hernandez was reporting that Jackson Hewitt was had a tent outside Roosevelt Hotel in New York where a lot of the migrants are staying and they were handing out flyers for for migrants to get tax refunds up to 14,000. So I did some digging into this. This is based off both the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit. So there are certain stipulations for how you could get that much money back. But the Tldr of it all is if you have some level of income coming in and you have more than three dependents, it's easy to get a much like max tax refund. I feel like this is in the same class of if a migrant comes in, get that Social Security card, gets those benefits, and then works a low wage job, they can then turn around, use this tax refund hat and then get an additional 14K. Theoretically, that migrant could make out better than a veteran, better than somebody whose federal minimum wage makes them uneligible to earn some of these tax reforms and rebates. So this is another way of kind of helping illegals more than we're helping the average American. But now that it's a tax problem, do you think it's in the similar vein of what Elon is saying, that it should be closed full stop? Like, what's your opinion from this perspective since it is technically a tax loophole and not the nefarious Democrats importing it or anything like that?

[Tom]

I think people have to strip away all of the surface level moments of impact to get lost in the debate about these aren't illegals, these are people paying into the system. Guys, this is what we've been saying on the left forever is that these people are paying into the system. So you're making the argument for us, if they're able to get something out, then they're paying something in the right, that these guys are illegal, they shouldn't even be here in the first place. And so go a layer deeper and just ask yourself, as a matter of policy, where should we be at this? I find that one of the things that deranges people's thinking the most is an unwillingness to prioritize things. So for instance, I think a veteran should have like top, top, top priority. So if we're going to make sure that people have benefits and that they're getting a great payout, somebody who put their life on the line for this country. Yes, please. That to me is just good sense if you want to honor the people that are sacrificing the most to build this country. So, okay, cool. Right now, do we have a system that yields that outcome or not? But anyway, having people rank order things. So to me, a veteran, then a long standing citizen, then a noob, the person who's paid the least into the system, that to me just feels like a nice simple way to think through this problem. And then we can go, okay, is that what's actually happening? Oh, and by the way, this is a math question. We are. Right now the country is in debt by tens of trillions of dollars. And once you wrap your head around that we don't have this money and that the way that we take it. I've talked about this too many times. The way that we take it is immoral, in my opinion, through money printing and essentially taxing the whole world. So we have to outline, what do we think is the moral way to move all of this forward? If we're going to let illegals in, then you certainly want to get them paying into the system. But then why make them illegal? Like create the path by which you just say, this is the thing. So to me, it just all comes back to drag this into the light. Let the voter say which way they want the country to go. Let people's voice be heard, build things out at the level of policy. Do not do this under the COVID of night. And now at least we're able to debate this stuff. But people are so easily baited into the headline rhetoric of they're not illegal, asshole, nobody's illegal. They're paying into this system and losing sight of, sure, but if they pay the minimum and we give them the maximum payout, but we don't do that for other people, how do we feel about that? And then I do want to see the public debate around what would have to be true for the setup that we see to be the way that it is. Any philosophy needs to accurately describe the world as it is. The second you're not describing the world as it is, we have a problem. So we had a setup that had millions of illegal people that were violating the law to come into the country. Okay? Whatever explanation you give for that needs to explain that that is happening. You've got a tax consultancy firm that realizes they can make money by standing on the street explaining to immigrants, whether legal, illegal, I'm going to guess they don't care, but that they're going to make money by explaining to them how to maximize the use of the system. Okay, is that a thing that we want or don't want? So getting down into the this is what's happening. So what have we done? What would need to be the motivation for that to be the outcome? And explaining why veterans are getting iced out, why we have such a homeless problem. Like, what is the motivation set that would accurately describe that world? Elon has put forward one set that has internal logic. It may not be true, but it has internal logic. And so the left needs to present their best case of, no, no, no, that's bullshit. He's partisan hack. Here's the real reason. And then allow people to go. Do I really buy? Because if I had to read the left's mind, it would go something like this. This is a humanitarian crisis. The US Itself has created much of this instability, especially in South America. We have a debt to pay. We stole this land. We've created instability. We are a nation of immigrants. We need to stop being hypocrites. We are the biggest economy in the world. We need to start taking care of people. We've allowed these billionaires to flourish. This is crazy. Get them to pay their fair share. Allow these destitute, persecuted people to come into the country. We've got plenty. Let's take care of them. I imagine their take goes something like that.

[Drew]

Cool.

[Tom]

Now at least we can set those up and go, okay, Given what we know about the world, do we really think the people in power. And this is now my spin. You can hear it in my fucking voice. But this is actually what I believe, that people will lie, spin to get in power and maintain power. So which of the following seems more likely? We're all just like, big hearts and we want to welcome everybody in. I don't think that's zero percent. I think that really is in the mix. But I think people just want to get in power and stay in power. I think that's true of Trump. I think that's true of Elon. I think that's true of Biden. I think that's true of Kamala. It just. That's. Man is political animal. James Burnham. James Burnham. So looking at the world and saying that, I think there's far more utility in believing that you let that many people in because you think it keeps you in power. And it's like, yep, everything now clicks into place for me. Not that people don't do things for humanitarian reasons, but that's not the primary driver. The primary driver is people will do. A certain type of person who becomes an elected official will do and say whatever they need to to gain and maintain power. It is very rare that somebody gets to that office and maintains it by being a George Washington.

[Drew]

They don't make them like old Washington no more. Everybody wants to become king. Nobody wants to give it up.

[Tom]

Yeah, too true. Too true.

[Drew]

On this day, I call it the tariff apocalypse because it happened. Reciprocal tariffs to automotive, automotive, industry tariffs, steel and aluminum import tariffs, the Venezuelan oil secondary tariffs. We'll get to that.

[Tom]

Yeah. It's a whole different thing. Secondary tariffs, a whole different thing.

[Drew]

Our trade relations With Canada and Mexico, those tariffs, today is the day that a lot of those tariffs are going into effect. We already see some fear and insecurity around the stock market. The consumer price index is moving. Consumers have less confidence in the American economy. I understand, on paper, long term, this is supposed to be better, but it hurts right now. How do we move through this tariff apocalypse? What do you think happens in the short term and what can people do to kind of either brace for it or just kind of have to eat their medicine and just kind of wait at the work?

[Tom]

In the short term, it creates chaos. America's in a very precarious position because even I, as a lifetime American citizen, born and bred here, as a businessman, I look at this and go, I don't know for how long this is going to be true. And when you build your government based on executive orders, then the next president's going to come in and they're going to write a whole bunch of executive orders that undo all the executive orders from the President before Trump did that.

[Luigi Mangione]

Day one.

[Tom]

Yep, 100%. And so it's like, if I'm not mistaken, over the last three presidencies, it's been like orders of magnitude more EOs. And so we're just in this period where it's like, we're going to do everything by decree and that creates the unknown. So I don't know. As a capital allocator, I'm like, do I move as if these tariffs are for real? Like, when people talk about the 2.02 trillion Trump is now saying, that is far more than that of these companies that are like, okay, we're going to invest massively in America. We're going to be moving our chip manufacturing here, our car manufacturing here, et cetera, et cetera. Will that actually play out? I'll plant a flag on this one. I'll be very curious to see if I end up being right. My gut instinct is these guys are buying themselves time to midterms. They will spend the least amount of money possible to find out if Trump is going to pull this off. And if they do, then they'll fast track the rest. And it's like, okay, cool. We expect him to be in power, the Republican Party to be in power for another four years. And so now you're talking about a six year ride. Yeah, we're going to have to make investments. You'll never survive public scrutiny as a public company. If you're like, no, no, no, trust me, they're going to go out of power in six years. At that point they will say, okay, cool, I at least see this Runway. But that's my instinct, that they are going to buy themselves time. And if we are in a recession at the time of the midterms, it will flip. This will go Democrat Trump will become lame duck and Republicans will lose power and Democrats will step back in and just obliterate with eos everything that Trump has done. And so that's just how this pendulum swings. That makes me paranoid. Okay, I've lived here my whole life, so I can only imagine. And I don't have shit that like struggles with tariffs. We're a media company, so it's like we make everything right here. And even I'm like, oh, well, I don't know. So the short term is all insecurity, the unknown, paranoia, turbulence in the markets. Long term, if he can pull it off, it onshores, manufacturing, it begins to reignite the middle American male in a belief in himself that he can do something, build something, create something, use his hands. I always caveat. AI could just make all of this a moot point. But you have to debate right now in the world where people just cannot imagine what the future is actually going to be like. And so they're all acting as if AI isn't going to just totally change this anyway. So I'll keep my arguments at that level, but I think that is necessary given that we are in a cold war with China. And so people have to put it into that global context because that is, as far as I can tell, precisely what's driving Besant, Lutnick, Trump, Elon, like all of them understand this moment at a global level in the way that I don't think most of us on a day to day level think about, these guys have made more money off of understanding global markets than anybody. So they get it. Like, they get especially Besant understands how global macroeconomics works. And so given that, I think they're all racing to try to pull this off, to understand what a cold war with China is going to look like, to understand how much of our modern life is controlled through Taiwan. That Taiwan is the number one target of China, that China controls like 85% of our manufacturing means insane, crazy number. Americans make software, Chinese make things. So it is a very important game to understand all of that and to recognize that we have to bring some of this back. And so it is a game I think we have to play. You can't just accept defeat. You can't just say, well, China now controls everything. And I Guess when they decide that they're not going to give us any more like us. I think about this a lot with Israel and Gaza, Palestine, it's like, bro, you can't let people control your water, your power. I expect people to hate this fucking take. But this is self evident to me. I don't give a fuck if I'm under an apartheid regime or not. If you're sending me billion dollars in aid, I don't build my military capabilities until I can take care of my fucking water and power. So I'm going to make sure that I'm getting as close to 100% on my own two feet as humanly possible. And that would be my pitch to Americans. Hey, we are not on our own two feet. From a manufacturing standpoint, China has got you, man, by the shortened curlies, as they used to say. And so us pretending that that isn't the case, or us intentionally blinding ourselves, I don't know. But that's where I'm like, kids, don't you hope Trump is right? Like, you've got to ensure some of this, not saying all of this. You've got to ensure some of it. Anyway, I would listen to Besant, I would listen to Letnick far more closely than I listen to Trump. He does so much chaos in his speaking in a way that those two are very clear, very cogent. You can track the internal logic. We're going to find a trillion dollars in deficit with Doge. Sorry, we're going to find a trillion dollars in deficit spending with Doge, and then we're going to find a trillion dollars in additional revenue from things like tariffs, things like Trump's gold card. We're going to balance the budget and then we're going to deregulate. We're going to unlock the economy. We're going to get to say, 4 or 5% GDP growth, and now all of a sudden everybody's feeling good. If they do that by the midterms, dude, you got another four years on top of this. So it's just a question of, given the complexities of global markets, can they, I don't know.

[Drew]

And then drilling down into the Venezuelan, the secondary tariffs, so reciprocal tariffs, you know, they have 200 tariffs on American avocados. So we put 200 tariffs on India.

[Tom]

200%.

[Drew]

200%. 200% on there. So that's the reciprocal, but secondary is something different that you broke down. So I want you to break that down too. For those of mine, and that's specifically the countries importing Venezuelan oil Yep.

[Tom]

So a secondary tariff is where the economic warfare machine that is the US Treasury Department, which Besant even said, I when asked, like, what was the thing that you find most surprising about your job? And he said, how much of my time is spent on national security? Meaning I'm going to go to countries and be like, you imported Venezuelan oil. Nope. Now there's a tariff across whatever on your country. And so this is how you break the back of an economy is. And this is the thing that we haven't done with Russia. To me, Venezuelan oil is whatever. This really plays out in. Can we put secondary tariffs on anybody that does business with Russian oil? And you're starting to hear Trump now make noises about it. This is the drum that I've been banging. I will remind myself not to over index on how much I care about being right. I need to find the right answer. It's the only thing that matters. I'm going to be wrong a lot. But this was one of those things where I was like, this is almost certainly the play. Trump is not stooge for Putin, and he's going to put in his back pocket that if Putin doesn't play ball, because to look like a hero, Trump has to end that fucking war. Because he said, I'll end it on day one. Everybody knew that wasn't true, but nonetheless, like, you called your fucking shot, bro. And so, yeah, I gotta get this one fucking done. So I think he knows that. And if Putin ends up being the one that's trying to stall, trying to drag this on, that's going to be obvious for everybody paying any kind of attention. And so Trump has said, I'm going to use secondary tariffs on the Russian oil and gas economy because the reason they've been able to continue to thrive and run this war is all the sanctions that everybody put on them was on everything except their largest industry by a country mile, which is oil and gas. And the reason they couldn't do that is that will spike gas prices in Europe and elsewhere. So you're going to get all this pressure from your allies who are like, hey, hey, hey, we get the moral thing here. But I also can't have Grandma freezing to death in the middle of the winter because we want to punish Putin. My populace is not going to go for that. So this is where it's like, okay, understand the potency of a secondary tariff if you can pull it off. So I think what Trump is betting on is that we can up our production here in the US of oil and natural gas and Then we can export it to make that, make up that demand. So we would effectively be taking market share from Russia. Fucking awesome for us, man. Awesome for us. Devastating for Russia if we can pull it off. So, yeah, my hunch is that that's the algorithm that Trump is running, and he's saying something to Putin like, you have two choices. Choice number one, end the fucking war. Choice number two, I'm going to take your market share and sell our oil and natural gas. Now, there is a huge base assumption in there that we can meet that demand at a price that would be of roughly equal value to Europe. And I have not looked closely enough at it to know if that's true. That breakdown rides in the back of that assumption. But his behavior doesn't make sense. Minus that. 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.

[Drew]

And we see some for. You said macroeconomics earlier. So in other international news, China, Japan and South Korea have agreed to closely cooperate in response to these U.S. tariffs. So we're already seeing other countries saying, okay, this is happening. So now we need to kind of rethink our business deals and our trade

[Tom]

deals, not just countries saying it. It's one thing if Germany and France and Italy, who, hey, they had their moment 80 years ago in World War II, but since then, they have not been bitter rivals. When I say China, Japan and South Korea hate each other, I mean hate in like all capital letters. So the seeing the three of them, in fact, there is a reason that they did the photo op where they're doing like the cross armed handshake thing, like where you each wrap arms as you cheers and drink from your glass. Yeah. So that is, I have to believe, even from their own lens, they view that as, this is historic because the, the amount of animosity, man, cannot be overstated. Like this, this is like if 30 years from now Palestinians and Israelis were holding hands and doing a trade deal, you'd be like, whoa, those guys used to be bitter rivals. Bitter rivals. And now they're shaking hands.

[Drew]

I have a conspiracy theory. I think that this could be the start of like a rising empire because I think if China as the head, Japan and South Korea kind of fall in as the equivalent to our Mexico and our Canada, to their China, that can be like a dynasty in Asia that I think can essentially take over the world because they're already, each of them individually already are cutting edge in so many different Industries that you just scale that with China's manufacturing and you can take over practically.

[Tom]

Like, here's the thing that that isn't a conspiracy theory. That is exactly geopolitics. So geopolitics is who. Who's got the baddest military on planet Earth? Usually the Navy. Whoever's got the best Navy wins. And so everybody's always asking themselves two questions. Who can beat me militarily and who has trade that I can do with that would make me more prosperous as a nation? And for the last 70ish years, it's been Pax Americana and America's had the best Navy. We have controlled, we've patrolled the seas, we have kept the international order on land, and we were also the biggest economy. So everybody would ask those two questions. They would come up, America, America, America. And then globalism happens. And this is why you'll forever get this. Expand and contract. Expand and contract. You expand through globalism, you contract through protectionism. And the reason that that, AKA populism. The reason that that happens is as you go globalist, you make your quote unquote enemies strong. And for better or worse, when humans get strong and they detect any weakness in somebody else, which almost always comes after you have a big empire, then they go, hey, wait a second. Why am I doing what you want me to do? I'm going to start doing what I want to do. I'm going to start doing trade alliances with Japan and South Korea, and I don't care about you, I don't care what the US Thinks about this. And the Japanese and South Koreans start going, huh, America's being a little dodgy right now. I don't know. Like, they swing wildly from one administration to the next. I don't feel confident that I know who they are, what they're going to be like in four more years. And so China might be authoritarian, and maybe I don't love that, but at least they're consistent. I think that I look into the future, I see Xi Jinping as far as the eye can see. What do we have, 20 years, 30 years left with Xi Jinping? Hey, that's the kind of future I can see, I can predict. I love that. And just like Americans knew that fucking Mao starved his own people to death, that he was. He made Darth Vader look like the nicest guy ever. He made the emperor look like a good dude. So we were still more than happy to go sell shit to them. So this is what happens. You go, I can get cheap shit from them. I Can sell them things. This is going to be amazing. And it's what sets up Thucydides trap. And so we might need to do, like, a video on Thucydides trap or something at some point, because that's one of those. That sounds so fancy. And people don't know what that means. It just means the. Formerly the. For all my UFC fans, you've got a champion. He's been dominant forever, but he gets towards retirement age. He just can't accept that the young bucks are coming for him for a while. He's going to dodge him, going to be like, he's not my class. He's got to fight these other people before he gets to me. Disrespect, disrespect. And then it gets to the point where you can no longer deny that they're the. The one you should be fighting. They're the number one contender. So what do you do? You go on a bark offensive. What a fool. What an idiot. Doesn't know how to fight. I'm going to thrash him, beat him in the first 30 seconds. You've never seen anything like this. Trying to get in their head, trying to keep them weak, but ultimately, you actually throw punches. Now all the yapping is the economic warfare. Unfortunately, like, 70% of the time, it ends in actual bloodshed. And we're on that path, and we are acting exactly the way Thucydides trap comes from the fucking ancient Greeks. And seeing what was happening between Athena and Sparta, and it was like, yeah, these two are going to collide. Like Athens can't accept. I can't remember actually, which. Who was stronger at the time. One of them couldn't accept that they had become weaker, and the other was like, you will show me my proper respect. And so Thucydides was watching. He's like, oh, these two are going to collide. There's just no escaping it. And of course they did. So that's what we're all poised with. That's what you see when you see the tariffs being thrown around. It's a lot of barking. Unfortunately, you have to do some of this because you have to ensure. Blah, blah, blah, all the things that I already said. If. If it was just posturing, then we could just say, hey, America, chill the fuck out. You can't. So, yeah, when you see China, Japan, and South Korea holding hands, your right to be. This feels like an alliance.

[Drew]

Yeah.

[Tom]

It's known as spheres of influence. China's building the East Asian sphere of influence, and they're basically going to say American can stay the out.

[Drew]

I see it. It's happening locally. Pam Bondi had time. She is coming for everybody.

[Tom]

She's coming for your neck.

[Drew]

She first says she wants 20 years prison time for the Colorado man accused of firebombing a Tesla.

[Tom]

You gotta play this clip. You've got to hear her in her own words.

[Pam Bondi]

I've made it clear, if you take part in the wave of domestic terrorism against Tesla Properties, we will find you, arrest you and put you behind bars. Today I am proud to announce that the Department of Justice has unsealed federal charges against another Tesla attacker. We've charged Cooper Frederick in the firebombing of a Tesla dealership that occurred on March 7th in Loveland, Colorado. All of these cases are a serious threat to public safety. Therefore, there will be no negotiating. We are seeking 20 years in prison. The crime was committed in Colorado. And thanks to the great investigative work by the FBI, the defendant was arrested in Plano, Texas. Let this be a warning. You can run, but you cannot hide. Justice is coming.

[Tom]

Wow, bro, that is like bad scripting. It's like, come on, if you want to sound badass, go get your boy Taylor Sheridan, get him to write some scripts for you guys. Like, we got to do better. So I get weird vibes from Pam Bondi. There's. This is pure emotion. So everyone can just totally disregard this. There is something in the. The glee with which she does this. Listen, you need a society based on law and order. You can't have people firebombing anything. Forget Tesla. I wish we were anything but Tesla. Just because it's obviously people are going to cry. Impure motives.

[Drew]

She had. She had more time though, because she came for Luigi Mangione. The killer of Brian Thompson, the health care CEO. Yeah, she said he murdered Luigi Mangioni. Murder of Brian Thompson, an innocent man and father of two young children, was a premeditated cold blooded assassination that shot America. She described Thomason's killing as an act of political violence and she's seeking the death penalty for him. So she's putting down an iron hammer, so at least she's consistent. But do you think it's a little bit of an overreach or.

[Tom]

What we have now is more aggressive than I would like to see the tenor of a administration be. But hey, you doing what they're doing is not going to be easy. If you are trying to reestablish law and order, you're going to have to get people that are pretty doggedly in that camp. But my take on this is that when you start putting together Pam Bondi's level, Pam Bondi's level of aggression, you've got ice with their extreme level of aggression. And Homin and the way that he talks, you're starting to create this draconian feel that I am aesthetically not a fan of. If this ends up leading to the outcome that we want, great. And thank goodness nobody had to listen to me. But I will say that this feels cartoonishly aggressive. And so I want Law and Order. I want there to be very clear, this is. This is the rule, and if you violate that rule, this is what's going to happen. But there's something cartoonish about the sort of exaggerated way that we're going about it.

[Drew]

I think lawfare is being used in very interesting ways. Joe Biden mentioned it with the Hunter Biden prosecution. Trump has experienced it. And now we see in France, Marine Le Pen, who was the leading in the 2027 polls in France, has just been sentenced to four years in prison and was banned from running in the next election. So people are even screaming in France that some people are using lawfare to sway political influence. It's weird. Like, she embezzled funds. She was found guilty in a court of law. I'm hoping it was a legit trial, but it is kind of convenient that the number one challenger to the current party has now been jail.

[Tom]

Yeah. People have got to wean themselves of this problem because the one when somebody's politically motivated, like we were talking about earlier, they're going to find the way to look at this. They're going to find the case to pursue. Like, with all the Trump stuff where it was like, okay, yes, he did violate a law, but technically, the statute of limitations that elapsed. Also, this is normally done as a misdemeanor, but they're doing it as a felony. It's like all that stuff just starts adding up. And speaking for myself, you start looking at it going, just let him run. Like, either you can beat his ideas or you can't. Now, this doesn't mean that we want a lawless society. You want people to be held accountable, but when you're talking about a political opponent that you're pursuing, you've got to raise the bar. Otherwise, the look of impropriety is absolutely horrible. In the episode that I did with Joseph's.

[Drew]

Chris Joseph.

[Tom]

Chris Joseph's. Thank you. Where we were talking about, okay, are the congresspeople actually doing insider trading? And the right answer is, even if they're not, it looks like they are. You do not want to be in a position where you do that. Even Alexander Hamilton, when he was in office, said, because I'm going to be the head of the Treasury, I'm going to divest everything. I'm going to take my salary from this. I'm not going to be taking money from outside the government. The odds of it looking like there's impropriety is way too high. And I thought that was brilliant. And he ended up, somebody wrote him, like, asking, hey, how should I think about. I'm an investor. How should I think about this? And he was like, I'm not even going to take a meeting with you because even though I trust that you would never ask me to answer something that was improper, and I know myself, and I would not answer something that was improper, it will look like there could be a chance of something improper happening. And so I'm just not even going to take the meeting. And I thought, yeah, that's exactly how this stuff should be playing out. If you have a political opponent, look, there are things that they could be doing that are so blatant that even though it's like, fuck, this is terrible optics, we have to pursue it. That certainly did not feel like the case here in the US With Trump. For all the stuff that he did that were gross or questionable, like, that is not the Hill to die in. The Hill to die in is to say, these are the ideas that he represents. We're not here for that. We want to beat him in the court of public opinion. We all serve at the pleasure of the public. And if the public wants to see this guy run, let him run. They should have let RFK run on and on and on. So that's how I would approach this. This is predictable in a populist moment where everybody thinks that they're fighting for their lives. Everybody thinks if we let that side win that it's people are going to be dying in the streets. And so they start killing people in the streets, hopefully metaphorically, for now. But it's like that's the level of stakes that they see everything as. And so, yeah, maybe it's a little dicey what we're doing, but we have to, because Trump is the next Hitler. And so that's how they justify all of this stuff. Rather than going, I'm politically motivated because I really believe in this thing that I'm fighting for, and therefore I cannot trust myself. That is the frame of reference that people should invite themselves into and say, the only way we're going to Stay sane is if we get everybody to debate their ideas as ferociously, like within a code of ethics, but like really debate your ideas. Give us your best idea. Show us how this tracks historically. Show us why you think that it's going to work well moving into the future, tell us what are the values that you're trying to live up to so that we can actually look at that and go, one, are those the values that we want to be fighting for? And two, do we believe that those values will actually yield that outcome? Then it is less deranging. I understand it's not how the human mind works. Humans are emotional, tribal creatures and thus everything is going to shatter into that. But my hope is that for people who are interested in the tension between the two sides, that I can lend voice to that idea and to get more people go, yeah, there needs to be this tension between the two sides rather than try to knock out that party because it might win.

[Drew]

Valid. This has been an interesting topic that has come up in the chat and in previous videos that we did. So we glad we were able to find this clip of a real estate investor talking about how to reduce rent and housing prices.

[Luigi Mangione]

Austin rents are crashing down 22% from the peak. And you're seeing this in cities in Florida, in Tennessee, basically anywhere that made it easy to build, that saw a surge in demand. Real estate prices are coming down. So let's use Austin as the example. They saw an increase of demand when people flocked to the state during the pandemic. When you increase demand, you don't increase supply. Prices go up. Rents went up by 25% in 2020 alone. So what happened next? Builders saw the opportunity, so they built and they built a lot. They added 50,000 new rentable units in the last two years. And now there's too much product vacancies have gone up. Landlords are giving free rent for months and even offering gift cards to try to get people in. And because of that, you're seeing prices come down. Now contrast that to the market markets that I invest in. And remember, you guys have been telling me I am nuts for years because I build apartments in Southern California. Now why do I invest here? It's for all the reasons why everyone else invested in Texas and Florida, because it's easy there and difficult here. But my outlook is as an investor, if it's difficult to add units and the demand is high, that makes it so that rents stay up and prices stay up. Basically, you don't see the typical cycles happen in California the way you do in areas that are easy to add, supply. So as investors, I think there's a strong case that by investing in difficult markets that have demand, you have the potential to see maybe higher returns. But for California, if you want to solve the housing crisis, you have to make it easier to build, as you're seeing in these cities. That's how you do it. So my question to you, do you think a state like California will deregulate and become more business friendly so that more housing is built and then the housing crisis goes away?

[Tom]

Okay, so this is incredibly important for people to understand. What I love about this is this guy is telling you, oh, I make my money by going into the areas with the most regulations. Meaning in the space where you think you're protecting people, you are creating an opportunity for me to capitalize on the fact that this is very hard. So very few people are going to do it, which means there's going to be very controlled supply, which means prices are going to go up. And even if you try to artificially deflate rents or rent control and all of that stuff, that ultimately rebounds back as well, because nobody is going to hold a property and keep it up if they're losing money. And so now you're diminishing supply even more. And so people have come to believe that the market itself is this corrupt thing that people come in and exploit, and the billionaire class exploit it. To take advantage of lower income people is probably how they think about it, which is the wrong way to think about it, but nonetheless how they're viewing it. And instead of going, the market is a neutral thing that simply goes, this is what people value in this exact moment. Oh, wait, no, this is what people now value in this exact moment. And you let all of that stuff equalize. But people are so afraid of somebody losing that they try to, like, clamp down on everything. Clamp down on everything. Clamp down on everything. And so what I love about that clip is that it shows Austin where they deregulated. Yeah. People ended up getting burned. People bought property thinking, oh, my God, I'm going to get rich. I'm going to retire. This is going to be incredible. And now, fuck, now there's so many houses everywhere that now these are all cheaper and it's driving rents down. And now the people that bought this and owned it, oh, God, they're scrambling and they're like, I'm going to give you six months free rent, whatever. Just, I've got to get somebody in here. You have to let it play out. And that Means you have to be willing to step back. And I imagine people in the government think of themselves somewhat paternalistically. So you've got to be able to step back and say I'm going to watch my children suffer. And that's hard to do and is one of the reasons I don't have kids. I did not trust myself not to want to step in all the time when something was going wrong. And that's what you have to do. You have to accept some people are going to lose everything and you have to be okay with that. And you have to accept some people are going to be better at playing the game of capitalism than other people. But if you deregulate, it becomes light touch deregulation. It becomes very hard to win over time because markets adjust and move and change so much. The one thing you want to protect against is them getting so big that they can block everybody else out and themselves distort the market. Because you don't want the government distorting the market. You don't want the corporations distorting the market. But the idea should be the regulations that we put in place are to stop distortions in the market. Movement in the market wins and losses in the market. Yeah, that's exactly what it needs to be. And so one place will collapse as another one rises. That as builders they'll win for a minute and then if they're not careful they get themselves into a bad situation and then rents become cheaper. It'll eventually you'll. People will lose their money but it will equalize. And eventually it's like cool. This is roughly what rents are because now people have a much better sense of housing, what they need long term and all of that and only like a massive sudden influx is going to change that again in the future and then they're going to be a little more skittish about like we learned our lesson last time. This is the hilarity of all this stuff. Repeating is a thing that you've never seen happen in your lifetime, has probably happened dozens if not hundreds of times throughout history before you and you just didn't know. And so that's how people end up getting caught off guard. But it's also why you want to let the market self regulate rather than trying to impose regulations. The very thing you're trying to protect against is the thing that you end up creating.

[Drew]

A latest you believe video came out. This is their surrounded format where Dr. Mike popular YouTuber when it gets 20 anti vax people.

[Tom]

So it's a debate format for Those that haven't seen it, yeah. One person says, here's my belief, and then 20 people, one at a time, get to argue with that person. This was on anti vax.

[Dr. Mike]

RFK Jr is a public health threat.

[Interviewer]

So why do you think he is a threat?

[Dr. Mike]

I think that RFK stances of why he's a public health threat go past the anti vaccine stances. He's made public statements that HIV doesn't cause aids, that poppers, which is a party drug or a recreational drug that people use, is really the reason why AIDS exists. That is not someone who clearly understands science and I don't want them in charge of a health agency.

[Interviewer]

Okay. Assuming he does become head of the health department, wouldn't he now technically be considered the expert? Not an expert, but the expert?

[Dr. Mike]

No.

[Interviewer]

So then if he put something forth that was anti vax and he said we have sufficient evidence to prove that this, and then other medical experts, such as you, which are pro vax, went against it, wouldn't now you be categorized as the wrong ones?

[Dr. Mike]

No, because it's not based on a single person's opinion. This is a consensus driven statement driven by thousands of doctors, dozens of agencies, not just here in the United States, but worldwide as well.

[Interviewer]

Okay. Do you allow your patients to write bad reviews about you if they had a bad experience?

[Dr. Mike]

It's not my choice to write it or not write it.

[Tom]

No.

[Interviewer]

Do you allow them or would you remove it?

[Dr. Mike]

It's no.

[Interviewer]

No what?

[Dr. Mike]

I would not remove it.

[Interviewer]

Okay, so if we look at Facebook, Google, YouTube, they suppressed so many anti vax posts, legitimate declarations of they were injured, serious deaths. ABC News went on Facebook and they, they posted a simple question. Who do you know or yourself that was seriously injured from the vaccine? Over 200000 comments that were then removed by Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg just went on Joe Rogan and he said that Joe Biden, the Biden administration forced them to censor people. So if someone really believes in their product, why would they do mass censorship to hide it?

[Dr. Mike]

I'm a family medicine doctor. I have no idea why they're censoring certain websites or not censoring certain websites. That's outside of my scope.

[Interviewer]

Well, that's outside of your scope, but just using logic, just using reasoning, you said you would not remove your patients bad reviews. So why would we allow these experts to then remove those kind of critics?

[Dr. Mike]

Last that I checked, no doctor removes patient bad reviews. No doctor goes on and hides comments. I mean maybe they do it on an individual level, but not On a systemic level.

[Interviewer]

Okay. I would just say that RFK Jr does, does appeal to other experts. That even if they're vaccine skeptics, they put forth legitimate studies that would be antithetical to the pro vaccine studies. So you said earlier, like misinformation. I would ask who is the author of misinformation?

[Dr. Mike]

Who is the author of misinformation?

[Interviewer]

Yeah. So misinformation, first off, is predicated on the fact that there's a right information. Right information is going to be predicated on the fact that there's absolute truth. Does science say absolute truth?

[Dr. Mike]

There's no absolute truth, period.

[Interviewer]

So if there's no absolute truth within this realm, I don't know why we should completely rule out RFK Jr and the other experts that he could appeal to.

[Dr. Mike]

The reason I rule him out is because he takes information that is not true. Like that poppers cause aids.

[Interviewer]

Subjectively true. It's not subjectively true for the time being because you just said it's provisional truth, meaning it can change with time.

[Dr. Mike]

Right. But you can create any sort of statement. And in health care, we can't just go off of any statement because someone feels subjectively to be true. We have to do our best to do with limited information that we can.

[Tom]

I think the right level of analysis here is not to get lost in Vax yes, vax no. I think the honest answer is we don't know right now. Even rfk, which I often feel like people are maligning him. I don't know if they're doing it on purpose or they just have a negative view on him. But as somebody who spent 12 hours just researching him talking about this stuff, and that's a 2x. So that's like 24 hours of recorded content that I have watched on him. And I was like, all he's saying is we need to do studies on the safety of these vaccines. My whole beef, I'm not for or against vaccines. I want my kids to be healthy. So I got them vaccinated. But now I would like to know, hey, given that these don't have to go through the same trials that other drugs have to go through and we've seen, even though even the drugs have to go through these incredibly rigorous trials, they end up getting overturned. And we find actually, no, these were dangerous, how do we have so many things in the vaccine schedule that have never been tested in a placebo controlled trial? He's like, let's just do that. So whenever I hear somebody say that the science is settled, I Honestly want to chew through glass. Like, what are you talking about? If everybody agrees that a placebo controlled trial is the gold standard of testing and they haven't been through that, what exactly are you saying is settled science? That we value the concept of a vaccine, great. But. But RFK's point is, and this is the level that I think the debate should be happening at is what is science? What is science, Drew? Science is the act of trying to disconfirm the thing that you believe. That's why we don't say, I have a fact I would like to give you. We say I have a thesis or I have a hypothesis. In understanding the difference between a hypothesis and a thesis, and a thesis and a fact is incredibly important. So a hypothesis is I have a guess. A thesis is, I had a whole bunch of hypotheses, guesses, and all of them, except this one, I was able to disprove. So that's science. The act of disproving the things, you're like, I think maybe it's this. And then you. You're left with one where you're like, I can't disprove it, but I'm open, because that still might be wrong. And then fact is tough. There's precious few things that we're like, this is a fact. They exist, but they're hard to get to. Like, there is going to be a fact of what quantum mechanics are, but we don't know yet. So it's like, is quantum science a fact? No, it's the thesis. It has predictive validity. It lets us do gps, but also lets us do electrical energy or nuclear energy. It lets us do nuclear weapons, but it's still a thesis. We don't actually know what's really going on at the subatomic particle level. So given that, people should come in with so much humility and say, this is what we currently believe. But I'm not sure the. And given that I'm not sure, even though I am convinced that RFK is wrong, provably wrong, I'm just going to go through and refute his claims because it's very clear. RFK has hit the level at which something has reached public awareness that it warrants the best minds on the other side to go and debunk it point by point. That, to me, feels like this whole debate about who should be able to speak and who shouldn't. Very simple. If something hits a level of cultural awareness, then the best mind should go and refute it point by point, record it, save it for posterity. So that we can go back and play it over and over and over. And then everybody needs to have the humility of going. Basically everything that we've ever thought we realized wasn't quite true. And so given that, given how many things we backtracked on, and given that science is the process of disproving the things that we believe, people should be real humble and be like, I actually don't know. And this would be a great test to run. And hopefully on the other side of this, we're like, yeah, these are all amazing, wonderful, or we might find something that says, yes, but we need to change this thing because that does appear to be having long term health consequences.

[Drew]

I love that. And I think the trap that people fall into is when we go from hypothesis to thesis, they see utility in thesis. So in thesis, we can make nuclear energy. In thesis, we can make nuclear bombs at the thesis level. So some people think, okay, we can. This now has utility, I don't need to test it any further. And the thesis of vaccines, it has utility. We are getting to a certain place. But to turn it into immutable fact that this has now been tested to this standard, for some reason, people think it's not worth continuing it because we're already gaining the value at the thesis level. And it's like, no, to your point, science is the 1, 2 and 3. Yes. Is gravity real? You throw an apple up, it comes down. Okay, gravity is real. When I throw objects up, okay, what if I throw buildings up? Okay, the same thing happens. Gravity's real. That's now a thesis. Okay, let's go into space.

[Tom]

Did you just out yourself as like Superman?

[Drew]

I'm just, we're throwing buildings over there, you know, But I'm just saying, like you, you walk through the steps of it. It's like, okay, now we go into space. Gravity is now different. Okay, so gravity is real here at this place, but it's different here at that place. And then you get to that for

[Tom]

the record, just so that you don't get flamed. Gravity is the same. It's just that you're far from a dense enough body that it has grav that it has mass sufficient to cause a distortion in space time, which we read as gravity. But yes, point is well made.

[Drew]

I'm not defract on that. So I'm just gonna let that go. You get what I'm saying? Gravity had to get tested, and then it got verified and now it's proven. I feel like we could just do the same thing with all These other things. Why do we have to stop at the thesis level? Let's just make it fact and we could just stop this argument completely.

[Tom]

You want to make things fact?

[Drew]

No. Like, to your point of vaccines never have to go through the placebo trials. It's just that seems to me like an easy step to end this conversation for good. Like, we can completely end it factually hard stop, like gravity. We just need to do one more test. But for some reason, nobody wants to do that. One more step.

[Tom]

Yeah. The. The resistance to learning that my belief system is wrong is so weird to me. I cannot assimilate that as it has so little utility. Meaning if I have kids. And in fact, the only thing I can imagine is I have kids, I made them all get vaccinated. And now I'm afraid that we will discover something that makes me realize I did a bad thing by getting them vaccinated. If I think of people as running that algorithm, then their behavior makes sense. But if you run the algorithm of how could I have known? Like, yeah, of course I vaccinated my kids. That was the. The wisdom at the time was, by doing this thing, I'm going to maximally protect my children. Of course I'm going to do the thing that maximally protects my kids. The fact that that ends up not being true. Like, Jesus, man. Like, you can't walk through life knowing everything. And so at the same time, even though it will sting to know that I either put my kids in jeopardy or maybe my kid does have vaccine injury that right now I don't think is related to vaccines, I want to know what's true so that nobody else goes through this. And by the way, if this all ends up being a nothing burger, and yeah, vaccines are good. And right then it's like, well, aren't you glad that we now have the proof? Like, I don't know. Yeah, down to me. People derail themselves. It does not make sense.

[Drew]

Yep. All right. That's all I got.

[Tom]

All right, everybody. It has come to our attention that 85% of you really are not watching our lives. We go live three times a week. You are not going to want to miss it. We cover different topics. It is very lively. It was popping off today. And so from now on, we're going to start doing, at the end of our episodes here, we're going to start doing a highlight reel from the Lives. So without further ado, take it away, enjoy, and hopefully we will see you in the live next time. Take care. Peace. This is the very thing that Makes this show what this show either is going to be and we're going to keep doing it, or we can't fucking face this and fuck the show. I couldn't care less. I'm already fucking rich. I am not a person who needs attention. I want it. I won't lie, because it's super fucking useful, but I don't need attention. So we either confront the hard shit and that's why people come here, or fuck the show.

[Drew]

I just want to shout out, skipper Durba. She said, I hate it, Tom, but you're really challenging my philosophy here and I don't have a strong defense. I'm for human rights, but if our ability to defend them is corroded, that thing I value will be gone. I appreciate your honesty in this position. This was me two weeks ago when we were talking about free will. I hated everything Tom had to say, but I was like, okay, that's a good point. I see how you got from A to Z. And if I can at least understand what you're saying, it's then up to me to decide whether I want to agree with it or whether. But at least and understand that viewpoint. It didn't make me any less of a person. It didn't attack my personal values. But you're able to see it from the other side, see how they arrive to their conclusion and say, okay, what part of this can I use? What part of this is valid in my thinking? How can I add that to my mental model? So just how you said that. It's not about being right. It's about the pursuit of the truth that has the most utility. Skirboderber. Thank you for admitting that. I appreciate that. Everybody just wants to argue and be right. Nobody actually wants to say, wait a second, you made me think of something that I might not have thought about.

[Tom]

Frame of reference controls both what you look at and what you see. Elon's frame of reference is the government is defrauding you as one element of it. So when he looks at the data, that's what's he, what he's going to see. And he's going to seek that confirmation bias out. He's going to look and look and look and look everywhere for something that matches what he believes to already be true. Now, Elon, people can hate him all they want. There is nobody alive. That is proven. They're better at first principles thinking than Elon. Literally just in the amount that he's been able to impact the world, the things that he's been able to create so take that for what you will. But that's my frame of reference. As a capital allocator myself, as a business builder myself, I understand all the problems that he encounters. I find them so difficult to overcome that when I look at somebody that's able to do it at a scale that just completely dwarfs what I've been able to do, I'm like, you guys don't understand how hard that is. So it controlled what I looked at, it controlled what I saw. So everybody looking at this data, if they believe that Elon is corrupt, if they believe that Elon is just doing all of this to get government contracts, then that's what they're going to look at and that's what they're going to see. And so the reason that I like transparency is I want, I don't need people to change their frame of reference. I want to look at Elon through the lens of somebody who thinks he's corrupt. And I want to see does that have higher predictive validity than the way that I look at him? And anybody that uses this show in the way that I hope people are using it, they're not trying to convince me to think differently. They're saying, cool. I want to look at whatever the truth is through Tom's lens for a minute and I'm going to dip in and I'm going to dip out. Now, look, I understand that that's just not how most people live, but that is the contribution that I'm trying to make to the world. I'm going to give you a strong, sincere take so that you can step inside my frame of reference, look at an object and go, whoa, that is not at all what I see when I look at that. And stepping into my frame of reference either helps you create a more well rounded vision of this thing that we're all trying to figure out, which is the truth. If it's useful, keep doing it. If it's not useful, then stop. And that is ultimately the thing I want people to focus on. The problem is most people have an invisible goal, which is to feel what they want to feel when they come and listen to me. And what they may want to feel is rage, and so they're hate watching me. Or they may want to feel like somebody is saying the thing that they can't say well, and that makes them feel good because they're hearing their own ideas echoed back to them, but in a way that just feels better. And so that's what they want to feel. That would not. My invitation to people is not that even though I understand that that's how many people are going to use it. My invitation to people would be to say skills have utility and that you can develop a way of looking at the world that allows you to do things in the world that you've always wanted to do. That. That. To understand me is to understand that simple direct statement. Jethro Kitty says, if you want to

[Grainger Hospital Announcer]

talk about something very much trending, check out Kanye West DJ Academics interview.

[Drew]

Nope, not doing it.

[Tom]

Have you seen it? I've seen a clip. He is in a dark gray KKK outfit, like, full fucking hood, the whole thing. Referring to himself as the closest thing that we have to God on planet Earth, and that he is a jealous, vengeful God, like in the Bible. And I was like, I don't know what to do with this. This is unhinged.

[Drew]

Nope.

[Tom]

I made a pitch to Impact Theory's own person who believes the most in Kanye as, like, a 4D chess player and that he's not mentally unwell. And I just said, look, this. Even if this isn't crazy, this is doubling. Quintupling 10xing down on, as comedians would call it a bit to the point of it doesn't matter anymore if it's crazy. There's no, like, pushing through this to the other side. There's no. It's just so like, if. If the clan hood was like an artistic statement, maybe, man, but like, all the narcissistic. I'm the closest thing we have to God on Earth.

[Drew]

It's just like he's the kid in the Walmart. He's just give me attention. I'm gonna keep breaking things. Everybody look at me here.

[Tom]

I have a negative reaction every time you say that. Here's. Let me lament for a second. Artists and art is a real thing. And when it's sincere meaning, this is really how I interpret the world. And I'm not wearing a meat suit to the Grammys. Gaga. I'm looking at you. It's more just, this is who I am. I see the world in this way, and I'm going to make you confront it. That's how art moves us forward. That's how art breaks people's frames of reference. And for a minute, I thought Kanye was trying to break people's frames of reference. And I love Trump. White Lives Matter. That era. I was like, whoa. Like, this is shocking. Like, he's really breaking my frame of reference. And I was grateful. I was like, that's ballsy, man. Like, this guy really is Doing a thing. And then at some point, it ended up being the. It ended up being the classic case of somebody who is so talented that they lose sight of the fact that you serve at the pleasure of the public. And Drake just found out real fast that he serves at the pleasure of the public. Kendrick better be careful. He serves at the pleasure of the public. And he can break bad. He's got it now, but he's got to be careful. And because I cherish artists for their ability to pierce a frame of reference, which I, as somebody who I'm not an artist like that, that I find in my ability to be highly verbal and use logic and all that, I just can't pierce people's frames of reference. I spent an hour with one of my employees last night, desperately, it would be good for his life. He asked me to do it and I couldn't. No matter what I said, I can tell I'm just glancing off things you already believe. And I tried to even name for him, this is the load bearing belief that you have that is making it impossible for me to get through to you, even that. But an artist can do it. And so when I think of Kanye as just the kid in Walmart, I'm like, that's where it's ended up. But it really started somewhere else. It started with the Kanye arc of no one will listen to me, but I believe in myself so much that somehow I'm going to bend the world to my will. And with a broken jaw wired shut, I can't be stopped. And I'm going to say that thing that captured the energy of that moment so well, no one is going to hold me back now. We're not there culturally anymore. But what he represented at that moment was the world is beginning to turn against me and I feel this weight. I can't name it yet, I don't know what it is, but the corporate machinery of even Jay Z's Roc Nation is making me feel like a little kid put in the corner. And even though I've made all this music for him, the second I want to rap, nobody will listen to me. And people are making fun of me because I won't let it go. But he wouldn't let it go. And by having that bravado and that confidence, he was able to break through and get culture behind him. And that's what we all needed at that moment of like, I'm not going to let this corporate machine stop me. I'm an individual genius and I'm going to fucking shine.

[Drew]

Mm.

[Tom]

And then at some point, he lost the plot. Like, as in a movie, he lost the plot. He lost sight of. I'm a person who believes in myself. I'm going to push back and I'm going to overcome. And he started believing in his own marketing message. And that makes me so fucking sad. And part of this is my age, because as a culture, the very sad truth is we eat artists up and we move on. Now, many of them get rich for their contributions, but they're all going to be forgotten. And for somebody who wants that attention, being forgotten is way worse than losing your money. Lose my money, fine. But let me remain relevant. Irrelevance and wealth is like the fucking devastating thing. So anyway, I always. You're not wrong to say he is behaving like the child in Walmart, that the same impetus is there. But this was like. It's going to sound silly, but this was a public servant who really did good and is now like, get the fuck out.

[Drew]

It's the realization that you realize it's kind of like Covid. When Covid first dropped, it got to like an album. Yeah. It got the old people, and then it expanded to this healthy people. And then we found out there's some people who are 17 who are dropping dead, and there's some people who are 47 who baited three times. It just. It kind of went from culture to culture, community to community. When Kanye first released, he was a black. He was a black sheep even within the hip hop community because he didn't wear a chain and he didn't have a jersey on. So he was weird. And then he proliferated that group. Then he proliferated pop culture because I'm just a rapper. Rappers aren't allowed to be pop. Then he proliferated and got that there. Then it was, George Bush doesn't care about black people. Wait, you're not allowed to say that on the news. And then we got a black president, and now everybody's caring about black people all of a sudden. And then it went to. Every year, he kind of does the next thing. He was supporting Trump. You're not allowed to support Trump. Now everybody. Now there's a whole bunch of black Trump supporters. It's not even a thing anymore. White lives matter. You're not allowed to say that. White lives been matter. He keeps saying he's saying the same thing. Even now Jews are profiting off of black death. But if I say I'm a Nazi, it's bad. Kanye's right. And everything he said he's been right since the. You don't got all the answers. Sway conversation. He's been right. When he was arguing with Jimmy Kimmel. He was arguing with Jimmy Kimmel over joggers. How many people in here have a pair of joggers? Everybody. That's why he was mad, because he. He came up with the idea. Like, it's a crazy idea when you think about it. Like, wait, joggers was a Kanye thing. It's crazy. That's why he was so upset. So in all these things, even with the Ku Klux fan hood, he's absolutely right that it's ridiculous that the Ku Klux Klan hood still strikes fear in people. It's people holding onto history. You want us to Never forget about 9 11, but we have to forget about slavery. You want us to respect the privacy of Jews and not be anti Semitic. But you can sign a black artist who will kill his entire community and sell them drugs. There's all these contradictions that he's keep pointing out. So he's doing the same thing he's always been doing. But the problem that he's missing the plot that a lot of people are saying is now he's doing it to the community that he's not allowed to talk to. So as he's going through all these communities, because the same realization that Kanye was a man, then he lost the plot. Black people were saying that six years ago, and then it was like, okay, well, I lost that community. This community is going to like me. And then I lost that community.

[Tom]

You think he pushes through to the other side and that we all go, oh, damn. This is like more brilliance from Kanye.

[Drew]

Nobody beat the Jews. They're undefeated. He's never breaking that. This is where he gets off. This is his stop. They're going to get. He's going to end up dying in some way. I don't know the way it's going to be, but we're going to. There's going to be a TMZ headline that he was overdosed, he was drugged, he fell out of a window. Something's bad going to happen to Kanye. We're going to all feel bad. Then we're going to all play his albums again and like him, and then he's going to be the another notorious famous artist who went out bad.

[Tom]

So why didn't you want to talk about it in the beginning? I thought you thought he was so out of pocket that you're like, I don't even want to give this air

[Drew]

because it's the Same thing that I'm also noticing talking about politics, like, are

[Tom]

you worried you're going to have an overdose now?

[Drew]

No, it's not that worried. I'm have overdose. It's the people don't really want the truth. People want to hear what they.

[Tom]

On this show, we do.

[Drew]

People want to hear what you've been told.

[Tom]

Perfectly willing to go down in flames if we were saying what we believe to be true.

[Drew]

Yes.

[Tom]

I'm not okay to rise if I'm saying things that I think are bullshit. So you didn't want to talk about this because you think it's bad for the show? I am trying to map you. I cannot figure out why you didn't want to talk about this.

[Drew]

No, this is not a bad for the show thing. It's just because to me, the level of conversation we need to have about Kanye, we're not having.

[Tom]

Here we are. Cameras are rolling. Let's have the conversation. I just had it, but that was fucking awesome. So, Drew, okay, so now I'm like, I. I really have to figure out how to map this moment because I don't understand it.

[Drew]

Okay, I.

[Tom]

If you. I'm Tom. I'm writing you as a character. The following things make your behavior just now make sense. I think this is bad for the show. And my job as a producer is to make sure that we don't invite hate upon the show. I'm already behind the scenes trying to get Tom to stop talking positively about Elon. He fucking won't. So I'm really not bringing him into the Jew thing. So, like, fuck that noise. We are not talking about Kanye.

[Drew]

Cool.

[Tom]

That would make sense. I would still argue it, but that would make sense. Option number two, I don't want to die of an accidental overdose. I would get that. All right, everybody, if you haven't already, be sure to give us a five star review wherever you listen to your podcasts. And until next time, my friends, be legendary. Take care. Peace.

[Grainger Hospital Announcer]

When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why why Granger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery. So you can keep your facility stocked, safe, and running smoothly. Call 1-800-granger clickgranger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.