Trump’s First 100 Days: Master Strategist or Global Wrecking Ball? | The Tom Bilyeu Show

Summary

Podcast Summary: Trump’s First 100 Days: Master Strategist or Global Wrecking Ball? | The Tom Bilyeu Show (Impact Theory) – April 30, 2025

---

Episode Overview

In this wide-ranging episode, Tom Bilyeu and Drew break down Donald Trump’s highly scrutinized first 100 days back in office, peeling back the headlines and noise to assess the real and potential impacts on global order, the economy, and American alliances. They weave expert analysis (notably Ray Dalio’s forecasts), global geopolitics (especially relating to China and Russia), future technology, and even cultural debates into a cohesive, insightful conversation, all with a characteristic blend of skepticism and strategic thinking.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. How Should We Judge Trump’s First 100 Days? (00:45–09:24)

• The Folly of Early Ratings:
  Tom argues that trying to give the first 100 days a score is "the mistake that everybody wants to make"—it’s superficial and ignores how unpredictable and unstable ("erratic") Trump’s approach truly is.

  "In a single word, I would say that it is erratic... I don't know how it's going to play out." — Tom (01:43)

• Destabilization as Strategy:
  Trump has already "effectively destabilized the world order," which could lead to positive or negative outcomes—it's too early to tell, and both futures are plausible. Whether the destabilization turns into an opportunity (to rebuild, for US advantage) or a catastrophe depends on what happens next.

• On Tariffs as a Tactic:
  Tariffs are seen as a negotiating tool—a strategy to force a rewrite of trade relationships and non-tariff trade barriers, especially with China. But focusing solely on tariffs is a mistake.

• Investment Mindset:
  Tom compares evaluating Trump’s early moves to his investment philosophy: "As long as the thesis is sound, I'm going to hold tight. If the thesis breaks, then you have to back out." (07:23)

• America vs. China – The Urgency of Change:
  The episode suggests the previous international order (e.g., post-WWII structures) is now holding the US back, especially in competition with China regarding manufacturing and currency practices.

Notable Quote:

"You cannot allow China to control your manufacturing. You do not want to be competing on a global stage with somebody that manipulates their currency." — Tom (07:51)

Timestamps:

• Assessment Methodology: 00:45–09:24

---

2. Decoupling and the Coming Global Order Shift (11:38–24:16)

Ray Dalio’s Perspective:

• Irreversible US-China Decoupling:
  The decoupling is inevitable and unstoppable, regardless of Trump’s next moves.

  "America and China are decoupling, period. And there's no stopping that." — Tom (12:04)

• Historical Patterns:
  Dalio warns of a cycle: economic inequality → populism → strongman leaders → aggressive/erratic policy → risk of internal or external conflict.

• Rising Risk of New Alliances:
  Countries are adapting to US separation, seeking new alliances and pathways, which may leave the US isolated if not handled deftly.

• Managing the Transition:
  The difference between a turbulent or catastrophic change and a constructive one lies in how leaders and the public respond.

Quotes:

"The United States role as the world's biggest consumer of manufactured goods and greatest producer of debt assets to finance its overconsumption is unsustainable." — Ray Dalio (quoted by Drew, 19:54)
"Long term US Debt, no bueno." — Tom (20:17)

Timestamps:

• Dalio’s Four Key Points: 12:37–18:55
• Dollar Dominance and Investment Havens: 20:17–24:16

---

3. Russia’s Terms to End the War – Real or Ruse? (24:16–30:20)

Russia’s Six Demands:

1. Demilitarization & Denazification
   Tom: "Showstopper… I cannot fathom a universe in which Ukraine would ever agree to that." (24:43)
2. No NATO Membership
   Drew and Tom agree this has long been discussed and may be more negotiable.
3. Recognition of Annexed Territories
   Tom: "Hardest pill to swallow… probably have to be swallowed either now or at some future date." (25:35)
4. Lifting Sanctions; Return of Assets
   Tom notes the US’s decision to freeze assets set a concerning precedent with global ripple effects.
5. Control of Z Nuclear Power Plant
6. Cancellation of Ukrainian Language Laws

• Analysis:
  The hosts are skeptical that these demands are sincere negotiation points; war continues until exhaustion or decisive change in resource support.

Quotes:

"Wars traditionally end because people are so tired of the death and destruction that somebody's just willing to give up. And clearly neither side is there yet." — Tom (30:20)

Timestamps:

• Russia’s Demands Breakdown: 24:16–30:20

---

4. US-China Economic Standoff: Who Can Outlast Whom? (31:11–39:08)

China’s Economic Pain Threshold:

• Despite tough talk, data (from China Beige Book) shows China's manufacturing is already hurting from US tariffs and export declines.
• China compensates with fiscal supports and may persist by using “transshipment”—selling through intermediaries to sidestep direct tariffs (as explained by Shahzad Kazi).
• The US and China differ in their "pain tolerance": China’s centralized, authoritarian government can absorb and distribute pain differently than the US, but both nations’ ultimate goals and psychological needs (face, status, etc.) could escalate the standoff.

Quote:

"If Trump is acting in accordance with, I need Xi to acknowledge that I'm the bigger dog here, then this really could spiral into just madness where it's like everybody gets punished for these two guys that have these gigantic egos, and neither of them is willing to back down." — Tom (34:28)

• China’s Purchasing Power Surpasses the US:
  Elon Musk tweets (and Drew cites) data showing China’s economy, by purchasing power parity (PPP), is now larger than the US’s. Tom warns PPP nuances matter, but perception and leverage do shift.

• America’s Need for Pragmatism:
  Whatever the numbers, Tom repeats: “America has to be very clear eyed about what we want… To not be beholden to what I call an invisible goal.”

Timestamps:

• US-China Economic Comparison, Manufacturing and PPP: 31:11–39:08

---

5. Technology and the Future: Robots Surpassing Surgeons, AI Progression, Longevity (40:18–43:47)

• Elon Musk’s AI Prediction:
  Elon claims robots will surpass top human surgeons in under five years; Tom, skeptical of Musk’s deadlines, still sees seismic change within a decade.

  "Elon is wrong about his dates basically all the time. So let's double it… This is still not a long time." — Tom (41:04)

• Neuralink & Robotic Surgery:
  Neuralink and other companies have successfully performed advanced surgical procedures with robots—showing the near-future impact of AI in medicine.

• AI-Created Code Dominance:
  Citing CEOs at Anthropic and Meta, Tom highlights that within 1–2 years, over 90% of code at major companies will be AI-generated.

• Longevity Escape Velocity:
  Tom speculates, referencing "sci-fi thinkers," that science could soon add a year of life expectancy for every year lived—potentially leading to indefinite lifespans if current trends continue.

Notable Moment:

Tom and Drew’s awe—and concern—about the acceleration of AI and how quickly traditional careers may be upended.

Timestamps:

• Robot Surgeons & AI in Medicine: 40:18–43:47

---

6. Virality, Culture & Human Nature: 100 Men vs. One Gorilla, 36 Questions to Fall in Love (44:16–54:02)

100 Men vs. One Gorilla (44:26–48:09)

• The mock internet debate: Could 100 men defeat a gorilla?
  Tom: “If you choose wisely with your men, they are going to win by a lot… The human mind… is the most dangerous game.”—Tom (44:50; 46:32)

36 Questions to Fall in Love (48:43–54:02)

• The famous psychologist Arthur Aron experiment: A set of progressively intimate questions, culminating in four minutes of sustained eye contact, allegedly fostering deep connection.
• Tom emphasizes it’s about surfacing compatibility and vulnerability, not a magic recipe for love.
• Notable Story: Tom recounts how even with his wife Lisa, deeply knowing one another, simply holding eye contact felt “more intimate than sex.” (53:17)

Quotes:

"The 36 questions themselves become a shared experience... exploring personalities is as thrilling as exploring space." — Tom (51:55)

---

7. Deep Dives & Reflections: Economics, Policy, and Human Behavior (54:02–58:46)

What Would It Take for US & China to Cooperate for "Human Flourishing"?

• Tom jokes, “Neuralink upgrades or drugs” (i.e., fundamental changes to human psychology), before earnestly pointing to economic optimism as the secret sauce to societal peace.
• Discusses wealth differentials, the dangers of overregulation, and why even “painful” free-market correction works better than well-intentioned but stifling government interference.

Quote:

"The last 30 years have been marked by exchanging what worked for what sounds good. Capitalism sounds fucking terrible, but it works." — Tom (56:50)

---

8. Final Analogy: The Lights Come On at Closing Time (58:46–59:31)

Tom humorously compares the current geopolitical/trade situation to “the bar at 2am,” where the harsh light of reality (new trade policies, tariffs) reveals the true state of affairs—no longer masked by optimism or self-delusion.

---

Memorable Quotes & Timestamps

• "As long as the thesis is sound, I'm going to hold tight. If the thesis breaks, then you have to back out." — Tom (07:23)
• "America and China are decoupling, period. And there's no stopping that." — Tom (12:04)
• “The United States role as the world's biggest consumer of manufactured goods and greatest producer of debt assets to finance its overconsumption is unsustainable.” — Ray Dalio (19:54, quoted)
• “If Trump is acting in accordance with, I need Xi to acknowledge that I'm the bigger dog… this really could spiral into just madness…” — Tom (34:28)
• "Elon is wrong about his dates basically all the time. So let's double it... This is still not a long time." — Tom (41:04)
• “The 36 questions themselves become a shared experience... exploring personalities is as thrilling as exploring space.” — Tom (51:55)
• “Capitalism sounds fucking terrible, but it works.” — Tom (56:50)

---

Episode Flow & Tone

• Analytical, pragmatic, and skeptical—Tom often insists the narratives and opinions you hear (on TV, from politicians) are emotionally appealing but rarely predictive or useful.
• Conversational and accessible—Regular analogies (from investment to martial strategy), openness about uncertainty ("I don't know"), and human moments (the 36 questions, the gorilla debate) keep things relatable.
• Balanced—While critical of Trump’s unpredictability, Tom also credits the reality that change was needed, warns against media-driven certainty, and is self-aware about his US-centric perspective.
• Forward-looking—Technology, AI, and even quirky debates about love and animals tie back to enduring themes: how do people (and nations) really make choices, and what should you believe and prepare for?

---

Recommended Segment Timestamps

• Trump’s leadership style & destabilization: 00:45–09:24
• Ray Dalio and global order change: 11:41–24:16
• Russia’s terms for the Ukraine war: 24:16–30:20
• US-China trade showdown: 31:11–39:08
• AI/Robots surpassing humans: 40:18–43:47
• Human culture (gorilla debate & falling in love): 44:26–54:02
• Economics, policy, wealth gap: 54:02–58:46

---

This episode is a must-listen for those seeking not just news analysis but a deeper understanding of the unpredictable, intertwined forces shaping today's (and tomorrow’s) world.

Transcript

[Commercial Narrator]

VRBO makes it easy to claim your dream summer spot with early booking deals from homes with pools to poolside loungers. When you book a vrbo, you don't have to reserve any loungers. They're all yours. All you have to do is book early book with vrbo.

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

[Tom]

The first 100 days of Trump, too, are in the books. Russia offers their terms for ending the war. Dalio says there's no stopping the coming change in world order now. China continues to insist they can endure more economic pain than us. Elon points out China already exceeds us in purchasing power. Robots upgrade humans as AI performs surgery on a neuralink patient. We get the real answer to 100 humans versus one gorilla. And we have the 36 questions you need to ask if you want to fall in love all in one episode today, Drew, how are we ever gonna get through it all?

[Drew]

100 days, man. Time flies when you're crashing the economy.

[Tom]

Oh, coming in spicy, Drew.

[Drew]

Okay, let's.

[Tom]

I think we know how you feel

[Drew]

about what's going on first hundred days with Trump. It's official now. I want to give him his flowers. You know, it's not even a billing cycle yet. It has been a complete quarter. Do you have anyone closed the books yet? So we still have a lot more Trump to go. But how would you rate his first hundred days?

[Tom]

I think that rating his first hundred days is the mistake that everybody wants to make because it makes for good headlines and good tv. You had asked me before we started rolling something that I find more interesting, which is how would you sum it up in a single word? In a single word, I would say that it is erratic. So you never know what you're going to get. You could be maybe a little bit more generous and say it's unpredictable. I think it is. It is unclear how much of the erratic behavior is art of the deal? How much is just he's constitutionally erratic? How much of it is he tries a thing and then responds in real time? I don't know. And so the very reason that I don't want to Give him a score at this point is I don't know how it's going to play out. So it is entirely possible he has tanked the economy. It's not never going to recover, but that we're going to really go through something brutal. And as Ray Dalio is pointing out that the he has already done enough things to destabilize the world order. He's done enough to point at the problematic metrics. He's done enough to signal to capital allocators that things are going to be different. Different, that things are going to change. And now the question becomes, are they going to change for the better or are they going to change for the worse? And what I'm saying is 100 days in, we do not know the answer to that. And anybody that says that they know the answer is, I mean, it's, look, it's possible that that's just how their mind works and they go to every minute. I know the answer. That's absurd to me. Anybody that's doing that, I think is, is probably, unless you're just trying to be entertained, that's not a good use of your time. So the thing that I would hope that people will use this show for is very simply that you are trying to build a functioning model of how the world works that has high predictive validity. And so that means I'm not investing in being right. I am simply trying to figure out when you do this, in this moment, what response do you get? And so Trump has effectively, and I say effectively because it may be for the better, he has effectively destabilized the world order. Now is it destabilized and it's just going to crumble or is it destabilized and now we begin to put pieces in their rightful place, but in a place where America can thrive. So to get very concrete about that, focusing just on the tariffs is almost certainly a mistake in that it will have low predictive validity in terms of what his administration is trying to do. Looking at using that as a way to get people to renegotiate, to put economic pain on them so that they have to come to the table to negotiate with you. And we'll talk more about who can survive that pain more, but also as a way to open the, the conversation around non trade barriers. So there are a lot of claims that Trump is making that I think have a lot of internal logic. So you can follow what he believes. I find Bessen a lot easier. But you can follow what the administration believes, even if they end up being wrong. But looking at the way that Bessen is talking about this is if we can eliminate some of these non trade barriers by leveraging the tariffs to get people to come to the negotiating table, to get people to stop doing, I mean this is the no reason to say people to get China to stop doing currency manipulation, which is something that they are very credibly accused of, to get China to no longer be treated by the World bank as a developing nation when that's badly absurd, when there's a very credible argument to be made that they have more purchasing power than the U.S. and so there, there is this old world order that has probably become less useful and needs to be addressed. That's all an echo of what happened at the end of World War II. So yes, at the end of World War II, it was a system that we very much wanted to put in position. But now it's a system that the Trump administration would argue has its utility has ended and it's now holding back America. It's holding our wages down, it's flooding the market with cheap goods and making it impossible for us to do our own manufacturing here domestically, which I've talked endlessly about. Why pro why that is so problematic in a moment where you are racing towards a head on collision with China. So if they end up being right about all those variables destabilizing the world order had to happen. It's just a question of is it being handled as deftly as it could be. And I would say the answer there is empirically it's not. But then no one is ever going to do it perfectly. So again, I don't want to give him a rating because I don't know how it's going to play out. I want to open my mind to the reality that he could have already created so much devastation, that this was just a catastrophic error or. Nope, this is that formless period where people end up buying high and selling low because they simply cannot track the cause and effect well enough to realize that they should hold and wait till they get to the other side. So I'm treating the Trump presidency the way that I treat my investments, which as long as the thesis is sound, I'm going to hold tight. If the thesis breaks, then you have to back out. And I don't have enough information yet to feel like my thesis is ill placed. I still think the US Is long term the best place to invest. I think that short term US Debt is still a good place to be. I'm paranoid about long term US Debt and want to avoid, I think an authoritarian country rules it out as a place for me to invest heavily. Other capital allocators seem to feel the same. There's been a pretty large exodus for quite some time now out of China. I don't expect that to reverse. At the same time, I think alienating our allies is a dumb move and we should be trying to draw people more closely to us. But anyway, when I look at this and I say we absolutely could not keep doing what we were doing, you cannot allow China to control your manufacturing. You do not want to be competing on a global stage with somebody that manipulates their currency. So for all of those reasons, despite the fact that I can hear in Ray Dalio's words a warning because this can be done well or it can be done poorly, that you, you absolutely had to do something. So the status quo is the one thing that I will just completely remove off the table of options. So we'll see. We've got call it another 18ish months before Trump will lose the ability to get his agenda across the finish line. So I think we're a long way.

[Drew]

That's assuming he loses the midterm.

[Tom]

If he loses the midterms, it's game over for his ideas that even if they were gonna work over a six year period, it doesn't matter. In our political system, we do not have the ability to think as long term as someone like China who does not have to worry about elections. So he very much has to worry about elections. So he's on a very tight time crunch, all clock. Whether this worked somewhere around there, I

[Drew]

was about to ask.

[Tom]

Two years in, we're still struggling. Even if he gets reelected, I'll start to be like, oh, it's a long time to hold your breath.

[Drew]

Yeah. So you're saying that the midterms is probably a better gauge to really gauge the progress of the presidency versus the 100 days.

[Tom]

It guarantees a gauge for what does the American people think. And two years seems like a very reasonable time to expect policies to either bear fruit or not. If it's something that's four years out, this is like in business, I'm always telling people, you've got to find early signs that give you enough information that you can make a decision. You can't wait four years to be like, well, maybe this works. Like, you've got to have early signs. Like, I even think that there are signs that we'll have before the two year mark that will be very informative. So where are, where are the deals with other countries. Are we getting more isolated or is China getting more isolated from a trading standpoint? What are the prices on essential goods? Because some prices are for sure going to go up if you're tariffing things extremely from China, given how much we get from them. But are we able to use the scalpel to keep the essentials flat or down? All of those will be great indicators as to whether or not this is working. Quick break, but don't go anywhere. There's more to come after this short break. From our sponsors when you manage procurement

[Commercial Narrator]

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

[Tom]

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

[Drew]

Well, you brought up Ray Dalio's article jumping into that. He wrote an article titled On X. It's Too Late, the Changes are Coming, and it's a pretty long article. I recommend everybody read it. But some key points I wanted to highlight here is that he talked about whatever happens with tariffs, these problems won't go away. And they radically reduced interdependency with the US Is a reality that has to be planned for.

[Tom]

Yeah. So let me say that in simpler terms. America and China are decoupling, period. And there's no stopping that. No matter what Trump does with tariffs. America and China are decoupling. And that's going to mean what it means. And it's very difficult to know all the second and third order consequences already, but they're coming.

[Drew]

Period.

[Tom]

End of story. And so that is, there's more detail for us to go through here. But that's the punchline. The change is happening. There's no unwinding it.

[Drew]

Yeah, he summarized it at the bottom with Four points that I want to cover for this. He says, number one, we are on the brink of the monetary order, the domestic, political, and the international world order breaking down due to unsustainable bad fundamentals that can be easily seen and measured.

[Tom]

Yeah. So debt. You have a debt problem. That's really what he means. So you have a debt problem. You cannot continue to do this. You can't be in a cold war with people that control your manufacturing. It just leads to catastrophe. And Rey is looking at the historical comps and he's saying, we know how this plays out, and that's the one thing you can't leave on the table. There is no sticking with the status quo.

[Drew]

The progression of events leading to these increasing disorders is similar to those that have progressed many times throughout history. So this one looks like a contemporary version of the old story of how monetary, domestic, political, and social and international geopolitical orders change.

[Tom]

Yeah. So debt escalates, people print money. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. You enter into a populist moment, you elect a strong man. And strong men often do very dumb things, very aggressive things, if you're not very careful. And given that, you need to be aware of how this tends to play out. And so this is why I talk so endlessly about Thucydides Trap, is just the likelihood that you are not able to accept that China has passed us. And by the way, I don't think we should accept it. I think just as the world has been made better by China striving to be great, the world would be better. If America can strive to be great, and I hope they do. It's just a question of when you're in second place, do you lash out and start shooting at each other? America, when you've got the wealth divide and you've got the inability to see eye to eye on a path forward, do you hate each other so much that you start shooting at each other? Because if you can use that friction as dynamic tension to make better policies, you end up in a good place. If that friction becomes warfare, you end up in a horrible place. And so what Ray Dalio is warning is that the odds are something like 65. I think that's directionally correct. Even it's not literally correct. 65 to 70% of the time, you end up in hot conflict. It's either a revolution or a war with another nation or a more traditional civil war. But it's always bloodshed. 65 to 70% of the time. The other 30 to 35% of the time you find a way to unwind it without bloodshed. But it's less likely.

[Drew]

There is a growing risk that the United States, imposing these challenges to deal with, will increasingly be bypassed by a world of countries that will adapt to these separations from the United States and create new synapses that grow around it.

[Tom]

Yeah. So basically, new allies are going to form. So who's going to ally themselves with China? Who's going to ally themselves with the U.S. like, shockingly, we have a horrible relation right now with Canada.

[Drew]

Yeah.

[Tom]

And some people might argue that, but one way to read the tea leaves, and this feels like it has a high degree of predictive validity, is to look at what just happened in their election, that it broke very liberal again when it looked like Pierre Poliev was going to win. Not only did Pierre Poliev lose, he lost his seat. So he's not even in government anymore. So he's been. He's had his seat, I think, since 2004. So it's like, yo, he's been in government for a long time. And many people say that the reason that that happened was Canada was like, anybody that sounds like Trump is conservative, like, Trump not here for it. No way. Hard pass. And so that shows. I think they won, like, a 54% majority, I think. And Trudeau, when he was in power, his team, his party.

[Drew]

There we go.

[Tom]

Didn't even have a majority. So there's been a pretty big swing because you've got Trump out there. Going back to my description of this as being erratic, you've got Trump calling them the 51st state, which is just. If you know anything about human psychology, you know that dude, that is going to be so divisive. And for every bit of good that Trump has gotten from being divisive, I think he gets at least that much in terms of creating problems. But this is a populist moment.

[Drew]

Yeah. And to our point, in the past, Carney has been positive about China policies and things like that. So we could be losing the ally.

[Tom]

Yeah, like, exactly. Like, does Canada actually break towards China? Like, that would be. That would be a very negative sign, in my opinion.

[Drew]

And number four on this list, if these circumstances are managed in the best ways, the outcomes will be much better than if they are managed in the worst ways.

[Tom]

Yeah, it's one of those. It's so obvious that it seems almost silly to say it, but it is the most important thing to understand that part of the reason that I now talk about this stuff on my channel is because the way that you navigate these things matters and that they will have huge consequences, oftentimes for generations to come. And so he's trying to get everybody to focus on the reality that, okay, don't march forward blindly. Make sure that you have a sense of cause and effect that is historically astute. It's never going to be a one for one, but you want to look backwards and go, this aligns with what I see looking backwards, or here's what's different that makes me believe that it's going to play out differently. But you certainly don't want to be blind to it.

[Drew]

Yeah.

[Tom]

And you want to be marching by a very falsifiable sequence of cause and effect so that if you expect one thing to happen and something else happens, then you know, oh, my mental model is flawed in some way. Now, I don't think that Trump is at all constitutionally capable of going, my fundamental thinking is flawed. But he does respond to directional movement that does not suit his political aims. So it's a very nice way of saying, oh, I up the stock market more than I thought and so I'm going to back off on the tariffs. So at least in that way he isn't like, no, no, I'm going to ram this through no matter what. Like, he is somebody that clearly is dancing on the precipice, but when a foot slips and gravel falls off the edge, he does pull back a little bit. That's not me championing the way that he goes about things, but that is me trying to map the way he actually behaves.

[Drew]

Yeah, I just want to put a stamp on there with this last statement from Ray. The United States role as the world's biggest consumer of manufactured goods and greatest producer of debt assets to finance its overconsumption is unsustainable. So assuming that one can sell and lend to the US and get paid back with hard, that is not devalued dollars on their US debt holdings is naive thinking. So other plans have to be made.

[Tom]

Yeah. So let me say that one, in simple terms, the US Is going to print money and because of that long term US Debt, no bueno.

[Drew]

Yeah.

[Tom]

And if that's true, then people have to start thinking about where is the best place to put your long term capital. Now it's going to be very interesting to see exactly how that plays out on the world stage. Because just like when I fret about losing dollar dominance, people will say, okay, but where are you going to go? You going to go to the yuan? Like, they manipulate their currency, they're known for it. So what are you talking about? You going to go to the yen? They've been stagnant forever. You going to go to Europe? Like they've got a host of their own problems. Do you buy that the BRICS nations are going to build a currency that's backed by gold? Like, where, where are you actually going? So you can have the emotional outburst, as I have done many times, that, hey, these are bad moves, this is not what we want to be doing. But the reality is that where else are you going to go? What Ray is saying is over time people will find answers to that. And so you're now in a position where you can't just default, go, oh, people are going to go to America. And so this is, this is an opportunity for brics, this is an opportunity for China. Somebody, somewhere at some time, the US or otherwise, is going to start signaling we are going to be the place that you can go, that you can count on. We're stable and so we'll see. Man, I don't know if Trump is constitutionally capable of that. So he has to do something. But if he's able to pull this off, will he then go into hard stabilization mode? If he does, then it could be everybody coming back to the US if it, if this ends up being him spending, call it 18 months, just chaos, havoc to move the Overton window to destabilize the way that things work now. Change the IMF and World bank approach to China and other countries, lower the non trade, non tariff trade barriers. All the things that we've been talking about. Do all that and then, okay, guys, we have a new world order. It's not perfect, but now we need to focus on stability. Now we need to really talk about long term capital investment here in the US Getting the tax breaks down. This is something Besson said that I thought was really smart. Said long term, I don't think the conversation is going to be about tariffs. It's about tariffs now because that's the negotiating tactic. But long term, this is about regulation and tax incentives to be here in America. And if we're able to realize those for corporations, corporations are going to come here if it's easier and cheaper to do business in the US and you can trust the regulatory stability. He's like, people will come. And if we're not able to do that, this part obviously you didn't say, but if they're not able to do that, then people won't. And so I think that is very smart. And again, going back to why I don't want to call a winner at 100 days is you're at a position now where you're acting as if the temporary emotional swings of people will cement and they won't. And so if people make a lot of money by investing in China, they'll invest in China. If people make a lot of money by investing in the US they'll invest in the US and so understanding just how mercenary people are, just how selfish everybody is, will have a lot higher predictive validity than, well, Trump did a thing and I'm mad and so now I'm going elsewhere. It's real and you have to factor that. But the long term play, when you start talking about years is going to be about where is it easiest to get my business moving and where am I most confident that I'll be able to make money and not lose a bunch of capital inefficiency to a government taxing me to death, period.

[Drew]

We'll keep monitoring it 100 days in the books. We'll see what happens. Indeed, one of his promises was that he'll end the Russian Ukraine war. Russia has come out and officially declared their conditions that are necessary to end the war. It's very Russia and it's very one sided from my viewpoint. But we'll go by them one by one. These are the six things that they laid out to say that this will make an end to the war completely. The first one is a demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine.

[Tom]

Number one is Showstopper. I cannot fathom a universe in which Ukraine would ever agree to that. Because you just broke into my house, you stole a bunch of my shit, killed a couple of my family members, and now you're telling me that for you to leave my house I have to remove all the locks from my doors. It's so sus. Yeah, so that one just seems like that's not real. Like I, I'll, hey, I've been wrong before, but I will be utterly shocked if Ukraine doesn't just go, this is ridiculous.

[Drew]

Yeah. And then number two, Ukraine must not join NATO.

[Tom]

That one seems reasonable to me.

[Drew]

I feel like that's been on the table.

[Tom]

Yeah, yeah.

[Drew]

Number three, this is a big one. The international recognition of the annex states. These are the regions in Ukraine that was occupied from Russia going back in 2014.

[Tom]

Yeah. We won't try to pronounce all the names, but basically there's regions that they've annexed and they want it to be recognized. And this one goes against the constitution of Ukraine. So they would have to have a constitutional amendment to agree to this one. But this one seems to me the hardest pill to swallow. But that will probably have to be swallowed either now or at some future date. But If World War I is any indication of what happens when you get into trench warfare is they just gridlock and you lose a lot of people. You don't go very far.

[Drew]

Yeah.

[Tom]

And so given that that's. It seems to be where we're at with this conflict. It will just become who has an appetite to lose more soldiers. And Russia. That is not the country you want to play that game with.

[Drew]

Yeah.

[Tom]

They've just proven historically we're willing to die for the homeland.

[Drew]

Yeah.

[Tom]

In far greater numbers. And they have so many more people than Ukraine has that if Ukraine can't get Europe or somebody else to put boots on the ground, I don't see how they win a war of attrition.

[Interviewer]

Yeah.

[Drew]

Number four, Lifting of sanctions against Russia and the return of frozen assets seems easy enough. I know this wasn't a big one. That kind of spooked the international community when the US Kind of froze the assets once Russia.

[Tom]

That was probably never the super smart thing to do. Like if you're not going to put sanctions and secondary sanctions on their oil, you're just going to show people that you're willing to weaponize the dollar. Yeah.

[Drew]

And.

[Tom]

And the payment systems. And that's. You don't want people doing that. Like. Oh.

[Drew]

Huh.

[Tom]

They'll do that. I guess I don't want to. I don't want to go against them. You get people to get in line for a while. But that starts making things like brics look far more attractive. Now anybody that trusts Russia, China and Iran. Yo. But nonetheless.

[Drew]

Yeah. But going back to our first point. If the dollar is showing weakness and then now this is just another reason to say maybe there might be another country that I could store this for and it'll be okay.

[Tom]

Yeah.

[Drew]

Number five, the rejection by Russia of the US Proposal to transfer control over the Z nuclear power plant to Washington and Ukraine. So there's a power plant within one of those annex territories that Russia wants to have control over as opposed to the US Controlling US And Ukraine jointly controlling it.

[Tom]

Yeah. This feels again doable if I'm Zelinsky or I'm the Ukrainian people. I'm saying to myself far easier to spin up another nuclear plant. Not that that's easy or cheap. But I would much rather be in that position than trying to replace another hundred thousand of my citizens. Like the level of devastation that that causes a population is hard to quantify. I would much rather give up a nuclear facility than however many people it would cost me to keep fighting this war.

[Drew]

Copy. And then number six, cancellation of language laws in Ukraine, especially those that restrict the use of the Russian language, culture, and church.

[Tom]

I get that that one will be troublesome, but I cannot imagine that that's going to be the hang up. The only two that strike me as like, these are really going to be hard are 1 in 3. So demilitariz, demilitarizing Ukraine just seems absurd on its face. And international recognition that parts of what were formerly the Ukraine now are part of Russia, those are, I think, going to be your two sticking points. Now, the whole denazification thing, I don't know what to do with that. That one also feels a little bit fake to me. It's like whatever hate they have in their heart, you're not going to be able to legislate out of them, so they're going to keep doing that. And then if there are Nazis in Ukraine in any sufficient manner, like, what's the metric by which you're going to say they've denazified? Because that gives them. That gives Russia the ability to say, well, you demilitarized, we didn't denazify, we're coming in. That one just, again, seems absurd on its face. And that they list it first, I assume means that's like the line in the sand that they're drawing. So I don't know how seriously to even take this. I'm glad that they're at least putting things forward. There's now things to argue about. There's a place from which to begin the negotiations. But this doesn't feel super serious to me.

[Drew]

Yeah, that was. My next question is, do you think Russia and Putin actually want to end the war based off of this list?

[Tom]

Probably not.

[Drew]

No, man. We'll monitor it closely. It's sad, though. I was hoping that we would wind this down. So once I actually heard about it, I was like, oh, nice, let's look at the list. And then I seen these things. I was like, yeah, they're not really. We're going to be here for a while.

[Tom]

Yeah, man, look, wars traditionally end because people are so tired of the death and destruction that somebody's just willing to give up. And clearly neither side is there yet.

[Drew]

Yeah.

[Tom]

And so now it's a question of will the Ukrainian people have the money and the bodies to keep fighting. And if the US Pulls out, then, I mean, Europe, I think, is prepared to step up. I just don't know if they'll be able to do it without the US

[Drew]

or if they'll be ready because they just did that investment about their defense initiatives a couple months ago. It takes a little while to scale that.

[Tom]

So, yeah, quick break, but don't go anywhere. There's more to come after this short break from our sponsors. All right, we're back. Let's get into it.

[Drew]

All right. Well, speaking of appetite for a war, China is saying that they're going to be able to hold out on this trade war more than us. The MFA China spokesperson Twitter has been relentless about, he's like, yeah, we're, we're ready for end new war. But CNBC news report said that China might be feeling it a little bit more than they want to let us believe.

[Interviewer]

Meantime, China's economy showing some signs of damage from the trade war with the United States. New export orders in April fell to their lowest level since 2022. That was when Covid was ravaging the country. Overall manufacturing activity in China was the weakest in more than a year. President Trump has hit Chinese imports with tariffs of 145%, accusing Beijing of treating the US unfairly. Our next guest has some additional new data on China. Joining us right now is China Beige Book CEO Shahzad Kazi Shahzad. Let's talk about these numbers, what you're seeing because you guys are really doing this on a moment by moment basis. We're looking at the month of April. And April started off pretty strong. It's not what you saw at the end of the month?

[Shahzad Kazi]

No, not at all. As a matter of fact, you know, the weakness that you're picking up in manufacturing that we're, that we're picking up, that started in March. That's where the initial pull forward in the, you know, the inventory ramp up stuff stopped helping, helping the manufacturing exports. And you see a slowdown in output, you see a slowdown in export orders. And then the weakness builds into April where if you look at direct orders from the U.S. they are, you know, they're contracting and they're incredibly weak. So manufacturing has a lot of pain. That's beginning. That's becoming obvious.

[Interviewer]

It was interesting though, that manufacturing had a lot of weakness in China. Some of the other areas looked a little stronger. Longer.

[Shahzad Kazi]

Yeah. So the rest of the economy is actually holding up for now, which is quite predictable. But that cannot last the longer the trade war goes on.

[Interviewer]

How much of their economy is manufacturing? Because in our economy, we're more of a services economy for them, that's a big, big component of what, what their economy is.

[Shahzad Kazi]

They have become incredibly dependent on the manufacturing sector, as a matter of fact, more so I would say in the aftermath of COVID because domestic consumption, consumption has been incredibly weak, choppy at best. You've got a massive property crisis that they're still digging themselves out of, which has left manufacturing as the core driver of economic growth and the post Covid recovery.

[Interviewer]

So when we hear kind of the conventional wisdom is that China has a much higher pain tolerance, tolerance for pain than we have in the United States, what does that mean to you? What kind of tolerance do they have for something that hits such a key important part of their economy?

[Drew]

Economy?

[Shahzad Kazi]

Well, you know, what they've done is begun quietly helping the export sector already. So if you look at borrowing, for example, in our numbers, it has exploded. For the manufacturing sector, they're stepping up additionally on the fiscal side through more activity. So they are trying to stimulate the economy, provided some stability. They could do this. They haven't done big stimulus in several years, which means that they could keep ramping this up slowly.

[Interviewer]

But the fact that they're just going to prop this up but they're not going to have anywhere to sell their goods.

[Shahzad Kazi]

That's exactly right. They could, well, they could prop this up and then I think what they're really going to rely on is trans shipment. So I don't buy this whole thing that Chinese manufacturing is going to completely collapse because what they're going to do is just rely excessively on rerouting their goods to the U.S.

[Tom]

so this is where this gets interesting because China has the one, they don't have to stand for election, so they can literally do whatever they want, including, I mean, in case of mal just starving people to death, I'm sorry, tough break. They can print money like crazy. They have shown that they don't mind keeping the Yuan weak. So and I think that it is fair to say that they have a lot more, they have printed a lot less than we have recently and so they probably have more quote unquote dry powder to keep printing for a while. So you put all of those together and yes, they may hurt more than us, but will they be forced to blink? That becomes the big question. And will the Trump administration be wise enough to say, look, China just does things differently and I can't ask them to publicly blink and be the first ones to come to us that we're going to have to back channel to them and find a way for Them to be able to put on the front page of their newspaper, America is dumb and they bowed to us and see we won and get what we want. And so this is where America has to be very clear eyed about what we want. To not be beholden to what I call an invisible goal. Where you say you want a better trade relationship with China, you say you want to control your own manufacturing, you say you want them to stop manipulating their currency, you say you want them to stop dumping cheap goods on you, but what you really want is for them to be like America's number one. That would be an invisible goal. And if Trump is acting in accordance with, I need Xi to acknowledge that I'm the bigger dog here, then this really could spiral into just madness where it's like everybody gets punished for these two guys that have these gigantic egos and neither of them is willing to back down. Neither of them is willing to say, I actually want this thing over here and I don't care what you print in your papers about me, I want this thing. And so if Trump, which boy, oh boy, I don't know that he's capable. But if Trump can be like, all I care about is the six months leading up to the midterms. I want to be able to point to this many dollars spent in manufacturing, showing endless facilities already being built, which, by the way, they're already in video, literally, I think today or yesterday, like, started building their factory in Arizona, like, actually spending money. Because my thing was, are they just going to try to drag Trump on? And they really seem to actually be spending money. So showing that prices are coming down in key areas. They won't come down everywhere, but prices on the essentials coming down. So gas price, energy costs in general coming down, groceries coming down, jobs being created. Like, if he's able to show that story and from a supply chain perspective, we're in a much better situation. Be able to point to China used to control 95% of the refinement of rare earth minerals. Now, not only do we have direct deals with these other countries to get the minerals, but we've already spun up. We're doing 12% of our own refinement now. And we expect by the end of 2026 for that to be 32%, whatever. If he's able to paint that kind of picture, it's like, oh, damn, this is actually working. If you've got trade deals with some of our main partners and they decided we're backing America, we're with America all the way. If you Get Europe on board, you get Japan on board, you get South Korea on board, it starts to feel like, okay, we're actually isolating China. Okay, cool. But it could very easily be that this is just ego v Ego. And China, literally, because they don't have to face elections, can just be like, keep going, keep. Literally, we don't care. We're going to print money, print money, print money. And we. This is where we now start leaning on the red light capitalism part of this. And we show what the advantages are to being authoritarian.

[Drew]

Yeah. And Elon tweeted a stat that might surprise a couple of people about the actual size of China. So to your point of them wrestling over who's number one and number two, what is the size of the Chinese economy in purchasing power parity? In 2025, based on purchasing power parity, China's GDP is estimated at approximately 35.29 trillion, surpassing the United States GDP of 28.78 trillion. Europe's GDP, the European member 27 states, is estimated at 21.99 trillion in PPP terms. Thus, China's economy is about 1.23 times larger than the US and 1.6 times larger than the EU's economy.

[Tom]

That's massive.

[Drew]

Yeah.

[Tom]

So this is what Mogadot was trying to tell us in the episode that we did with him, and he was like, tom, look, you have such a US centric view. Your government spins and positions and tries to make things sound great from your perspective, but the reality is the rest of the world knows that China's bigger than you guys. So I don't know, man, it. I know that I'm being spun at all times. And this wouldn't surprise me. Now, ppp, the whole idea there is that they may not make as much money per capita. So the average per person GDP may be lower than the U.S. but if everything in their country is so much cheaper that they can buy the equivalent of more stuff, that's how you get these numbers. And so life for them, regardless of what the relative metric is, like, yeah, maybe you guys technically make more money per person, but the things, the lifestyle that we get as a result of that is better here. So that is very much something to keep in mind as we figure out who really can tolerate more pain.

[Drew]

Yeah. In sticking with Elon Musk in AI and Future Tech News, he tweeted that robots will surpass good human surgeons within five years and the best human surgeons within five years in a few years, and the best human surgeons within five years. And this is in reference to Neuralink using a robot to do a brain computer electrode insertion. After retweeting Mario Naufall who says that robots are now performing surgeries. We've seen a couple of these in China. There was that one doctor that did a 5G kind of video chat. I'm calling a video chat, but like a remote surgery. He was in a different province where they were actually doing it. This robotic testing and surgeries has been increasing in recent months. It seems like the future is already here. And Neuralink confirmed has actually just had one done.

[Tom]

Bro, this is thrilling, but is absolute insanity. Like when you are talking about things like the CEO of Perplexity said that. Not Perplexity, Anthropic said that by the end of this year that something like 90 plus percent of all code will be generated by AI. Mark Zuckerberg just came out and said within 18 months, basically all code will be generated at meta by AI. You've now got Elon saying good surgeons are done in, call it three years and great surgeons are done in five years. This isn't like 30 years, 50 years where it's like, ah, people are just making this stuff up. Yeah, this is like near term enough now us. Elon is wrong about his dates basically all the time. So let's double it. Six years good ones surpassed and 10 years, the great ones. This is still not a long time. If you've got a five year old, he's not even going to be out of high school by the time this happens. Let me say that again. If you've got a five year old doubling what he's saying, your kid's not even going to be able to high school. If he's right, your kid's not even going to be in middle school. So it's like, yo, this is.

[Drew]

I went the other way. If I'm starting my med school journey, you know the four years, four years, four years residency. Like, like I'll be halfway through my residency when I'm like, hold on, wait, I'm replaced now. Like, this is crazy.

[Tom]

But keep in mind you'll be able to do extraordinary things. You'll be able to custom make proteins so you've got alphafold that can figure out, oh, this is what the DNA sequence would need to be in order to generate this protein shape when it's folded in, in the the final form. And being able to do stuff like that, dude. Okay, so we've already unlocked that. So that means like how long does it take people to run the experiments to test this stuff? Three to five years. I mean, you're gon be getting some insanely novel treatments within five years. Absolutely brain meltingly freakish in ten. Yeah, I mean this is, it is entirely possible. This is definitely sci fi writer talk. But I am not the first to say the following statement that if you can survive the next 10 years that they science will be able to add 12 months of life for every 12 months you live, which means your life will be extended indefinitely. It's what they call longevity escape velocity. So that effectively, barring traumatic injury, you can live forever in 10 years. I mean even if that's 20. That's crazy.

[Drew]

That's nuts.

[Tom]

So anyway, fingers crossed that we don't annihilate each other before then because unfortunately that's all too real. I mean, Jesus, we haven't even talked about. India and Pakistan now are ratcheting up, up against each other and you could have some sort of skirmish breakout there. Hopefully very contained. India's coming in hot with their language and there is standing animosity between India and Pakistan. And by the way, they're both nuclear.

[Drew]

So yeah, they get bad really quick. We have to get into this debate that broke the Internet over this past weekend. I feel like it's still been going on.

[Tom]

This is so fascinating.

[Commercial Narrator]

Fascinating.

[Drew]

100 men versus one gorilla. I've heard, I've seen tweets that were like, this is how you could tell the hubris of toxic masculinity that men think they could be a gorilla. And then I had other people that are like, I just need. Eric said, I just need 10 heavyweight UFC fighters and I can take down that gorilla. I don't even need 100 people. So the range, the range is large. What say you about the debate of 100 men versus one gorilla?

[Tom]

To me it is self evident that if you choose wisely with your men that they are going to win by a lot. I always say look back in history to find the answer to this stuff. If you look back in history, you see there isn't a single animal that we haven't been able to subdue. I don't know the right word to hold dominion over. Like, have you seen the people that swim a great white sharks and stuff? No cage. They just understand their behavior well enough that they know like how to move and what to do. Now I wouldn't want to have to try to outswim a shark. But if you're saying that I'm on dry land with a gorilla and I have a hundred people that of like, so we're looking at a simulation right now. I'll presume that you'll put this on screen for people. This is the world's dumbest simulation because all of the people are acting like literal NPCs. They are throwing punches nowhere near the gorilla they're attacking one at a time. They're not talking to each other. Like, the gorilla is clearly being controlled by the programmer here because the gorilla will create space, come back, and the humans are all acting like idiots, just, like, rushing and rushing and rushing in. But, like, even ants can take down things that are far bigger than they are. They just swarm you. And so, look, one person is easy for a gorilla to dispatch. Three people is probably easy. Five people's probably easy. You start getting into 20, 30, and it's like, okay, guys, listen, this is what we're gonna do. Yeah. I mean, here are ants taking down a snake that is effectively infinitely larger. But now, in fairness, that's thousands of ants. Yeah, but also, the size differential is thousands of times.

[Drew]

Yeah.

[Tom]

So it will go something like this. If I were one of the hundred. All right, guys, listen. The only way this works is if we essentially segment the animal. So we need to remove its balance, and we need to remove its vision. And if you can hit it in the throat, if it's as weak as a human's throat, then that's probably a good place. And you just do that, dude. Like, all right, he's going to attack with his arms, so I need as many people as humanly possible to grab his legs at the same time. And then a bunch of us are gonna attack the eyes as fast as we can. We're gonna be poking out eyes. If he throws one of us off, literally while he's throwing, like, let's say it's me. While he's throwing me or ripping my arms off or whatever, you've got to use that moment to get to his eyes. And so now it's like every time he goes to defend against one, it's another gouge of the eyes. Defend against one another, gouge the eye. I can't believe how seriously I'm taking this, but this is like, dude, this is how humans get to the top of the evolutionary ladder, is we're able to cooperate flexibly in large groups. It is absurd to me that this argument got as far as it got. It's like the human mind. The human mind, okay? It isn't because we had the sharpest claws or the most robust fangs. It was because we could think and plan and cooperate. And so When I see things like that simulation, it's like all the things that make a human. The adversary, the most dangerous game, as the story calls it, is because of our minds, not because of our ability to throw a punch.

[Drew]

I'm with you. We'll take down that gorilla easy. No problem. No problem. All right. And falling in love is supposed to take time, but in 1997, psychologist Arthur Aron made it happen in 45 minutes by asking only 36 questions. The experiment worked so well, it ended in marriage. Here's how we did it. This is a 36 question set of questions where each set gets progressively more intimate, I'll call it. And then at the end, you stare into each other's eyes for four minutes. If you follow these recipes, apparently it, like, equates to love.

[Tom]

I think it's important to say it a little bit different. It will allow you to tell whether this person is a potential match or not. I don't think it is such that, oh, if you ask these 36 questions and then stare into somebody's eyes, you will fall in love. This is just a way to figure out is this person compatible with you or not? And what it may get at. I don't know how many people ended up getting married after this, but what it may show is that there is. There are far more people that are compatible with you than you think. And you're missing those opportunities because you just don't know how to peel back that onion well. And so people get the ick, or whatever modern term we want to use, and they peel off, even though if they had run through this, because one of the rules was you, you cannot skip a question and you must ask them in order. And so you literally go from 1 to 36, asking each of these questions. As you said, they get progressively more intimate, and they're really designed to map values and to take you to a vulnerable place so that the person is really figuring out who you are. What I like about this, and the reason that I think that this is popping off now is because we're in a world with dating apps that are the exact opposite. People are very easy to reduce to statistics. They're very easy to reduce to things that you can fit inside of a database. And then people rule out based on the database, whereas the questions force you to, one, be in proximity with the person. So you're picking up on micro expressions, pheromones, vibes, like, whatever all of that is. And you're starting sort of light but interesting. And then you're being Drug into deeper and deeper waters of shared vulnerability. And there's something about that act that I think gives people the opportunity to bond. If there's something there because you really, like, yo, like, I'm really getting to know this person, and I feel some kind of way and. Oh, man. To hear that story. Like, one of the questions is, if you knew you were about to die and you were completely isolated so there was no way to communicate with anybody else, what is one thing you didn't tell somebody you wish you had, and why didn't you tell them? And so when you get into that territory of where it's like, you know, my. I actually know exactly this because when my dad passed away, I had never said, like, XYZ thing. And I so regret so things. Or it could be something. It's like, whoa, I've never thought about that before. And then the person goes somewhere, like, really revealing about who they are, and maybe it surprises them as much as it surprises the other person. And so now there's, like, this. The 36 questions themselves become a shared experience, which I think about a lot, because Lisa and I, we still do this, but admittedly, not as much as we used to, just because we've asked each other so many questions. But every time we'd go on vacation, I would come up with, like, a list of a hundred questions. And over the vacation, we were just going to go through and answer all of the different questions. And any one night, you probably only get through five or six questions because it, like, sparks all these other questions. But it really is awesome, like, discovering a person being surprised by somebody that you know so well and being like, whoa, I wouldn't have guessed that that's what you would say. And there is something about exploring personalities that's as thrilling as exploring space.

[Drew]

Nice. I like the questions. I think that it's less about. To your point. It's less about. These questions equal love, and it kind of shows the vulnerabilities and the true makeup of the person under. Because as you're going through these questions, like, one of them is, like, what will you constitute a perfect day for you? If somebody says, I'm gonna be staring in the mirror all day doing my makeup, you're like, oh, okay. You're. You know, I mean, like, please. Yeah. Your answer kind of tells you what the actual person, like, thinks and feels. But it's nice to just actually have the conversation versus, to your point, just think of the height, date, weight, bank account, like, the superficial things that we kind of gravitate to when we're dating nowadays.

[Tom]

So what I think is the unsung hero of this as well is the fact that at the end, you're supposed to stare into each other's eyes without looking away for four minutes. You mentioned it up top. That's crazy. But that is so Lisa and I did this exercise one time. I forget who recommended it to me. It was a guest on the show and they like, promise me that you will do this. And so I promise on camera. And I thought, okay, I've promised. I really need to do this. And we sat cross legged, knee to knee, and didn't look away from each other for five minutes. And it is shockingly intimate. And this is somebody that I've slept with God knows how many times.

[Drew]

And

[Tom]

staring in each other's eyes in some ways is more intimate than sex. Like, it's really a trip. And the idea that the eyes are the windows to the soul, I don't know why that's true, but when you hold somebody's gaze for an uncomfortably long time, you feel some kind of way, like it's really interesting. And so I do wonder how much of it is that the progressive level of intimacy and self discovery as well as discovery of others followed by gazing in their eyes, that you're just like, maybe there really is something here. I don't know, man. The human mind is fascinating. And I hope people can get beyond just dating apps because isn't working as well as people would like it to.

[Drew]

Yeah. All right, that's all I got.

[Tom]

All right, everybody, if you're not already joining us for the lives, make sure you do. They are Tuesday, Thursday and Friday at 6am and here are some highlights from today's live. They said, what would need to be true for the US and China to work together for human flourishing? What would have to be true for left and right to quit racing towards civil war? We'd need neuralink upgrades or. I mean, this. I'm obviously being tongue in cheek, but drugs or neuralink upgrades are about your only option because the architecture of the human mind is such that it will just play out like that.

[Drew]

I remember the Rick and Morty episode where he was beefing with the President and he was like, I could solve the Middle Eastern conflicts in two days. And he flew them to, like an foreign planet. Had both, got both of them high, and they brokered a deal and he brought it back to the President, like, boom. So that was just funny.

[Tom]

Distressingly accurate. So, okay, what would. Let me give you a more grounded answer the economy would have to be moving in the right direction. When the economy is moving in the right direction and people believe that a year from now they're going to be making more money than they are today, and they believe that their kids lives will be better than theirs. People are in a good mood and everything is working wonderfully. And so this is why they say it's the economy, stupid. You've got to find a way to get the economy moving on the right track. If you cannot solve that problem, then you're going to continue to have this kind of divide. Ginny coefficient explains so much. I don't think it was you, Drew, but somebody the other day was telling me that they saw a somebody who was begging. Whether they're homeless or not, I don't know. But they were begging for money and they had an iPhone. They said, imagine living in a world where even homeless people have iPhones. That's the level of wealth that we have. But it doesn't matter. What matters is the difference between the people that you see every day and you. And if the people that you're around every day have a lot more money than you, there is an algorithm that will trigger in the human mind and people will go nuts. So only the differential matters. And right now the differential is crazy. And so you've got to address the differential. The last 30 years have been marked by exchanging what worked for what sounds good. Capitalism sounds fucking terrible, but it works. And so you've got to let people be selfish. Why? Because you can trust them to be selfish. And ironically, it ends up working. Because when consumers are selfish, they end up saying, you're not adding enough value to me. I'm going to go to the other person that's going to add more value. And I quite literally don't give a. If you go out of business, that's a you problem, that's not a me problem. So you make my. You make it the way I want it, for the price I want it or you right off. And so now everybody goes, ooh, I want to beat Tesla. This Elon Musk guy sucks. So I'm going to make a thing that's better than his thing and I'm going to siphon people off, off. And that is why you live in the modern world that you live in now. If you stack a gazillion little things, like trying to cap housing prices, like overregulating the building of houses to keep everybody safe, all of a sudden you realize you're the problem and you could be driving the cost of these assets down or allowing the free market to make them accessible to the average person. So what you want people doing, rather than thinking about redistribution, is saying, how the do I get people on the intuitive asset ladder? And the answer is, you do things like stop capping prices, stop making it impossible to build a house. But, Drew, that means that you've got to let some builders build a shystery building, and then somebody moves into it and they lose their whole net worth. And by the way, their house collapses, kills them, burns down around them. They all die in fiery death, Drew. And why do you have to let that happen? Because otherwise you try to make everything in this world safe and you overregulate the shit out of it. And again, I understand the emotional impulse, and I am not a libertarian. I feel weird saying that. I'm not somebody who doesn't think that government can't be helpful. I'm just saying you cannot inherently trust the government. You have to be like, God damn it, do as little as possible. You don't want to overly involve yourself. And you have to let a certain. With kids, you have to let them encounter difficulty, Drew. You have to. You know this as a parent. And so I'm just saying the government has to let their people go through some stuff and come up with solutions. So the people go, I don't trust that fucking builder because he was the guy that built the thing that fucking fell down. And so fuck him. And he gets a terrible reputation. The bar.

[Drew]

We're at the bar.

[Tom]

You've had a few drinks, I'm tipsy, the lights are low. She seems like your type, Drew. Oh, man, she's beautiful. And then we turn the lights up. Your buzz is starting to fade. And now it's like, oh, God, this is not what I thought I'd been talking to all night. That is what's happening right now. The lights have come on because of the. These aren't the first shots in the trade war, but we've now reached a point where the lights are turned all the way up. If you haven't already, be sure to leave us a five star review. Wherever you listen to your podcast, it helps more than you know. Till next time, my friends. Be legendary. Take care. Peace. We out.

[Drew]

All right.