Trump & Xi Just Changed the World Order: AI, Iran, & the Next Cold War | Tom Bilyeu Show Live

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Trump & Xi Just Changed the World Order: AI, Iran, & the Next Cold War"

Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu – May 15, 2026
(Covering key segments, debate and analysis from 00:24 onward; skipping ads, intros, & outros)

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Tom Bilyeu and co-host Drew, reporting live from London, dive into seismic shifts in geopolitics following the high-stakes US-China summit featuring Trump, Xi Jinping, and a delegation of America’s top CEOs. They break down the implications on world order, AI supremacy, global economics, Taiwan/Iran flashpoints, and political infighting in the US. The discussion also turns to domestic issues, such as efforts to pause AI data centers, partisan polarization, and cultural skirmishes surrounding media representation.

---

1. US-China Summit: Resetting World Order

Key Points & Insights

• The summit in China with Trump, Xi, and ~20 major US CEOs (including Elon Musk, Tim Cook, Jensen Huang, etc.) is seen as a pivotal moment for global power dynamics.
• Both leaders explicitly referenced the Thucydides Trap—the historical pattern where a rising power challenges a declining one, often resulting in war. Tom expresses shock that Xi mentioned this openly.
• The mood at the summit: surprisingly cordial, focusing on economic cooperation and mutual necessity over military posturing.

Notable Quote

• Tom Bilyeu (03:37):
  “The US China Summit was very encouraging for anybody that wants to see the US and China find an economically viable path to a new world order. Whether we want there to be a change in the world order or not, there is. It is happening in real time.”

Timestamps & Topics

• [04:45] – Trump brings CEOs to signify economic horsepower & respect.
• [07:13] – Xi’s strong stance on Taiwan (“Very aggressive, apparently, if you understand Mandarin... but he basically said, don’t fuck this up.”)
• [08:45] – Iran falls into the background; Xi signals neutrality if US avoids Taiwan missteps.

---

2. Potential Outcomes: Avoiding Global Conflict or Escalating Risks?

Key Points & Insights

• Tom highlights that 12 of the last 16 times a rising and declining power have collided, open conflict resulted; both sides are trying hard to avoid becoming “the 13th case.”
• Trump is pursuing “dollar diplomacy,” seeking deals in US energy, agriculture, and tech.
• Xi is playing a nuanced game—offering cooperation on Iran and even fentanyl, but making Taiwan a red line.

Notable Quote

• Tom Bilyeu (08:45):
  “Xi put on the table aggressively his stance on Taiwan...rainbows, sunshine, all that, but if you fuck with Taiwan, I’m coming for your neck.”

---

3. Cynicism, Partisanship, and the Role of Media

Key Points & Insights

• Tom criticizes US media for spinning the summit in partisan terms, missing the underlying pragmatic cooperation.
• Emphasizes the destructive emotional loop between left and right where the objective is “just stop the other side,” rather than debate actual policy impact.

Notable Quote

• Tom Bilyeu (10:51):
  “As a nation, we have to find a way to march forward with the other side, not viewing them as our enemy... A populist moment is designed to make us feel like we have to see each other as existential threats.”

---

4. Drew’s Perspective: Optimism with Skepticism

Key Points & Insights

• Drew splits his view: Encouraged by the US + China at the same table (given recent trade war escalations), but skeptical of the extensive “named commitments,” expecting a lot of talk, less delivery.
• List of key reported “agreements” (13:50): expanded US business access to China, Chinese investment in the US, stricter Chinese action on fentanyl, more US agricultural exports, commitments to keep Strait of Hormuz open, non-militarization.

---

5. China and the Long Game: AI, Industry, and Power

Key Points & Insights

• Tom and Drew compare economic strengths: US as the buyer, China as the producer. Both need each other, especially around AI and rare earth minerals.
• Deep dive on Xi’s leadership—a “ruthless Mao-type,” not a market reformer, and Trump’s own authoritarian tendencies.
• Strategic rivalry: Both sides want AI leadership, and are ready for “spheres of influence” (US in Americas, China in Asia).

Notable Quote

• Drew (12:15):
  “Him bringing all the CEOs, having a fanfare…at least pleasant and a productive conversation. Three weeks ago it was, 'I just raised your tariff to 113%,' now they’re high-fiving.”

---

6. Taiwan and the Tech Supply Chain

Key Points & Insights

• Taiwan remains the biggest tension point, a “background threat” to stability.
• Tom predicts Trump may be willing to bargain on Taiwan in exchange for economic wins:
  • “[35:05] …Trump is going to be pretty lenient on Taiwan in exchange for other things. I could see him just flat saying…that’s China’s sphere of influence.”
• Potential scenario: delay the Taiwan crisis, buy time (four years), and pass the problem to the next administration.

---

7. Domestic Political Battles: AI Data Centers, Populism, and Governance Gridlock

Bernie/AOC's AI Data Center Moratorium Bill

• Would freeze all new AI data center construction until Congress passes a sweeping AI regulatory framework: pre-approval for AI models, unionized construction, local veto power, export bans.
• Tom is highly critical: “You’re just handing the crown to China.” (61:40)
• Drew notes the bill's defenders cite environmental and local resource concerns—but Tom counters this as a “post hoc rationalization” rooted in economic/narrative anxieties more than genuine practical issues.

AI Data Centers: Who Benefits?

• Construction jobs and local tax base (Abilene, TX and Loudoun County, VA cited as towns experiencing booming revenue).
• Broad consumer benefit—AI is already woven into everyday technology, security, commerce, and innovation.

Notable Exchange

• Drew (70:55): “Who is it benefiting in the interim…if I lived in Festus, Missouri…AI data center outside my window…‘age of abundance’ isn’t now.”
• Tom Bilyeu (71:20): “Every single one of them, maybe not every…vast majority of people use AI daily. Whether it’s their bank, social media, or the government keeping us safe—AI is a necessary piece of infrastructure.”

---

8. Polarization and Policy: Supreme Court, Gerrymandering, and the Red/Blue Divide

Kamala Harris & Democratic Reforms

• Breaks down Harris’ call for court reform, judicial accountability, expanding statehood, and neutralizing the “red state cheating.”
• Both hosts agree the proposals, while helpful in theory (holding Supreme Court justices accountable, for instance), are mostly intended as partisan power grabs in practice.

Notable Quotes

• Tom Bilyeu (40:02):
  “If you create a policy that is truly blind, like a bipartisan committee, then yeah… But when you start looking for more rules or to pack the court or whatever, they are trying to weaponize something against the other side. That is so dangerous.”

---

9. Economics: The Mirage of Surpluses and the Reality of Deficits

Gavin Newsom on California's Budget

• Tom calls out Newsom's “balanced budget” claim as essentially creative accounting, based on a temporary AI/tech stock boom; projections show looming structural deficits once he leaves office ([84:56]).
• Tom provides a crash-course on Nordic welfare states: the myth of Scandinavian socialism, the role of free markets and broad-based taxes, and the recent crises from mass migration.

Notable Quote

• Tom Bilyeu (89:56):
  “They spend roughly 24% of GDP on the social safety net; the US spends 22%. We’ve become a socialist country, but don’t admit it, and all of the stuff that we do is deeply inefficient.”

---

10. Culture War: Chris Nolan’s ‘Odyssey’ and the “Modern Audience” Backlash

Key Points

• New adaptation of Homer’s Odyssey by Christopher Nolan receives backlash for “modernized” casting and dialogue, notably American accents and colloquial language.
• Both hosts urge patience—let the film come out before judgment.
• Drew reminisces about his own inspiration from Greek mythology; Tom notes the double-edged sword of social media pre-release frenzy, which can build excitement but also doom projects with premature outrage ([104:53]).

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On Thucydides Trap and New World Order:
  “This is two bullies that are coming together and they both realize the other person can hurt them and they both realize the other person can help them.” (Tom Bilyeu, 11:22)

• On AI Anxiety:
  “I can no longer understand my future. That is very scary, and that is happening at a time where I’m already feeling like the pie is shrinking, because it is.” (Tom Bilyeu, 68:24)

• On Partisan Politics:
  “Politics at its most foundational is a power grab…The real problem is everyone’s in an emotional state; they’re not reasoning using logic, which means you can’t logic them out of it.” (Tom Bilyeu, 46:04)

---

Summary Table of Key Segments

| Segment | Timestamp | Highlight/Quote | |-----------------------------|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | US-China Summit Analysis | 03:37–08:45 | Xi mentions Thucydides Trap, Trump’s economic diplomacy, Taiwan tension | | Iran, Rare Earths, & Energy | 08:45–14:30 | Xi’s stance on Iran, economic interdependency, China’s critical minerals| | Partisan Media & Populism | 10:51–12:14 | “Have to find a way to march forward with the other side…” | | AI Data Centers Controversy | 50:04–61:40 | Bernie/AOC moratorium, job/utility impact vs. geo-strategic risk | | Harris + Court Reform | 37:13–47:53 | Ethics, accountability, weaponization of rules | | California Budget Myth | 84:54–96:41 | Newsom’s surplus, free market reality of welfare states | | Culture Wars: Odyssey Film | 100:11–106:50 | Nolan’s cast/voice choices; social media fallout |

---

Episode Takeaway

This episode distills 2026’s most consequential issues—US-China relations, the AI arms race, and domestic tribalism—into a pragmatic, often provocative conversation that challenges reactionary thinking and calls for honest, issue-by-issue problem solving. The stakes of geopolitical dealmaking are rising. Meanwhile, technological and cultural battles on the home front are intensifying, demanding both vision and adaptability from leaders and citizens alike.

Transcript

[Tom Bilyeu]

I sold my car in Carvana last night.

[Drew]

Well, that's cool. No, you don't understand.

[Tom Bilyeu]

It went perfectly.

[Drew]

Real offer down to the penny.

[Tom Bilyeu]

They're picking it up tomorrow.

[Drew]

Nothing went wrong. So what's the problem? That is the problem. Nothing in my life goes as smoothly.

[Tom Bilyeu]

I'm waiting for the catch.

[Kamala Harris]

Maybe there's no catch.

[Tom Bilyeu]

That's exactly what a catch would want me to think.

[Kamala Harris]

Wow.

[Tom Bilyeu]

You need to relax. I need to knock on wood. Do we have wood? Is this table wood?

[Drew]

I think it's laminate.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Okay.

[Drew]

Yeah, that's good. That's close enough.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Car selling without a catch. Sell your car today on Carvana. Pick up fees may apply. Welcome, everybody. Another episode of the Tom Bilyeu Show Live. It feels weird saying good morning for us. It is much later in the day. We are coming to you live from London, everybody. So I hope you guys are doing well. We have come straight from the airport to you guys. So it has been a long night, but we are ready to rock and roll. And it is a big day given that Trump and like almost 20 of the biggest CEOs on planet Earth descended on China for the historic US China summit. Xi said directly, like he was reading my mind, that he wants to avoid Thucydides trap. I cannot believe that that actually came out. Incredible. Can't wait to talk about that. And while a communist dictator is trying to avoid political traps, Kamala Harris wants to dive right into one. Bernie and AOC have introduced a bill that would stop all construction on Data Centers for AI across the U.S. gavin Newsom has claimed that he has balanced the budget, but he hasn't. Spoiler alert. And Christopher Nolan has managed to anger a very large section of the Internet with his casting and stylistic choices for the Odyssey. Drew, welcome to London, man.

[Drew]

Hello, Governor.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Hello, mate.

[Drew]

Hello, mate.

[Tom Bilyeu]

How we doing?

[Drew]

All the people in the studio are gonna be pissed off. Sorry, guys. They're gonna.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Everybody watching. If you're from the uk, we apologize. Now, have you been to London before?

[Drew]

Yes. This time.

[Tom Bilyeu]

That's right. That's right. You've been here with Lynn, done the whole thing. Our boys behind the scenes. G, Eric, first of all, thank you guys for coming with us. It's our first time in London, so I was excited to share with you.

[Drew]

I don't know if you know about that, but this is their five year anniversary at it. So shout out to G and Eric, who's been holding it down since the mindset days.

[Tom Bilyeu]

That literally since mindset days as well.

[Drew]

Big, big shout out to them.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Them boys.

[Drew]

Okay. I was, like, going crazy on the chat on Monday. I wanted to say so much because Trump brought in fights or Trump bought everybody to China. He brought literally, like, okay, I'm not a Bernie guy, but he's not beating the oligarch, like, allegations because it's like Jensen Cook. I'm like, are they. Are they about to make a megacorp? What is happening right now?

[Tom Bilyeu]

They've already made a megacorp.

[Drew]

Yeah, it's nuts.

[Tom Bilyeu]

It is crazy. I think this one was very smart, though.

[Drew]

Yeah.

[Tom Bilyeu]

You want to. If you want to get a deal done, you've really got to bring the people that can make a decision there on the spot. And then also, Trump understands that showing respect to Xi and acknowledging China as a peer is a very big deal. And there's going to be so much debate about whether I saw people saying that Trump humiliated himself and that this was all orchestrated by the Chinese to make him look bad. That is not my read on the situation at all. So I was really excited to see what we're doing there. Everybody's heard me talk endlessly about Thucydides Trap, and this is going to be the biggest thing that we all have to think about is what's going to happen from that perspective. And so to hear Xi call that out was incredible. So for me, my takeaway is very clear. The US China Summit was very encouraging for anybody that wants to see the US And China find an economically viable path to a new world order. Whether we want there to be a change in the world order or not, there is. It is happening in real time. By the way, read the book the Fourth Turning is here. It's the latest edition of the book the Fourth Turning. It is very insightful about what we're about to go through. Nobody can see with a crystal ball exactly what this is going to look like. But I've got to say that the way that at least Trump and Xi are verbalizing their understanding of each other, it shows that this is going to be a far more economic path forward. This is one of those breaking moments in history where it can go one way or the other, where we really do end up on the wrong side of the Thucydides trap, or we can avoid it and become the fifth. So 12 out of 16 of the last times that a declining superpower has hit a rising power, they've ended up in open warfare. So I think we should all be praying that we end up being the fifth to avoid it and not the 13th to fall into that trap. And so it's clear from where I'm sitting that Trump arrived in China with dollar diplomacy on his mind, which is exactly. If you care about the middle class, that is precisely what you want him to be thinking about. That's why he took the 20 biggest CEOs with him. We're talking about Elon Musk, Jensen Huang, Tim Cook, the CEOs from Boeing, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, obviously a bunch more. And Trump said that he did this because he wants Xi to see he brought all this economic horsepower with him as a sign of wanting to get deals done, showing respect to China, and that he's sincere in wanting to find a mutually beneficial path forward. Now look, there's going to be a lot of talk. They're going to be saying all the right things, including my fantasy of Xi acknowledging that he doesn't want to end up being rivals with the US that he wants to find a better way forward, but also just to actually carve out something that is economic in nature. So whether we get all the things that they talk about or not, that will remain to be seen. I'm obviously not expecting even say half of what they said they were going to do to come to fruition. But man, just the fact that these guys are really saying, and I think it goes something like this, they're not going to say this part out loud, but we're both in a slightly economically weak position right now and the only one that can really help us is the other person. And so China, if we can find a non hollowing out of the middle class path forward with them. So them buying more oil, them buying lng, which are things that they've signaled that they want to do, them not being a problem with Iran, which they've signaled they're not going to do, all of that stuff would be hugely beneficial for us. So if we can go down a path there where we are finding different ways where we can each be good for each other, I think that something really positive could come out of this. Now, the one thing that obviously Xi put on the table aggressively was his stance on Taiwan. And he's making it very clear, hey, rainbows, sunshine, all of that, but if you fuck with Taiwan, I'm coming for your neck. It wasn't quite that aggressive, but it was pretty close. And he basically, I heard people talking about the way that it sounded in Mandarin was far more aggressive than the way that it was being translated and that Xi really was putting on the table, don't fuck this up. He didn't go that far, but very Aggressive, apparently, if you understand Mandarin, which I do not. But it is believable to me that he would be taking a very hard stance on that. So I think that's going to end up being the big question of the relationship between the two. I think that Xi is going to signal that he's willing to do business. He's going to signal that he'll stay neutral on Iran, but in the background is Taiwan. And so I, for one, am going to be very curious as to how Trump is going to play that. Is that the card that he's going to be willing to give on if he thinks that he's getting enough other things? And so that was the part that was suspiciously missing. Trump wasn't commenting on Taiwan, even when asked directly. And I didn't see any credible reporting on the take on the rare earth. So I'll be very curious to see what the reality is there, because, needless to say, that's going to be one of the most important things that we need to get out of them. But it was interesting to see how far into the background Iran really slid. Xi was very positive about that, saying, we absolutely cannot let them have a nuclear weapon. So the fact that we agree on that, big deal. They absolutely cannot keep the Strait of Hormuz closed. They absolutely cannot charge a fee to send ships through that. He supposedly. This one, I didn't see anything direct from Xi on this, but reportedly that he was also saying that he wasn't going to be sending them any military aid. So all of that would be incredibly beneficial. And he said this one I did see, quoted quite often, that he said something along the lines of, whatever the US Needs to resolve the issue, the situation in Iran will be willing to do so. Obviously, that's not quite true. There are going to be a ton of caveats that they would put around that, but that kind of language is really, really beneficial. So my thing is watching the US cover. This is so fucking obnoxious. If I can just beseech everybody in this audience, I know many people are here, hate watching. Hi, Good to see you nonetheless. But the one thing that I want to put forward is we really have to. As a nation, we have to find a way to march forward with the other side, not viewing them as our enemy, but instead recognizing that a populist moment is designed to make us feel like we have to see each other as existential threats, that we have to pick a team. If. If we can really set that aside and just talk about, like, where are you trying to end up and then the thing that's being negotiated or discussed in that moment, is it more or less likely to walk you there? And I think a of times people, the thing that they're aiming at becomes a confession unto itself. We'll talk more about that when we get to the Kamala Harris thing. But it's like her actual objective is to stop Republicans. Like that's her goal. Just stop Republicans. It almost doesn't matter what we're talking about. I just know that we want to stop Republicans. And I hear plenty of Republicans, they just want to stop the Democrats. And so that's not a strategy. You want to take everything issue by issue. And so watching people cover what I thought was an extraordinarily positive meeting in China may not play out well, could all fall apart at the one yard line. It could all have been spin, it could all be bs. I get that. But at least what was presented to the world was incredibly positive. And if we can't see people at least embrace that, we're not going to get anywhere positive. And so that would be the thing that I hope that everybody here in this community at least can get on board with that idea that there is a place you want to end up. May not be the place that I want to end up, but you can articulate it. This is where I want to get. And then we can talk through the cause and effect of whether XYZ policy is actually going to get there. At least then we're arguing cause and effect. And we're not just arguing, you're on the other team and so fuck you. That would be my hope. So anyway, I come off of the US China meeting feeling very optimistic that we're in dollar diplomacy. That's a much better place to be. This is not two people holding hands. This is two. I mean, this is a little uncharitable, but maybe a little too accurate. This is two bullies that are coming together and they both realize the other person can hurt them and they both realize the other person can help them. But at least they're taking the path of okay, how do we find the path where you help me now there are dangers on both sides. The one that I worry the most about is that Trump will give on things that just continue to hurt the middle class. That would be my big concern. But if we can get manufacturing going back in the US if we can make ourselves the place that people turn to for energy, that would be insanely valuable. And so getting China on board with that would be awesome. What were your Thoughts, Drew? When you look at this, I often see you not as my foil, but as somebody who will. If I'm blinded to something, that you'll hit me with an angle that I hadn't considered. When you were watching this, did it seem like, yeah, like, good direction or like, no, this is inherently.

[Drew]

I had to split it, to be honest with you, because I look at it from a lens of just America versus China, just one country, your country versus our country, going in it from there, him bringing all the CEOs, them having a fanfare, it was at least pleasant and a productive conversation. We are in the middle of a terrorist war, proxy wars, all these things. So I was expecting to be a little bit more adversarial. I didn't think he was going to be as friendly as they were. So it was nice that they were shaking hands, high fiving, all those things. So at least from that standpoint, I'm like, okay, this sounds good. And directionally, at least we could get them to the table because three weeks ago it was. I just raised your tariff to 113% now because of tit for tat. So I was at least happy that they got productive. However, now, like, zooming into the politics, there's a lot of named commitments. There's a lot of things that they said they were gonna do. Things talks they put on the table, whether it was help with the Strait of Hormuz, whether it was an increased investment, whether it was a crackdown on fentanyl. So I like what is being said, but I'm also knowing that these are two politicians talking to each other and how much of that is for us to report on versus what's actually gonna be done in their respective parliaments and Senates and things like that. So I'm a bit on the fence. Wait to see what happens. But here's a list of everything that they did cover. First, US Companies get expanded access to Chinese markets. Hence why really fast.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Who's reporting on this? So I've been a little hesitant on this stuff. So these are all reported lis.

[Drew]

Yeah.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Is this an account that we know this is us? I don't know.

[Drew]

Yeah, yeah, no, there's somebody. But they broke down all the other pretty much out. They. They put all the other tweets together.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Yeah, got it, got it. These from official tweets.

[Drew]

This is just stuff that's been reported on Twitter. So of course, this is not. We don't have any published dates, but these are just agreements that they talked about while the meeting was happening. Reportedly, reportedly. So the company's getting expanded access to Chinese markets. Chinese increased investments to the United States. China's cracking harder on fentanyl. China to buy more American agricultural products. I know soybeans was a big thing, straight up. Hormuz must stay open. And both sides are committed on it being not being charged or militarized. That part was interesting to me because everybody looks at Iran as baby China. So if China says it has to be open and it has to be charged, no tolls being charged, effectively, that would make the war be over from my standpoint. Am I missing something on that?

[Tom Bilyeu]

As I said, it's definitely not the war being over because Iran is its own country. And if they still view this as an existential threat, they're going to fight back to the wall. If China has abandoned them, it's going to limit some of their options. But I'd be very. China will not have abandoned them. Will they be either? Full stop, we're not going to give you actual military aid or at least slow to do it? Probably. Will they start putting diplomatic pressure on them to open the strait back up? Probably. But ultimately, if the US and China path starts getting wobbly, then they'll happily throw their weight back behind Iran and say as a point of leverage, like, hey, if we're not getting Trump out of you, what we want, like, then all those things that I said about that, you can just forget. And I do remind myself, these guys are one argument away from being like, nah, fuck it. So that is, I think, an important thing for us to remember. The egos are gigantic. And I really encourage people, if you are politically inclined, if this moment feels important to you, read about Xi Jinping. He is ruthless. Like, this guy is a Mao type figure. He's not a Deng Xiaoping. So if people know the history, Mao kills tens of millions. I mean, 45 million plus. Some people clock it up to 100 million. So imagine being a leader of a country and killing. At minimum, the most conservative estimate is 45 million. So imagine killing 45 million of your own people. Like, what kind of person are you? And all the while, by the way, he's exporting grain as his own people are starving to death because he wants people to believe that the socialists policies are working and he starves God knows how many more of them to death to be able to see, look, we've got so much grain that we're exporting it now. It wasn't like he didn't know what he was doing. He knew what he was doing. And so when people go. That are, like, close to it. Oh, no, no, no. Xi is like Mao. He's not like Deng Xiaoping, who, when Mao died, comes in and goes, doesn't matter whether it's a black cat or a white cat, as long as it catches mice. Meaning as long as communism makes life better. If it's actually secretly free market capitalism, like, hey, it's all good. And so if Xi were more of a Deng Xiaoping character, who was still brutal, he's the guy that shot everybody in Tiananmen Square, don't get me wrong, but I'd be in a much more relaxed position. But this is a guy that's purging his military. This is a guy that's.

[Drew]

Yeah, there was just a cool couple of weeks ago.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Yeah, well, not a coup, but if he thought you were even looking sideways at the word coup, he was coming after you. Gotcha. So I do remind myself of that. And then I for sure, Trump has authoritarian tendencies in the extreme. He's an egomaniac narcissist, for sure. So it's like you put these guys together, you gotta be a little bit careful. But they are both, I think, acknowledging that from an economic standpoint, if they partner up, they're more likely to get what they want back home. And one thing I think people forget about the US economy is we buy shit. That is our economy. We buy shit. So if you're the world's producer, which is China, nobody's denying that that's what they are. You need the economy. That's the we buy shit economy. So they need us. We would, we need them. Like, if you just look at rare earths like that alone, the way that they could really cause problems for all of our modern technology. And I think they're both being. They're at least making an attempt to be reasonable. Reasonable about that. We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead, so don't go anywhere. Every business has it. A ton of it. Hours buried in reconciling spreadsheets, chasing down reports. Re entering the same data across systems that don't talk to one another. Nobody puts it on the P and L, but it is costing you in time, in speed, and decisions that just come too late. The solution is NetSuite by Oracle. It's the number one AI cloud ERP, trusted by over 43,000 businesses. It brings your financials, inventory, commerce, HR and CRM into one source of truth. No more stitching Together data from five different places. Now, with NetSuite AI connector. Use the AI of your choice to tap into your actual business data. Ask every question you've ever had. If your revenues are in the seven figures or higher, get NetSuite's free business business guide demystifying AI at netsuite.com theory the guide is free to you at netsuite.com theory. Again, that's netsuite.com theory. Let's talk about how exposed you really are. Let's say you cut someone off in traffic. They're furious. They snap a photo of your license plate. Within minutes they can pull up your home address on a people search site. Your phone number, the names of your kids. Your personal information is sitting on hundreds of data brokers sites. Your address, phone number, email, even your Social Security number. Incogni shuts that down. They track your data down across hundreds of sites and remove it. You authorize them once they handle the rest and they keep removing it as it comes back. Plus with custom removals, you can send them any link where your data shows up and their team is going to get it taken down. Incogni is the first and only data removal service independently verified by Deloitte. So you know it actually works. Go to incogni.comimpact and use code impact for 60% off an annual plan. Try it risk free for 30 days. That's Inc. O G N I.com impact and be sure to use Code Impact. Let's talk about the worst investment most guys make on repeat cheap clothes. You buy them, they look fine, but six months later they're pilling, shrinking or just falling apart. So you replace them. You do it again and again. You're spending more over time and you never actually have anything worth keeping or wearing for that matter. That's the whole model behind Quince. I've got one of their 100% Pima cotton tees and the quality is immediately obvious from the second you pick them up. They're soft, well constructed. The kind of thing that holds up over time. And that is the point. Refresh your everyday with luxury. You'll actually use head to quince.com impact pod for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Quince Q u I n c-e.com impact pod for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com impact pod thanks for sticking around. Let's get right back into the action.

[Drew]

And now going back to the thucydides trap of it all. It was interesting that he brought it up different, different reporting is, is talking about how people are saying. That was a slight hint at China saying that you guys are small time and we're going to take your spot. Some people are saying that that was fighting words, you know, whatever like that. But with him being this ruthless figure in knowing that the cities trap is on this table, do you think that there's at least a section of his government that's like, okay, how could we take the US down and take him over 100%?

[Tom Bilyeu]

He's talked very openly to an internal audience about that. There's a book by Kevin Rudd called on Xi Jinping which talks about this. Xi has said openly, we need to start being dismissive of the west, obviously meaning the U.S. so if you think of Xi as like a warm teddy bear, you know, he's like Winnie the Pooh and he's just trying to get this all done. That, that is very wrong. This is a ruthless dictator that will do whatever he needs to do to keep his country moving in the direction he believes they should go. So with that said, I think that he really is trying to get something positive going. But he is, yeah, he's, he's tough. So this is not going to be easy street. I'm expecting there to be lies, manipulation. I think he is trying to win. So the AI race is going to be. China is trying to be the leader, we're trying to be the leader. We're going to come head to head on that. So neither of us is giving up the desire to be number one. This is where you get into spheres of influence. So I think the, the concession that has been made from where I'm sitting is that the US Is not trying to say we're the global superpower anymore. Like, we've let go of that and I think rightfully so, because otherwise you have to try to hammer them down militarily. So you're saying, all right, China, you take your part of the world, we'll take our part of the world. And they're going to keep, like, China's going to test us on Taiwan, we're going to continue booting them out of the Panama Canal, out of South America in general. Like there's gonna keep being all of that. And so it's going to be a very delicate dance copy.

[Drew]

So going to the Thucydides trap to round that out. Everybody has been talking about this tweet that President Trump has sent out saying that when he referred to the United States as a declining nation, he was talking about Biden, he wasn't really talking about me. So I'm just gonna read the second paragraph of it to kind of hone in.

[Tom Bilyeu]

That's the very long. The lady does death protest too much.

[Drew]

Exactly. Yeah. I'm not reading the full essay that he sent out. Yeah.

[Tom Bilyeu]

If you're not looking at your screen, this is very long. The second I saw this, I was like, okay, so this one, either people are giving him shit about it and he doesn't want it to torpedo his deal, or he's had to come up with some sort of rationalization of, like, why he doesn't need to be mad about this. Which, by the way, is smart because to derail this Xi, I mean, I'm mind reading, but I feel very comfortable mind reading. Xi looks down on the US like, gets it. We're up here, yada, yada. But it's like, we're China. We've got, you know, whatever 5,000 years of history. You guys have 250. It's like you guys are nothing. So, yeah, I think that they see themselves as the Middle Kingdom. Xi has talked very openly for a long time about. We're playing this really long game to take the number one spot, and the US Is. The US Is a declining superpower. So I. I am the most pro America, but if we can't be honest about where we are, we're never going to get back out of this path. So if he doesn't have, as a default in the back of his mind that will slip out from time to time, that we are rising, you guys are declining. I'd be shocked. So, of course that's going to come out. We can get into. If you want to push down this path, but we can get into, like, well, is China actually declining? There are plenty of people that'll make the argument, Peter Zion being one of them. No, no, no. They're. The demographics game's already played out. He's bluster. It's all fake. China's dying. That read, to me seems stupid. So, anyway, I think he does believe it. And if we don't believe that we're bigger and better than China or at least capable of getting back to that top spot, it's like two MMA fighters don't even go in the cage if you think you've already lost. So I think we're thinking the same thing, so I'm not weird about that.

[Drew]

Nice, nice, nice. For those who haven't seen the tweet, President Xi was not referring to the incredible rise that the United States has displayed to the world. During the 16 spectacular months of the Trump administration, which this is quote for quote. I'm not adding anything. Which includes all time high stocks market and 401ks military victory and thriving relationship in Venezuela. The military decimation of Iran to be continued. Strongest military on earth by far. Economic powerhouse again with a record $18 trillion being invested into the United States by others. Best US job market in history with more people working in the United States right now than ever before. Ending country destroying DEI and so many other things that would have been impossible to readily list. In fact, President Xi congratulated me on so many tremendous successes in such a short period of time. So to your point, Trump is talking and stuff and saying that Xi wasn't. I'm not the Thucydides trap, Biden was. I'm the one that's turning that tight around. But we shall see. There was an interesting conversation about China that a lot of people are saying. We're so worried about falling behind on China when it comes to AI and chips, but we are behind China and some other industries, you know they have high speed rail zipping all across the country. The employee, I'm going to say that this, these, this might be a spun number. So I'm acknowledging that. But the house, house ownership number is way higher than it is in America. I think like 80 to 90%.

[Tom Bilyeu]

That's almost certainly true because their whole market for like two decades was hey, buy a house, it'll appreciate in value. That market has run into real trouble. And so that's where a lot of the like, well hold on a second. They can put up some pretty good stats but first of all they lie constantly. And then second, their housing market is in real trouble Again, they might be

[Drew]

upside down in their houses, but they're owning a house. So I know that that's a big. But I'm saying all these things to say is that we're so focused on the America versus China, AI, America versus China, fuel and energy. But there are other industries where this automotive, where the home and ownership stuff like that that they are getting us on. So what do you think is the next step for America to make sure that they don't become that declining heavyweight? How do we increase on our side and keep up with what we can do?

[Tom Bilyeu]

There's really three things we have to do. We have to balance the budget, we have to return manufacturing back to the US Even like I want that to also be a thing that generates jobs. But even if it were all roboticized, you've still got to Bring this back. Otherwise you're back in that position where you're going up against somebody that controls your future in a really distressing way. And then we've got to win at AI and so that means energy and data centers.

[Drew]

Nice. And then last thing with the China meeting, I. I know you've seen those memes of like Elon just being like autistic at the making all the weird faces and stuff like that.

[Tom Bilyeu]

So funny. I was literally thinking on the plane ride over here, he's one of those never meet your heroes. I was like, I don't want to. I know that I'm going to walk away being like, okay, yeah, I was

[Drew]

better off, better off in here than what I actually get. But with that being said, the future of technology, the future of business, and with Taiwan kind of hanging in the corner, what do you think is going to happen? Whether with these deals that now that American businessmen have expansion into their market and then how that's going to change when China eventually does take Taiwan?

[Tom Bilyeu]

Well, it's. So the reality is that's a knife fight. And so China is notorious for stealing ip. They are very shrewd in that. Elon goes over there and basically shows them how to build an electric car and then they show him what you can do when the government decides to subsidize an industry. And then they blow past. I mean as far as I can tell, they're just out producing. They're coming up with better features now. I don't know if they have the same self driving capabilities, so maybe we're outplaying them there. Not close enough to that one to know, but seeing all of the propaganda that they're running on BYD to basically make us jealous, make us want it like it's really, really smart. And so from that perspective, opening it up is incredibly important because it will be a tremendous amount of revenue for us. Like even I think as a game developer, I'm like, bro, I want my game in China. Holy Jesus. Like the market is so big. So it's like whatever we can do here. What's it there? I mean, okay, you're localizing it. So let's say the market's two or three times the size. Cut it in half because you're localized. You're just going to be a little bit off for them. But it's so big, man. You're basically doubling your market. This is why you've got. Who's that pro wrestler that speaks Mandarin? Oh God, no. Come on. He's so famous. Oh, Jesus.

[Drew]

Eric knows.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Rational chat knows 1000% chat knows exactly who I'm talking about. So you John Cena. Yeah, John Cena. Thank you. So they understand that the market is massive. And I get that we're in a weird moment where people have got a clown on you if you are doing anything to nod to China. But the reality is, if you're trying to run a business, if you're trying to build a franchise, like, of course you want to go where the people are. And they are like, China's just massive. So from that perspective, be great to have the markets open. It will help with our gdp. And also, I like the idea of selling them things. So in the position now where we're just buying everything, that's a much weaker position than if we're making things and being able to sell them into China. And I also want to go head to head right now. I think Americans have gotten super soft, dude. Again, I'll just promote the book the Fourth Turning is Here, where it talks about what happens to the generations. And it's so knowable. And you get the. The book refers to millennials as normcore Norm. Yeah. I need to, like, go deeper to make sure that I'm interpreting that the way that it's meant, but that they're not striving for, like, greatness. They're not. So they reference Gen X, which is me, as wanting to compete, Sorting each other into winners and losers, being. They call us the nomad generation. So we were basically under raised, if you will, latchkey kids. It is pretty wild when I talk to a millennial about how they were raised and I think about how I was raised, like, it's crazy. So seeing that handoff and seeing that there's, like, not a desire to compete, not wanting to, like, yo, I want to stand on my own too. Either I make it or I don'. So I want to see us compete with China. I want to see that gun put to our head of, we either win or we lose. And I don't want the government at every turn just trying to take care of everybody. I want the government to be like, all right, I opened the door. Go do it. Go make better shit. So that speaks to my soul. So I'm perfectly happy to compete with them, but we do have to do something to even the playing field, because they don't let, like. Like, you can't sue them in their courts. So there's all kinds of stuff where they will take your technology and run with it. So there are things that we do need the government to help with, to make sure that the playing field is even. But then after that, I just want to go for it.

[Drew]

But I mean, is it building a sandcastle on, like, quicksand? Because once they take Taiwan, that's going to fundamentally reshuffle the cards. And I'm saying, and I'm saying it as an already done thing because I just feel like we have no military standing to even back them after our sherrod in Iran. So now I'm like, does it, like, who are we to then try to block that? So I feel like if they do take that, that is going to, again, make it complicated for a lot of our tech industry, which is the number one business sector in the US Right now. It's going to at least change how we set up our spreadsheets. At the very minimum, our profit margin is going to be adjusted at the very minimum. Not alone. If Trump throws that as a economic sanction or who knows what happens. So just like gas prices are now being impacted, what if chips become the next thing that gets sanctioned or something like that?

[Tom Bilyeu]

So, yeah, I mean, look, we have to be scrambling to minimize the effect of China taking Taiwan, which we are taking steps whether they will be fast enough. When you've got Bernie and AOC trying to stop data centers, that's when I certainly start having a seizure. But for sure that would be a bad thing. You don't want them to control chips and rare earths. That would be rough. So, yeah, there's going to be contention there. So some of this is going to be, what kind of positive relationship can we build with China? And then like, let's say that you've got a year to two years before they go into Taiwan. And then let's say that by then you have a positive relationship and that buys you another year to two before something goes weird. What can you get done in four years to mitigate the impact of them taking that? That's certainly one of the options on the table. The other is, despite what happened in Iran, that you throw a military roadblock to try to delay. That's really going to come down to the calculus of how much are we getting out of Taiwan at that point that we can't afford to lose? And then what does it do to our allies if we say, hey, we're going to back you up and then we don't? And so that'll ultimately be the calculus there. But man, my, this is just got. I do not have anything to back this up. But my instinct is that Trump is Going to be pretty lenient on Taiwan in exchange for other things. Like, I could see him just flat saying, we gotta. That that's for. That's China's sphere of influence. They've gotta deal with that. And he starts, like, his campaign of just dropping, like, little hints here and there. We'll see. I don't. I don't have strong conviction that that's how I'll play it. I'd have to, like, do a lot more research. But that's my instinct. Now.

[Drew]

Once you gave me the timeline, that's what I thought. Because if you can buy yourself three years, I'm out of office. That's the next guy's problem.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Like, yeah, you gotta deal with Taiwan part of it. I think he does think a legacy, though. And so I think he does care pretty deeply about what happens after he's gone. If a Republican takes his spot. If a Republican doesn't take his spot, then he's got all the, you know, excuses in the world about, well, I tried to set you guys up, but you then flushed everything down the toilet. But I think he really does want to see his legacy cemented by following it up with another Republican candidate that is in his mind of his, like, yoke. So whether that is J.D. vance, whether that's Rubio, but someone along those lines that's come up under him, that he's spent a lot of time with, that will want to carry some of these things forward. So that at least would be interesting that if he's got a mindset of, I, I can't just get myself out of office, which is what I see Gavin Newsom doing, for instance. But, like, I've really got to think long term about this. I think it'll make him be more strategic.

[Drew]

All right, now let's jump over to Kamala Harris, who had listed a bunch of ideas that the Democrats need to take as initiative going into the next election season. It's interesting. Her, I don't want to call it a rebrand. Like, she's still around. She's obviously trying to posture to run again. I don't think that's the best candidate that the Democrats can put out there,

[Tom Bilyeu]

but I'm so shocked.

[Drew]

Let's see what she has to say.

[Kamala Harris]

Say, look, this is a moment where there are no bad ideas. No bad idea brainstorm is what I'd

[Drew]

like to say on our side, guys, I don't know if they can.

[Kamala Harris]

And in that no bad ideas brainstorm, we talk about what we need to do and think about doing around The Electoral College. We talk about the idea of Supreme Court reform, which includes expanding the Supreme Court. We invite a conversation about multi member districts. Districts. We talk about, look, that, that if we win the Senate, which we should, and we will, then the Senate Judiciary Committee should have rules that they put in place. So when these people come before as nominees to the Supreme Court and lie that they are held to account and consequence. Not just that somebody goes on cable news and says they lie, but that there are rules in place to actually penalize people for lying to a Senate Judiciary Committee, that we agree that it is right to have ethics rules for Supreme Court justices and let's put those in place. Let's talk about statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. these are the things I think that we've got to do. We've got to neutralize these red states

[Tom Bilyeu]

from cheating to make those decisions.

[Kamala Harris]

Decisions including blue states expanding their maps.

[Tom Bilyeu]

There we go. Gotta neutralize those red states. Drew that. That's where this gives me out. If she were a podcaster, I'd be like, this is one of the worst podcasters in the world. The fact that she actually ran for president is so wild to me. There's just something about the way that she talks that sounds terrible. I've heard plenty of people say, like, in person she's actually very smart, but God damn, her affectations are horrible. Horrible.

[Drew]

Okay, before, before we go right into like partisan land, I want to just like let's, let's play a game of ought not is for right now. So if we were just to look at the ought of it, Supreme Court justices should be held accountable. For example, there should be Senate Judiciary committees that have rules that say if you lie in front of the Senate during a Senate hearing, you should be reprimanded in some way. On paper, those ideas seem like they're good and they are beneficial for America. Not beneficial for the left, beneficial right. Just for America. Did I miss anything? Just with that, before we get into it gets manipulated.

[Tom Bilyeu]

It depends on how you do it. So if you create a policy that is truly blind, like if it has to be a bipartisan committee, you know, that's making these decisions, then yeah, there's probably a way to do it where you are able to hold people to account. I admittedly am surprised that the Department of Justice never pursues people that are caught lying under oath. You're under oath when you go before Congress, so presumably you already could go after them. So the fact that they don't. I don't know if that's just Being delicate from a political standpoint, you don't want to weaponize against you. I'm not sure why they're willy nilly about that. But when you say there should be an ethics committee, you, I'm almost certain you already don't need that. Lying under oath is already a problem. A Supreme Court justice saying during, like when you're putting them through testimony, if you say, how are you going to rule on Roe v. Wade? And they say, oh, I'm going to rule this way, and then you put them in office and they rule the other way, how would you ever know that they didn't just change their mind? You wouldn't. So you would just, you would say, but you said that. And then they're going to say, yes, I understand that. But as I. They pled their case, I actually listened, which is what you should want a Supreme Court justice to do. It changed my mind, and now this is my new stance. All I could do at the time of the hearing was tell you what I believed at the time of the hearing. And there is no way to peer inside their soul and know if, if that's actually the truth or if it was all just political maneuvering to get into the office. And so that's where I'm like, I, I get it. Like, at a high level, it sounds great to say there should be ethics. These people should be held accountable for being ethical. And I agree. But when you get to the specifics of, okay, wait, what are you actually trying to address? Who's going to determine what is and isn't ethical? Like, we already have a Constitution. So theoretically, between that and the law, it's like all of this stuff is already covered. So the thing that they're trying to get to, in my opinion, is they want to be the arbiter of these things. Like, they want a thing in their back pocket where they can say, ah, we think you violated this ethics clause and therefore you're out. And you'll see this in business contracts where it's like, they'll put, I forget what, like decency clauses. Like, where they're trying to get to, like, you can't.

[Drew]

There's a scandal or something. Exactly.

[Tom Bilyeu]

We can get rid of you. But then it becomes, well, what officially counts as that? Because you're never going to be able to enumerate all that stuff. And so you do put yourself in a weakened position. Position where it's like, oh, there are going to be things that can be used against me that I don't think should have qualified for that. But you know, I ended up losing that.

[Drew]

So I have a specific example, let's start there. So like again I'm good, I'm trying to stay above part like partisan politics before we get to that level. So there was the Clarence Thomas case a couple years ago. He was wind and dined by a certain, I don't know if it was a pharmaceutical company, it was some private industry. They took him on a, to a fishing trip, put him up somewhere in like Wisconsin or something like that. It was a high expensive trip, paid for because he had a big case coming that they were, had a direct interest in. He said he didn't disclose that, didn't say anything about it. Ended up ruling in their favor when they, when he was, when it was then brought up he like lied about it. And since then that was just kind of the it. He got caught for his lie. We had a week in the press about it and then that was it. He didn't get stepped down from the bench, Nothing happened with his cases. He didn't have to go in a timeout and anything.

[Tom Bilyeu]

But presumably, and I don't know the rules well enough, but presumably there's already rules for that kind of thing. And so I would have to look at was there a committee that looked at that and determined, oh, this isn't that big of a deal. But I cannot fathom that there either is a rule and therefore it is a problem or there's not a rule. And while we may not like it, it's not a problem. And so I see stuff like this all the time where it doesn't like it's enough to get the ire of people, but it's not enough to actually purs. So I don't know that case well enough to be able to comment anywhere other than at the 30,000 foot level. But you know, my thing on this is always put a policy in place, not knowing who it's going to apply to and if everybody agrees, cool, that's how we're going to adjudicate this stuff moving forward, great. As long as it's a policy, I'm all for it. I just think that when you, when people start looking for more rules or to pack the court or whatever, they are trying to weaponize something against the other side. And that's where I'm like that is so dangerous. We shouldn't want a one party state, we should want a one party country. So from that perspective, I think that what I interpret this to be is somebody who means it when she says We've got to neutralize the other side. But, yeah, if there's a thoughtful policy that we can put in place, I'm all for.

[Drew]

I feel like this is just like gerrymandering. We're getting into the tit for tat territory where you did one thing. We need to try to figure out how we can make sure we do it on the other side. And then now the other side does something and we're just kind of swinging this pendulum back and forth. So I think gerrymandering is a perfect example because it's like California did it, then Texas did it, then Virginia. And it's like you could kind of see it happening in real time now. Whereas packing the Supreme Court. The only reason you want more justice is to get a more moderate or progressive Supreme Court, because right now it's traditionally conservative.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Yeah, you are your people.

[Drew]

But even though they broke on it, so that's out there, adding D.C. and Puerto Rico as a 51st and 52nd state, because they're territories technically right now, that would be favor for Democrats. It wouldn't have. So there's these things that we're doing to gain more power, but it doesn't necessarily, one, add any law or justice. And two, it doesn't actually help the American people. I just think it's just power grab games that we're at right now a thousand percent.

[Tom Bilyeu]

I mean, the bad news is that politics at its most foundational is a power grab, but because we're in a populist moment, everybody's emotional, they're legitimately scared, they have reason to be scared. Economically, the pie actually is getting smaller. And so you do get to a point where you're like, I need somebody that's going to fight for me. And you're not even articulating it like that in your head. That's just the feeling. And so you pick a team, you go on your team, you find people who think like you, and you really do start viewing the other side as an existential threat. And so now it's, I actually think you're going to destroy the country. I feel very strongly about my position, as do the other people on my team. And so now I also want to support them. So even if I think, oh, maybe they're a little wrong on this one, I'm just going to like, go all in and be like, yeah, yeah, yeah. Because you want your team to get stuff for you, and if you have to, like, group think to get it done, great, you'll group think. But the, the real Problem is, and the reason this stuff becomes so predictable and there's basically no way to pull people out of it is they're in an emotional state. They're not reasoning using logic, which means you're not gonna be able to logic them out of it. So this is people that are stuck in an emotional loop. Somebody's giving them the emotional fodder that they need to keep feeling the way that they feel. And you create this flywheel that makes everybody believe that the right path forward, like, legitimately from this there. If you asked them, like, is this an ought thing, this is how the world ought to be? They would say, yes, like, this is just how the world ought to be. And they will be aghast that you think differently. Like, legitimately surprised that you could view the world differently than they do. And so that's what happens when people are reasoning emotionally.

[Drew]

I think now, though, with this media ecosystem too, it kind of compounds because it's like you reason emotionally, then you find somebody that says that thing, and that thing has a million retweets. So now, now it's me, my emotions, and my community that supports my emotions, and it's just this negative feedback loop. So even if I can present you evidence that might change what your emotion is bringing up, you still have your community, your ecosystem. It then becomes people's identity sometimes. And it's so hard to just break out and say, wait, wait, wait, I'm in my feelings right now. I'm not looking at this logically or

[Tom Bilyeu]

like, also, they've done studies. You can present people with proof, and they just won't accept it.

[Drew]

Wow.

[Tom Bilyeu]

So it. It. Yeah. Welcome to the human condition. So I've brought this up on the show before, but I become increasingly anecdotally, I haven't gone deep into this study, but there was a study that showed that the human brain may in fact be optimized for being right and not identifying the right answer. And that's wild. That would be very, very sad. But it would certainly match my experience in life. Taking a short break, but there's more impact theory after. Stay tuned. Let's talk about the difference between winning and losing a deal. Your competitor responded in 10 minutes. You responded in three hours. When a customer reaches out, every minute you wait is a minute they're considering other options. Slow responses don't just frustrate customers. They cost you revenue. And if your team can't see who's already handling what, what, response times get even worse. Quo is the number one rated business phone system on G2 with over 3,000 reviews built for how modern teams actually work. More than 90,000 businesses rely on it because it's designed to keep you fast and responsive when money is on the line. Say hello with Quo. Try Quo for free plus get 20% off your first 6 [e-mail] impact that's Q U.com impact. Thanks for staying tuned. Now let's get back to it.

[Drew]

All right, let's jump over to this new data center bill. There's been a lot of talk about data centers. I want to jump over to Utah and Missouri after this. But first let's just talk about a high level because Sanders and AOC introduced a bill to pause all AI data center constraints instructions. 300 plus local bills filed half a plan. 2026 data centers facing delays or cancellation. Each one brings billions to local economies. The people who say they want American jobs are trying to block it. That was the case. I think it's interesting though, before you jump into it, people promise data centers bring a lot of jobs. But to me it's seven people in a room and like the ecosystem goes out. So we have to stop acting like this is a warehouse in the 1920s and there's going to be be assembly lines and stuff like that. Like data centers aren't the hubs of small town America.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Sort of okay, I can be wrong.

[Drew]

I could be wrong.

[Tom Bilyeu]

The you have to look at it twofold. One, the construction on these will be across us thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs. Given how many of these are springing up, probably tens of thousands of jobs. The companies that use them becomes the bigger question. And how many? Hundreds of thousands, millions for sure. So that I think the right level of analysis for that one is do we need to win AI? Yes or no? If we don't need to win AI okay, then no worries. If we do need to win AI and I will do my best to convince people that we do, then it's like, well, that goal makes a demand. And one of the goals is that that are one of the demands that that goal makes is you've got to spin up these data centers. And so now it's like instead of being the morons that are like, let's not do this, let's ask how do we do this? Well now part of well is going to be fast. Like you, you are in a competition and I get that people don't want to think like that. But the reality is you are in a competition and AI may be the winner take all scenario. The biggest winner take all scenario of all time time where if there really is AGI and there really is fast takeoff, meaning the first one to AGI that can get it to self improve, it will, it will do 20,000 years of improvement every night. I mean it really, I don't mean that hyperbolically, I mean that quite literally. So now it's like to win by a day is to win by 20,000 years. And so you really have to be careful now that may not come to fruition and maybe large language models are not capable of that. Maybe we never get to AGI, but it's like that's really not the gamble that you want to take, especially how fast it has moved. Because people will look back on this moment and the people who are scared of AI are going to say something like the following. You said it would happen in three years, it didn't happen in three years. And then lo and behold, let's say it happens in 10. And then that person is going to be laughing and saying, ah, you said it would happen in three and it happened in 10. And I'm going to be looking around going, bro, the whole world's different. Like, what are we talking about? Like this, this is so fundamentally different. And if it happened in 10 and lost, then it's like I'm not even thinking about the fact that the timeline was wrong. I'm just thinking about how do we do well in the new world. And I think what we're dealing with now is especially like you've got young people and old people are terrified and you've got people that just don't like technology are terrified. So there's a lot of scared people. And I think the one that's really surprising people is how much young people, people don't like AI. And that shouldn't be surprising because it, it has taken like imagine being 18 again and you're like to, to think five years out is a huge portion of your life.

[Drew]

Yeah.

[Tom Bilyeu]

And now all of a sudden you can't think that far.

[Drew]

It's literally just like a fog haze.

[Tom Bilyeu]

You're like, so to you it's like, oh my God, there is nothing but question marks ahead of me. What am I supposed to do with my life? I'm supposed to pick a major that's going to take me four years to get on the other side of that. I don't even know what the world's going to look like. I no longer see the path to relevance. I no longer see what's worth working towards. And so yeah, those people are going to wish they lived in a world that didn't have AI. I totally get it. So I think people need to be way more thoughtful about that anxiety and start helping people understand. Okay, how do you deal with rapid technological change? How do you deal with competition? Like, what path should you guys be walking on? And if we can't paint them a compelling path forward, then that's us as the adults in the room problem. We should not just automatically assume that they get it, that they're going to embrace it, that they want it, whatever. We've got to make the case for it. Now, it doesn't mean that you slow down, but it does mean that you put time and energy into it or you at least stop acting like you're surprised. Like, this is. This is like a real thing. And one of the things we should probably talk about is. So I don't know if you've been paying attention to this, but Kevin o', Leary, big data center, does the thing, starts getting all this pushback. He's convinced that this is China trying to stop him because he's like, who would want to stop this? I'm like, like, bro, a lot of people would want to stop this because they don't see AI as giving them something. They see AI as taking something from them. And lo and behold, it's two women that have two young women that have been putting up their roadblocks. And I was like, yeah, AI is disproportionately affecting jobs that women tend to be more attracted to. And AI is the most terrifying to young people, people and old people. So it's like they are. They're getting the double whammy of being young and women. So it's like for them, this is just a non starter, not interested at all. And remember, women are way more drawn to people than they are to things. So for me, I look at AI and it's like, oh, this is like robots and stuff. Yeah, like, count me in. This is dope. But it's like a double, triple quintuple whammy for women who are like, not. Not having it.

[Drew]

Somebody said the beef in the chat, said the beef isn't about data centers themselves, it's about the strain on water and the prices.

[Tom Bilyeu]

That's bullshit. That is such bullshit. Yes. Like imagine.

[Drew]

Yeah, I mean, electric prices are going up.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Yeah, yeah, but imagine it drove them down. Do you really think people be like, oh, this is so dope. This is making my energy costs go down. They don't give a fuck about that. Look at Green Energy, dude. It makes everything more expensive. And these motherfuckers are still banging the driver drum because it's the odd. Like, it ought to be this way. People are translating an emotion into, well, I'm willing to sacrifice. This is one that I'm willing to super glue my hand to the pavement for or whatever. So the a thousand percent. That is a post hoc rationalization for a feeling that they have where they are trying to explain why this thing secretly sucks. Because if that were the case, you would be going, oh, China is doing the thing thing. China is bringing on cheap solar energy faster than anyone ever in all of human history. It is insane the rate at which they're bringing on solar. I don't hear these guys banging the drum of, hey, let's just make sure that we get the solar race to this level and then bring on the data centers. No, they're not saying that because that's not what they're thinking about.

[Drew]

You got me there. I. I will. I will say I think it was Maryland. Maryland residents built a data center. They seen spikes in their electric bills, 40, 50%. To me, if that is happening, I understand the beef. I understand why it's wrong, and I understand why these local municipalities are striking it down. I think it was Sachs when he did one of his summits. He even said, AI should be the one responsible for paying it. So everybody, everybody who's supposed to be saying the thing is saying the thing. But I think Maryland is that. That could just be. Maybe it was the first one. It was an early example. Maybe that's what happens.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Here's the thing. They have every right to be upset about that. And if they were saying, this is stupid. You guys have to fix this before you build. I'd be like, yeah, word, yeah. And at that point you just go, dear data center owner, you're responsible for this. And I don't see any problem with that whatsoever. That just isn't the conversation.

[Drew]

It's funny that you said this is like a green thing, because Jason from the all in podcast tweeted this graph out that show the amount of water consumption with almonds versus data centers. And he's saying, everybody's talking about data centers. But honestly, fuck almonds.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Almonds are.

[Drew]

Everybody was talking about how almonds is like, almond milk is the worst thing. It uses so much water, and yet we. Almonds are still everywhere. Data centers use a fraction of that and people are more upset.

[Tom Bilyeu]

So here was my reaction to this. Fuck not doing desalinization. Like, we know how to Desalinate water. It's relatively inexpensive. We are just pissing so much money away as a government that we don't do infrastructure things.

[Drew]

That's like what blew my mind with the straight of her moose beef when they were saying like, oh yeah, all the Gulf regions, they just take saltwater, they turn into fresh water. I'm like, like wait, we've been talking about the Colorado river for the last 20 years. But we could have just done that this whole time.

[Tom Bilyeu]

So. And people are like, oh, but it's really expensive. No, no, we just don't want to put the effort into doing it. So yeah, this is unfortunately we, we, we're going to turn it around. America, let's go. We got this. But we are definitely doing late stage empire vibes where instead of looking for the solution to the problem, we just want to bang on about the problem and say it's the other side fault instead of going oh, you know what we need to do? We need to solve it in this really cool innovative way to make us even stronger. We've got to get that energy back.

[Drew]

Okay, we started, we went on a tangent. We started about the bill back to Bernie and aoc.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Break down what's going on with this one's fun. Nearly 3,000 AI data centers are planned or just actively under construction across the United States right now. And a new business bill from Bernie Sanders and AOC would stop every single one of them. It's called the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act. The bill freezes construction and upgrades on every new AI data center in the country. The freeze doesn't lift until Congress passes a sweeping package of new AI laws. Federal pre approval of AI models before release. Uh huh. Union only construction crews. I definitely want to diatribe about that. Community veto power over local builds. Okay, yeah, I'm sure they'll all get through. And a ban on US chip exports to almost every country on Earth. What? In other words, the freeze is permanent because Congress can barely pass a budget. Big tech is pouring $750 billion into American data centers centers this year alone in an attempt to ensure that the US is the global leader in the single most important technology probably of all time, AI. The OpenAI Oracle Stargate site in Abilene, Texas alone is $165 billion project. The Loudoun County, Virginia is now covering nearly its entire operating budget just from data center tax. There's so much prosperity to be had from these things. Construction wages are soaring. The skilled trades have not seen a boom like this in a generation. And this bill would kill that momentum and hand the lead to China, who is already dramatically outpacing the US in terms of energy production. Like they are just. It's insane. You've got to look at the graphs, they're wild. Now, as Americans, we have got to wake up and realize that Whoever wins the AI race owns the next. I mean, 25 years is easy. Will you give me 50? It could be as much. I mean, honestly, it could just be forever. For the reasons that we were talking about earlier. If there's a fast takeoff, whoever loses the AI race risks becoming basically an also ran vassal state. AI dominance is, is dominance. It's just dominance, full stop. China is building data centers at national scale, state subsidized. They've got cheap power, zero permitting friction. They're not pausing, okay? They're not waiting for this kind of asinine framework. They are accelerating. I'm not saying there should be no framework, but what they're putting forward in this bill is ridiculous. It's basically just trying to stop AI. So if we put this, this kind of US moratorium in place, we're just handing the crown to China. And I think that that is extremely high risk. I'm not trying to be blase about the risks of AI. They really are real. I've talked about this before. The unfortunate fact is that any technology that promises an advantage will be developed at breakneck pace. It just, that is what happens. And so now you have to decide, do you want to be the one in control of that breakneck pace or do you want it to be coming from somebody else? And right now there's this super bizarre energy in the US where it's like, well, I don't mind losing to China and all the things that that would entail. I just think this is a bad idea. And so I just want to throw sugar in the gas tank rather than actually trying to find a useful path forward that doesn't put us in distant second.

[Drew]

It's interesting. The chat is not messing with you right now. I know, man.

[Tom Bilyeu]

This is one of those where it's like, it's both unpopular and I'm right. So I don't know what to do.

[Drew]

Is this like a vegetable situation? Like in the, in 10 years from now, we're going to look at him and say, you know what, it was good that we take this. It doesn't taste good, it looks terrible. It's a green thing with hair on it. I know it's weird, but trust me, this has vitamins in it like, like

[Tom Bilyeu]

because this is your Israel. God, they're going to hate this example. You're Israel and you're in the middle of a very dangerous land. And so you better build the gold golden dome. It's that like one. There are all of these positive aspects to it. So AI, like it is very, very possible, maybe even plausible, that AI ushers in an age of abundance. So now nobody wants for anything. There's. There's never been a technology that could make anything even remotely close to that promise ever before for in all of human history. So you've got that. Like, on the positive side, it could just. There is nobody that goes hungry unless it's by choice. There is nobody that doesn't get the medical care that they need unless it's by choice. There's nobody that doesn't have the material things that they want unless it's by choice. Like, it's just a true age of abundance. Remember, you only need two things to have that age of abundance. You need. Need energy costs to go to effectively zero, and you need labor costs through robotics to go to effectively zero, both of which happen if you're able to achieve AGI. So you've got that. Then you've got the flip side, which is right now the US and the west in a larger way can impose their will on the rest of the world. And we've been doing that for so long that we forgot that if we encounter somebody stronger than us, they can force us to do what they want us to, to do. And all of human history is about somebody else imposing their will on everyone else. And so if I'm right about this technology and that it could be the most powerful weapon ever built, you better be the one to develop it first. And so I, I can articulate the other side. I understand what they're worried about. I understand the sense of existential Dr. That they have about why do I matter anymore in that world? Why would I ever want that? The, you know, opening of Dune, I'm sure, speaks to their soul, which is that never make an artificial intelligence in the likeness of the human mind. Right? So I get why people have a longing to go backwards, but that isn't how technology works. Technology is a promise of a better tomorrow and because of that, that we will not stop. So it's like, that's the part where I'm like, all you're saying is we're going to stop. Not that AI is going to stop. AI is going to be developed. If I thought, oh, well, if we stop, then it stops. I Mean, honestly, I then can predict my own future in some ways. And I'm torn because I do like the idea of age of abundance and all that, but I also like the idea of, like, I want to tell my stories and I want to make my games and I want to still matter in 20 years. And the reality is that with AI, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know that in three years, the way that I think of game development is going to matter at all. So if I knew it was going to stop, part of me be like, okay, but it won't stop.

[Drew]

Okay, we got to thread some of these things out because y' all are coming at me like it's like on the chat. So, okay, first and foremost, yeah, let's move the environmental piece to the side. Right. Fresh water. There is a solution. It's not physically impossible to get more fresh water. We can desalination plants if your electric bill goes up. That's wrong. The company that is responsible for the data center should all send their own energy costs.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Yep.

[Drew]

Those two things should be happening. If they are not happening, that's a legislation problem. We can understand that. That's a different.

[Tom Bilyeu]

I mean, we can just ask the chat. Are you guys all cool if this just goes into outer space? Space. And if they're like, oh, yeah, then cool. I have no more complaints. I love AI. Okay, great. Then this. I was wrong. And this really is just about.

[Drew]

That's a great poll. Let's pull that right now, would you. Are you okay with data centers if they are in outer space? I'm writing that right now.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Let's go.

[Drew]

Because I think there's been a lot of. There was just a lot of different conversations about what is the problem with it. And nobody can really put their thumb on it.

[Tom Bilyeu]

I mean, I can put my thumb on it. I know exactly what's really going on. And what's really going on is I can no longer understand my future. Future. That is very scary. And that is happening at a time where I'm already feeling like the pie is shrinking, because it is. And all of the anxiety created by the economy is putting people there. They actually are in a dangerous situation. They can feel that they're in a dangerous situation. And then we layer on top of that that we're now transitioning to AI in the middle of this moment. Like, it is the wildest thing ever. That anxiety they are looking for an explanation for. And their explanation is water. It's power costs. But the reality is those are Absolutely minor in comparison to the anxiety of. I don't understand my future anymore. I don't understand my value. I don't know what I'm going to be doing. But if they all say, oh no, that's awesome, then, well, I've got good news for them because Elon, if nobody else is going to build data centers,

[Drew]

centers in orbit, 83%, yes, they will be okay if it was in space.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Fantastic. That's wonderful. Then I've got good news for them. It's coming and it's probably coming pretty fast because Elon understands, he's. That we're going to hit a power wall and he's not going to be able to. For he can get all the chips that he wants, but if he can't get the power, then we're screwed. And so, yeah, they probably don't have to think about it too much.

[Drew]

And then the second point that I think is occurring a lot, who is this benefiting? And I know we talked about the construction jobs, construction project for a year, six months.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Yeah, I mean, that's nice, but that's not really who it's benefiting. I mean, that's all temporary. I'm not asking people to make a bunch of concessions so that somebody has a job. This is the age of abundance. So I imagine many of the people

[Drew]

that start from the base assumptions though, because I think, think what people are thinking is like, if I lived in Festus, Missouri. This is the next story we're going to bring up. Your data center is now outside my window. It happened yesterday. Age of abundance isn't now. I'm still to your point. I'm still suffering economic strain and now I have this thing radiating next to me. What does it mean? Like day one, day two, day three? Let's not skip to the age of abundance in year 10. And just to kind of see what this. I'm trying to really put my thumb on where this pushback is because I'm genuinely surprised. I didn't think it was going to be this bad because we talk about AI all the time. So I thought the audience would get it. It was the.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Dude, this is ratcheting up as AI gets more real people are like, nah, fuck all this noise.

[Drew]

So who is it benefiting in the interim? And let's keep the age of abundance stuff on a separate beat just for right now to answer this question. So who would you say the data center is for? Like, who is it benefit? Like what? What is the answer to that? Because that's what I'm seeing a lot of this in the chat coming up.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Well, so it's going to be a whole bunch of people on a whole bunch of different levels. So first of all, I imagine every single one of them, maybe not every single one, but the vast majority of people use AI on a daily basis. The people who don't expressly use it on purpose are using it in a million ways. Whether it's their bank protecting them from fraud or if they're on social media, the algorithms, it's all AI. People don't understand how integrated AI already is. It is the US government keeping us safe. And so when you think about like Iran right now, non stop, around the clock is trying to hack this country to bring our power grid down to literally like every bad thing. Attack the banking system, destroy credit. Ah, if they could do it, they would do it immediately. Your strongest bulwark right now today is already AI. It is a necessary piece of infrastructure that you have to build to be competitive in the future. And so if Americans want to avoid being a desperately impoverished nation, and I mean that literally, then they've got to be a part of the modern economy. The part of the modern economy is every day becoming more and more AI. Any country that ops out of AI will get eaten alive by the countries that opt in. So if I'm a smaller country, I've been unable to compete and I see the US and China back out on AI, then I immediately go all in. So it again, any technology, and they need to only look back in history, any technology that promises an advantage will get developed. Remember when they first tested nuclear bombs? They couldn't be certain that they wouldn't light the entire atmosphere on fire and kill every living thing on planet Earth. And they still still did it. I'm not asking people to like that, I'm just saying that is true. And so even if America stops cold, that does not stop. AI will be developed, it will be developed. So the only question is, do you want in on it or not? And so, and then there is of course the consumer being able to use it in their daily lives, entrepreneurs being able to use it to break free. Like if anybody out there is ever thinking, I hate my job, job, AI is your best friend. And the way that it empowers an individual to do so much more than they would otherwise be able to do is completely extraordinary. Now that was you forcing me to take the age of abundance off the table. And it's still a pretty long list. Even if it were just defensive, you have to do it because it will be asymmetric warfare. Because the nations that develop AI will use it to hack you, crack you, break you. Like you. You will get six ways to Sunday if you cannot use AI to defend yourself, yourself. This is why Claude Mythos, they had to hold back. They had to go back channel to all the major software makers and say, we just found a thousand exploits in your software that are critical. You've got to fix them all. How did they do that? AI just got so good at finding them. So I think people also aren't being realistic about how far AI has already come. Like, this is like people saying, don't do Jurassic Park Park. The. The theme park. And I'm like, bro, Jurassic park. The theme park already has a million visitors a day. Like, what are you talking about? Like, there's. You may not want.

[Drew]

You saw how that movie ended, but

[Tom Bilyeu]

what I'm saying is it already exists,

[Drew]

so now it's one more dinosaur.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Well, unfortunately, it's. If you don't have a dinosaur, you can't protect yourself from the other dinosaurs who they are actively sending to your door every day. And so you've got to have a way to defend yourself against it. So. So the dinosaur is already out of the bag, bro. Like this. It's done. It's a wrap. It's already happened. There's no putting toothpaste back in the tube. So I don't know where people think they are on the timeline, but it's like this has already played out. Okay? That's all the non. Age of abundance. The age of abundance is where people should have their sights set. Because I know a lot of these people are rightly upset to see somebody go bankrupt because of healthcare. They're rightly upset when they or somebody else gets diagnosed with cancer and they're going to die. Um, so AI, the part people keep losing sight of is the I. The I stands for intelligence. If we can spin up like top tier intelligence, even if it never gets smarter than humans, if we can just spin up top tier intelligence, like millions of them, then you make the world a much better place, place for each individual person. Getting things that are better, getting things that are cheaper, solving problems that seemed impossible to solve, it's all going to be intelligence. And this is just humans. Take 18 years, 25 if you really want them to do something special. And then unfortunately, because the genetic algorithm that God gave us outputs a lot of really dumb people. So it's like you got to feed a lot of boneheads to get to the really smart ones. Ones AI is not like that.

[Drew]

Okay, let me get back on track.

[Tom Bilyeu]

And here's the thing. I don't expect that. I still think everyone that was mad is still mad. Yeah, I don't because here, here is the reality. We are all standing on the precipice of a radical change and this is like the industrial revolution playing out over five years instead of 100 hundred. And that was already disruptive enough to just be mind boggling. And so I, I mean first of all I have empathy for myself. I'm going through this and because I get how it's hard even for me, that it's going to be very, very hard for people that don't have my financial means. So. Or that are younger than me. Like some of this is like, okay, well I guess I'm just going to ride off and be grandpa and that's that. So I at least I guess have that. It's, trust me, that is of no comfort to me whatsoever. But you know, I've had this, the youth and so this isn't going to be emotionally satisfying. But my whole pitch to people is get out of your emotions. Your emotions. Just because you feel them does not mean that they will help you.

[Drew]

Yeah. And the more we talk about emotions, the more I'm trying to think like where is this pushback coming from? And I get, I'm hearing the comebacks, I'm hearing this is what I drew. This is because. But the underlying sentiment is like there's a fear of the future, the fear of the unknown. And that's kind of what you just keep circling around on is it's because I can't see what the other five years of this AI data center looks like. Does that mean it takes every job in this community? Does that mean it, you know, we don't know. But it's only going to get worse. We already talked about Utah infestive Missouri. A town of 14,000 people. The city council quietly approved 6 billion AI data. A $6 billion AI data center to be built on 302nd.

[Tom Bilyeu]

I hear quietly, I know somebody used AI to write this.

[Drew]

Residents say they were never properly heard. Meetings were held in private, documents were released too late. A week after the approval, the town held a regular election. Voter turnout jumped 129%. Every single council member who voted yes lost in a landsize. Oh, a 70 year old first time candidate beat an 8 year old incumbent by 40% percentage points. Yeah. Simply because just on AI and then we already talked about the, what's happening in Utah right now. With Kevin o' Leary and the pushback that it's getting from there. It's crazy. This. This was similar to Amazon warehouses a couple years ago, where every small. My. My small hometown in Jersey had an Amazon warehouse pop up. Everybody hated it. We tried to vote against it. It got put up anywhere and it was just this ugly big building and everybody was mad. Five years later, everybody forgot about it and everybody expects their delivery to come tomorrow. So it's one of those things where, yeah, the frustration of the eyesore is that going to be outweigh the benefit of the technological advancement that we get on the other side. And maybe we just need to figure that out.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Of course. And by the way, if people were really just worried about how they look, make them look like medieval castles, have a vote on what they're going to look like. Like, here's the data center and then here are seven designs to pick from that. But I mean, if people are really saying this is just an eyesore, you could turn it into something that people would come from all over the world to see.

[Drew]

So.

[Tom Bilyeu]

But again, it's just. That isn't the actual issue, it's part of it. Like, they don't like it.

[Drew]

It's a good pushback. Shout out to Cyan Spark. Tom isn't driven by the emotional fear that China develops AI first. How is that getting out of your emotions? So the people. There's a fear of people saying they don't want to get AI developed because they don't know what the implications will be domestically. And then there are people that I will put in the technical. I'll put you in this category that your fear that China or other countries would develop AI faster and circumvent us in certain industries.

[Tom Bilyeu]

And that's not what I'm afraid of.

[Drew]

Oh, okay.

[Tom Bilyeu]

So for me, I look at AI as a. I look at the positive side of AI. When you hear me talk about, like, listen, guys, China's going to do it. You have to do it. I'm just trying to help them understand this is going to get better developed. So that's me trying to close a very different door versus me saying, oh my God, that's the thing that keeps me up at night. To be honest, I don't even think about that because I know we're going to develop it because we have to, because China's going to. So, like, that part is like, whatever, it's nuclear weapons. So this is the. From AI as a weapon standpoint, that's this moment we've already lived through it, we know exactly what this looks like.

[Drew]

Germany is doing it. We have to do it. We have to beat them, too, so we can win the war type thing.

[Tom Bilyeu]

This is the Manhattan Project, but for AI. So I am completely at ease with the fact that this is going to happen for me. I just keep thinking about, okay, like, this is. Honestly, if people want to know the sort of naked, emotional way that I think about this, which I guess my wife always finds comforting, maybe people want to hear my emotional side. The emotional side for me is, ooh, man. I've just spent the last, like, four years of my life building a video game, pouring myself into it. It's one of the hardest things I've ever done in my life.

[Kamala Harris]

Life.

[Tom Bilyeu]

And the thing I kept telling myself about spending all the money and the time and energy was, I'll. This is like, the. My final Pokemon form. I don't have to develop another skill set. This is gonna, like, work for me forever. I can't tell you how many times I said that. And then AI came along, and I was like, oh, Jesus. Like, games are gonna be prompted. They're not gonna be built. Like, I'm building it now. I've just built another skill set that I'm not gonna use. In fact, five years. Like, this is wild. And so that is like, okay, will I even be able to get the game out in time? Will this all have been a waste of money and a waste of time? That's a bummer. I spent so much time getting wealthy so I could build my studio. Does any of it matter anymore? So all of that is distressing, and I don't get swept away by it, but it's distressing. And so then the way that I deal with that emotion is to. Because I know it doesn't matter what you look at. It matters what you see. So then I go, okay, I want to see something different. So what does the world look like on the other side of it? Of this, where now I can leverage AI to. What can I live inside of? Like, can I create a story world that is so tangible that you could, like, live inside of it? And could I get excited about something like that? And yes, then I get excited. The idea of doubling human life expectancy. I'm like, holy shit. AI might really be able to do that. I am not a person that has to have more than the next person. So an age of abundance, where I just get my shit. And, yeah, other people, they're fighting over, like, they've got to have more and better and all that. That, like, I probably would have gotten sucked into that in my 20s, not now. So I'm just like, yeah, cool. Like, that would be dope. I can like, literally just build the things I want to build, and there's no economic anything stopping me. It is literally just my imagination. Yes, please. So that's me doing the jiu jitsu move of going. The thing I'm scared about is in my life, where I've invested time, energy, resources to get good at a thing that I thought was going to be the next movement of my life. And it may not be.

[Drew]

If so, factor that somebody tweeted out that GTA 6 is going to be, like, the last video game.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Very possible.

[Drew]

Because everybody. Nobody's going to be spending $6 billion on a video game with AI now after. Nobody's going to spend six years to develop like that. That time and effort is going to be declining. So that's why people are kind of crowning GTA 6 that way, if the leaks are accurate, that it's actually coming out. Out this year. So.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Well, they said it's coming out in November, so we'll see if they push it again. But that is certainly. They've been standing on that for, like, seven or eight months now.

[Drew]

All right, let's go to everybody's favorite politician, Gavin Newsom.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Is he everybody's favorite?

[Drew]

He wants to be. He swears California is the best place ever. And what do you mean? We're number one in everything.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Yeah. Got it all on lock.

[Drew]

I will say, though, Tom, it was about two or three weeks ago ago. You were like, I'm tired of all these politicians talking. Nobody's talking about balancing the budget. Yeah, it's almost. I feel like they heard you because, Mom, Daddy balanced the budget next week. And then Gavin Newsom released a tweet that he balanced California's budget the week after that. And I'm like, okay. I feel like they're listening to the show, so they've been listening to your time. They are. Hey, Gavin balanced it. Mondani balanced it. And when he's outside playing football with the kids. So they take. They're taking victory laps right now. But let's talk about California's budget and how there's no deficit this year or next year and how it's structurally sound.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Oh, is it true?

[Drew]

Structurally sound.

[Tom Bilyeu]

All right. Newsom's balanced budget expires the minute he leaves office. By the way, Gavin Newsom says California's budget is balanced. However, the state's own Legislative Analyst office warns revenues could be tens of billions of dollars lower within two years. He's basically had a budget surplus that he could not, he shouldn't count on. We're already talking bubble territory. This is like a one time windfall that he has no reason to believe is going to keep going. He has a structural deficit, meaning without this like blip in time, he knows that it's already going to go back. And so when he gets out of office, which is like, what is he this year? Is this his last year?

[Drew]

Yeah, 2024.

[Tom Bilyeu]

He's out soon. So he's only buying people up through July of 2020. And by the way, just because he's projected to have it doesn't mean that it's actually going to last that long. So the window is basically the entire trick. So Newsom's own budget projects, remember this is his own budget projects a $10.3 billion deficit in fiscal year 28 and 29 and another 9.6 billion deficit in 29 and 30. So he knows very well that both of those are going to be a different governor's problem. So the revenue that's making all of this math work is a boost. Booming stock market in the AI sector, which people on his own team are trying to kill. So if you don't understand that part of it, I'm sure that this looks a lot better now. Credit where credit is due. He's got the windfall and he's spending it in a way that's going to balance the budget. So that's better than the alternative. Would I rather see him balance the budget without the windfall and then start paying down the debt or really socking some money anyway? Yes, of course I would. But I'll take my wins where we can get them so we've got the extra tax revenue. That is precisely the time where if you want to spend more money, spend more money when you've got the dollars coming in. But I think that people ought to structurally balance the budget so that they know this is our baseline. We spend against the baseline. We might do things temporarily when we have some extra cash, but for the most part, we don't do that unless our deficit is at zero. And I know that they're nowhere near it. So this is one of those where I don't just want to be always angry at something that he's doing or mom, Donnie's doing. I do want to be intellectually honest. So this is great money coming in. We got a balanced budget through July. Now we need to do the hard work to make sure that we solve the structural problem.

[Drew]

They run the fiscal calendar from June to July. So the July 2028 fall off is for the next person. So that's like the next year. So technically next two years he does have it. He does have it balanced.

[Tom Bilyeu]

I do think just keep in mind it was entrepreneurs to balance the budget for him. Let's be honest about that. So.

[Drew]

But it'll matter where the money coming from. Yeah, I think.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Listen, listen. In fair fairness, the state is structured in a way where they were able to take advantage of that boom and it happened. And that really is wonderful. And that is the time where if the voters want to spend the money and the money's coming in, great.

[Drew]

I think directionally is important to highlight this because I think two things can be true. One, the government, if this is accurate and everything is sound, then there isn't any funny money. Can still take in revenue taxes without a tax hike. This doesn't include the billion tax hike because Newsom's not for. Also doesn't cut off all the social services that they have, even to undocumented workers. So whether you're so wild, even you're on board or not, he was able to structure that in without a budget deficit. And I think that's the part that's really interesting to me is because I think I'm the king of let's reallocate this budget.

[Tom Bilyeu]

We still. When you say it's interesting, do you mean I drew love when capitalists make so much money that we can afford to pay for other things?

[Drew]

Yes.

[Tom Bilyeu]

You and me both. Yes, but for real. And I don't even mean that. Cheeky. It's like we've talked about this many times. You can literally have anything you want. You just have to make sure that the engine underneath it is kicking off enough capital that you're able to deal with it. And if we could get politicians to be more honest about that, they're like, hey, cool, we've got this initiative. We really want to pay for undocumented immigrants. We really believe it's the morally right thing to do. Do I know there's a whole argument about there. It's just a power grab. I get it, I get it. But I'm just saying if. If that's what people want to do and they make that presentation and they say, but we know that the way that you do this is with an engine of prosperity, that is the free markets. And so we're going to be doing some deregulation over here so that we can really Turn that engine up. Great. And I just did a deep dive. I don't think you've heard it yet.

[Drew]

I haven't. So I'm waiting for that.

[Tom Bilyeu]

I did the deep dive. Really fascinating. I had never looked super deeply at the Nordic countries. So I'd always said when I did do my sort of cursory look at. Everybody's always talking about the Nordic countries. Let me look at how do they really pull this off? Because if they've really answered something, I want to learn from it. And so go do the research. And I'm like, oh, they just do a super broad base of tax. Which by the way is true. So if in the US the bottom 50% of people pay 3.3% of the tax, basically nothing. The bottom 50% essentially pay no tax. And that's not true in the Nordic countries. You make a dollar fifty, you're going to pay tax on it. And so those guys just go, ham, everybody's going to pay. Then I did the deep dive and realized, oh, it's way more sophisticated than that. So these guys went broke in the 90s like proper implosion. Holy shit, what the fuck do we do? They were charging the author of Pippi Longstock talking one year had a 102% bill. And so she was like, the more people read my book, the more in financial trouble I get. And so she was like, I was actually scared. So it's very interesting to like see what happens. So she ends up writing this like fairy tale about it, publishes it in like the, it was a tabloid but like to really make a splash back in the day when that mattered and, and the next election, partly because of that, not solely because of that, but it so captured the like anti tax sentiment that people were having that that government got booted out of office. And what you end up realizing is the bureaucracy begins to feed itself and the bureaucracy just wants to get bigger. And the bureaucracy gets to the point where they actually think your money is their money and that any success is somehow theft or you've done something unjust or what. And so when you hear like the way that the bureaucrats responded to her when she pointed out how much she was being charged, it really was just like icky. And so they end up getting booted. Now it's a fascinating story. They get booted out of office, but the incoming right leaning party basically makes no structural changes. And so for the next 15 years nothing really changes. And then in 90 to 93 they just come collapse. And it gets to the point where they legitimately cannot pay for anything anymore. And when people like Mamdani say, we want to do the Nordic model, I didn't realize, but the Nordic countries have literally come to America and said, I quote it in the deep dive. The. The prime minister of Denmark says he was in the us he was like, I would like to address American legislators. You guys keep saying, saying that we're socialist countries. You're using us as an example of how socialism works. We're not socialist. He's like, we are a free market economy. And then the former prime minister of Sweden basically said the same thing and was like, oh, I'm really glad that Bernie Sanders got to go to Russia in the 80s before their entire empire collapsed under the weight of stupid policies. And the finance minister of Sweden was, was like, all the beliefs that we had about socialism when we were young, they're not real. They don't work. We had to go to a free market. And I was like, why does nobody talk about this? Everybody holds them up as like they're the example of cradle to grave socialism. And they are screaming as loud as they can, we are not fucking socialists. We ran the experiment. It didn't work. And so they do have a much, much better safety net than we have. And so then it's like they spend. Roughly 24% of GDP goes to social safety net. The US spends 22%. We're basically spending Nordic levels on our social safety net. But everyone is terrified. Everyone feels like we have nothing to show for it. So it's like we've become a socialist is country, but we don't admit it. We argue and fight and all that. All of the stuff that we do is like deeply inefficient. And so then it's like, okay, well what's going wrong? Which was literally the question I was asking in the deep dive. And then you start getting into immigration and all this stuff. And here's the bad news. So Sweden. Oh my God. Amazing, right? Look what they're doing. Incredible. Broad tax base. Very broad, but better than their 102 point percent. They actually have a lower corporate tax rate than we have. But. Which is fascinating and I don't think people are expecting that one, but their people are much happier and feel more secure. Why? And it's now what we're realizing is Sweden is getting back into trouble because of all the immigrants that they've let into the country. Because when you create a system that, that takes care of people, it works as long as there are enough billionaires, millionaire innovators entrepreneurs. Correct. And when everyone shares your value system and they go, I don't want to take too much. And so I'm going to use it because I need it right now, but I want to get back off it as quickly as I can. And that people are like, oh, I'm happy to pay into the system because I see everybody's doing great, nobody's abusing the system. Then you start bringing in immigrants, everybody goes to race. It's not race. It is. They don't share your values or you're just doing it blindly. And so the proportion gets off and you're not bringing in enough people that are adding to the system. And so Sweden's been very open about this and they said we let in too many people, we've broken our own system and we're not going to be able to keep moving forward like we are now. They're paying, they're offering people $30,000 to leave. Leave. That tells you how expensive they are if they're willing to just cut a check for 30 grand to send you out of the country. So the. They ran the math.

[Drew]

Chrissy gnome did what, 1500 or something like that when she was at the height of the.

[Tom Bilyeu]

I think at one point it was like two grand. But yes, in that neighborhood. And they ran the math and the. Because everyone's like, well immigrants are good for the economy. It's not quite true. So high skilled immigrants are very good. Low skilled end up over their lifetime taking more out of the system than they put in. And so Sweden ran the numbers. It's something. It was like $30,000 a year which is why they were willing to cut them that the check.

[Drew]

So it's, it seems like it's a pendulum though because I was having this conversation with somebody on a flight over here about like UK health is. Is. I was like, yeah, like, you know, they have the UK health system. And she was like like, well my daughter goes to school here, it's not that great. And now they're even in the uk they're getting private health, they're going in private insurance. So I don't think it's necessarily we need to get out of this capitalist socialist because I think that's the same trap as red and blue and left and right. And I think we just need safety nets for people that are willing to be on it. Who or safety net for those that need to be on it, off ramps for those who are no longer require. Who are no longer allowed to be on it. Like we need to Transition people off of these safety nets. And then we just need to allow the free market to kind of fill in the rest of those gaps. So I think if everybody.

[Tom Bilyeu]

The catch is, and maybe the, the devil's just in the details and your off ramps like become the key. But the problem is when you create a system that incentivizes takes acres, they're going to come and parisitize your system. And so you absolutely cannot have both open borders and a welfare state. You literally can't do it from a math perspective. You can't do it. And so we unfortunately had open borders, Very, very open borders and a very easy to paresthetize welfare state. And so now we're in a row rough spot. And so we are going to have to find some way to all. I won't say completely eliminate the fraud because I don't think it's possible. But you've got to like get rid of the vast, vast, vast majority of the fraud. You almost certainly are going to have to deport a very substantive amount of people. Then you can get back to the point where it's like, okay, if what we really want is a healthcare for all, then great, because now we've got it in a position where the numbers make sense. But unfortunately, as you scale, the number of highly productive people doesn't scale equally with the people that will draw on the system. And so as you get bigger, it really does. I mean, I use the example barnacles on turtle, but it really does become that no matter how strong and powerful the turtle, there's just so many more barnacles that you can't tax your way out of it. And so that's where it's like the free market will not be able to get you out of this problem because the two do not scale equally.

[Drew]

Yeah, I think there is that balance of you can't have open borders in a welfare state. And I think that is a great way to surmise it. It's not about race, it's not about empathy, it's not about you want to have open borders. Cool. Everybody can come here, but then everybody has to work or it's. We have to take care of those that fall behind the line. But then we can't take care of those that fall behind the line because now we're taking care of literally the globe in that way.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Yeah. And by the way, if you want to like, okay, if you want to go back to like 1600s America and say anybody can come, all good, welcome one and all. Some people are going to be starving in the streets and literally. And the government can't step in. The government's not going to be to help them. So now you've got to do church, local things happening that are going to go take care of people. But we have developed a mentality of it needs to happen at the level of the government. It's just not possible.

[Drew]

Yeah. All right, let's jump to something else. This is crazy to me.

[Tom Bilyeu]

You like anything but immigration.

[Drew]

Yeah. Chris Nolan is getting killed right now for this odyssey casting. And people are acting like Chris Nolan. Like, isn't Chris Nolan. Like, I feel like there's certain people in movies that you just don't talk about yet, wait till the movie comes out, let it be bad, and then bash it. But like, Chris Nolan, in my mind, he's like, seven for seven. Like, I haven't seen a bad Chris Nolan movie yet.

[Tom Bilyeu]

I was a little weirded out by what's the one that tenet almost plays backwards.

[Drew]

I had to watch it four times, but by the fourth time, it was genius. I just.

[Tom Bilyeu]

I'll give you that. But I just couldn't. I was like, okay, you lost me on this one. But I agree. He is an unbelievable filmmaker. I'm gonna give him a ton of latitude. I'm gonna watch it and see. The one sort of pre smoking gun that makes me nervous is the adaptation, if I can believe what people have said. Because I haven't read the adaptation or done any real research on it. But the thing that people are saying about the person that did the adaptation is she was specifically trying to modernize it. She was specific. She specifically referred to, I think, Odysseus as a problematic character. And so it's like, oh, like, if you think the main character, the person who's supposed to be going on this grand adventure is problematic, that's somebody who's trying to view this through a very modern lens. And so because the casting lines up with this whole idea of the modern audience, and anybody that pays attention to film criticism will know what I mean by the modern audience. The fact that she really does seem to be, like, championing the modern audience, the message and the casting matches, like, the rules that the Academy has put in place. Like, you've got to have this much representation. It's like, oh, like if he were. And people are picking up on in the trailer, like, they speak with American accents. They're using colloquial phrases that people are saying. It pulls you out of the fantasies. See, now I think that's something very real. And this is one of the reasons that I thought, yes, Schindler's List, but Saving Private Ryan was so brilliant, is Spielberg knew that all of us are so used to seeing World War II in black and white because that's just what the footage was, that if he didn't desaturate it, it would feel weird. And so he completely desaturated the footage. So it almost feels like that black and white footage. And so our brains go, yes, this is. Is real, even though it's the most unreal thing ever. And so I do worry that while Nolan has reasons for what he did, that he's not being honest about the expectation. People don't have the expectation that they'll speak ancient Greek, but they certainly. And that'd be full Mel Gibson. But they do have the expectation that when you're representing something old, that you'll use. Use proper English accents because a English speaking audience has been trained for 60 years that that's how people talk when you're trying to represent another culture. You never use the American accent, you never use colloquial phrases. It's always proper, like the Queen's English. And so I do think that there's. We have just been trained that that's how you interface with a story like that, if you want it to feel, you know, mythological. So I think he might have a tough road to hoe with that one. But to your point, it's Nolan.

[Drew]

Yeah. I think this is one of the negative externalities of social media and film is. Trailers are now dissected, picked apart Easter eggs, spoilers before the movie even comes out. And we're putting too much emphasis on what we think the story should. Should be versus what the story the director wants to tell. And everybody wants to make it Troy. And I'm the biggest Troy fan I've read. Troy is one of the inspirations of like, my first script, I wrote like a 300 page, like Greek. Gosh, it was terrible. It's a terrible script.

[Tom Bilyeu]

But it was no idea that you were that into.

[Drew]

I love, like, I love Greek mythology as a whole. Yeah, Greek mythology as a whole. But Troy was my doorway through that. So I think people heard Chris Nolan, Homer, he's gonna make a Troy Part two. And it's like, let's him tell the story and then he'll. He'll find his lane. And I just hate when we project our expectations on a director based off of 35 seconds of footage. Like we don't know exactly what. And he's. It's gonna be a three hour movie. Like we have no idea what that 35 seconds is. Where is this a threat flash? Like we have no context, but we have all the breakdowns and essays. And that's the part that's like a bit frustrating in this whole thing.

[Tom Bilyeu]

It's interesting. I'm super conflicted on that.

[Drew]

Yeah.

[Tom Bilyeu]

I love the way social media lets you spend six months a year soaking in a movie before it comes out, talking about it, looking at every frame of the trailer, dissecting it, and when it's done in a spirit of excitement. Yeah, it's so cool. However, when it's like, and I see this in the games industry all the time, they will decide that a game is bad for some reason before comes out and then it's just dead. And I get it. Their game developers have done themselves a lot of dirt. I totally understand. But sentiment goes a long way. A long way. And if sentiment turns on a game, that game is in real trouble.

[Drew]

It was Infinity War that got it. That did it for me. When Thanos first snapped and everybody like fizzled away, somebody, somebody pulled like the contract announcement from like three years beforehand and was like, well, they're in. They have a five movie deal, so they're definitely coming back for the sequel. And it was like I just left the theater and that's the first thing I see on. So like the pain of like, this person is dead is now like, oh, it's gone. He's gonna come back.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Right?

[Drew]

And it just, it took that out of me. And that's what really was like, come on, God. Like, let it be a fantasy a little bit. I don't know. But that's what I get. That was my rocking on the chair, old guy moment. And I was like, okay, I gotta give this up.

[Tom Bilyeu]

I just, I. I really am torn because I. There's a video game called Crimson Desert. I must have watched 50 videos about Crimson Desert on the build up to the release. And that made it feel like a moment in a way that it wouldn't have if I just bought it and played it and was like, oh, that was fun. It was like I had all of that context, all of people's fears and anxieties and hopes and dreams. So it's a double edged sword. There's no doubt. All right, we're at time. We're going to be coming to you live this whole week from London, right?

[Drew]

Yep.

[Tom Bilyeu]

Let's go. All right, everybody, same bat times, same bat channel. We will see you there until this is Friday, right? Until Monday, my friends. Have a great weekend and we'll see you on Monday. Peace. Let's talk about a pattern that is guaranteed to be killing your progress. You know what you need to do. You need consistent nutrition. We all do. You need vitamins, probiotics, greens. Means we all know that we should be doing more of it. When your morning gets chaotic, you skip it. When you travel, you skip it. When your routine breaks, everything tends to break and that inconsistency compounds against you every single day. AG1 is designed to solve the execution problem. One scoop 8 ounces of water and you're done. You're getting 75 plus ingredients, vitamins and minerals, pre and probiotics, nutrient dense superfoods. Everything that used to require six, seven different supplements and perfect planning now happens in one drink that takes about 30 seconds to make. Right now AG1 is giving you $87 worth of free gifts. With your first subscription. You get a welcome kit, travel packs, vitamin D3 plus K2 and flavor samples. Click the link in the show notes or visit drinkag1.comimpact to claim this offer.