DOGE updates + Liberation Day Tariff Reactions with Ben Shapiro and Antonio Gracias

23:42It's right along the border where the border patrol basically was not. And they said that what was happening is people were arriving at the border. They were doing exactly what Antonio was talking about. They would literally say, I fear to go back to my home country. They would be processed. They'd be led into the country with a future date to come back. And that was all happening within 72 hours. So being able to track those people and find out who should be in, who shouldn't be, that's huge. And I think that's the consensus. So, should we, are you in the camp? We should deport everybody this sort of Stevie Miller Miller, deport 20 million people, Ben, or are you in the, hey, let's get rid of the criminals.

24:17And, you know, that will get us to where we need to be. Well, I don't think it's just the criminals. I mean, I think you also need to go after the folks who are here to take advantage of the welfare benefits, for example, or just draw on the system. But I don't think that the number is 20 million. I don't think President and Trump actually thinks the number is 20 million. I don't think anybody realistically thinks the number is 20 million. God, okay, they set it over and over again, all 20 million are going and it's like that. But they say a lot and it's a political campaign and people say that sort of stuff all the time.

24:45Antonio, let's talk maybe about reconciliation here. You spent your life as a Democrat and now you've spent, I don't know, six months as a Republican here and helping this administration. How do we get the country to sort of get back together here and maybe reconcile on this issue because it seems like an unnecessary to Ben's point. I think the number is 80 % of people believe the border should be just shut period full stop and everything should be legal. And I don't know the other 20 if they're just don't know how to take a survey. I have never met anybody who said there should be an open border at the southern border.

25:18So what are your thoughts on giving your inside knowledge? And I would describe you as a Clinton Democrat, Fiskily Conservative, socially liberal. Correct me if I'm wrong there. What are your thoughts on reconciliation here? Because you really do care about that. Your parents, both immigrants, my besties here, three of the four people who host this program. Immigrants, this is an immigrant country built by immigrants, four immigrants has always been. So how do we reconcile this issue and put it behind us? And Jason, I had asked myself this question and I think we get a fall of the truth. And that's the point, fall of the truth and the truth is in the data.

25:54And as Ben said, the numbers don't lie, right? And so people are productive. We got to find a way to allow them to be productive and stay. People that are taking the system should not be allowed to stay. And I think I don't want to get out of the policy at all because it's above my pay rate. I mean, the reality is for me, my remit is as Ben said, it's criminals, terrorists, and then people will shoot out the system. And then a political question needs to be answered about what happens to the rest of those people. I don't know. It's not my remit. Freeberg, but we'll say this. I think that all my friends were so Democrats that I have it, they'll explain this data to.

26:27They all say the same thing you are saying. Man, this is a problem. We're going to figure this out. And let me tell you why. The bigger problem, the biggest problem here. I mean, it's, it definitely is taking off the system. But you got to realize we gave 13 to 15 billion dollars a year to human traffickers. That's what the system did. And the money magnet that attracted these people here, it wasn't like it was some crisis that, you know, environmental crisis. is the money magnet attracted these people and many of them died on the way up. We had to think about what that's like. Think about the human rights.

26:54So this is a human suffering, a human rights tragedy. You have people who are getting sold into slavery and being abused at the border at a minimum every American should be against that. Everyone is. Every American is looking at this, turned my stomach. But I want you to the board and I heard the stories. It turned my stomach, man. We are America. Okay. We protect people like this. We don't give incentives to people to pay traffickers. If you paid 20 ,000, I heard 20 ,000 to 500 bucks to cross the board at $20 ,000. I mean, where does someone who's coming from Central America get 20 grand to pay the traffickers that are walking them across the border?

27:29It's not free to walk up Mexico. Okay. It's controlled by the cartels. What happens? I mean, they got to pay that back. How do they pay it back? They're basically dead to the service. This is terrible. This isn't what we do in this country, right? This country is about freedom. And we are here to protect it. We protected it around the world. We protected it in our home country. And I don't think any American that I know. not a democratic republicans or anyone. Things that's good, it's not good, it's bad for America and it's evil behavior. We shouldn't send it, we shouldn't give people a reason to do it.

27:55We should find the evil ways to become the country. And I turn you to do it. That's a work together. Do you believe that there is a democratic party motive to increase voter base for the Democrats behind all of this as has been proclaimed by some? Look, as I go through the data, and I see it's all about the data, okay David? And I know you love the data. Yeah. When you have just a handful of states, man, I'm talking about four states. We look at the voter rolls. We found these people, thousands of them on the voter rolls and we found many of those people voted, right? In one state, particularly, well over a thousand voted.

28:29Yeah, I think this was a move to import voters. But really importantly, I just want to make sure, because when I talk to politicians from the Democratic Party about this, they say there's aspects of human rights doing the right thing for people in need that is motivating some of this behavior, is that a lie and they actually have a different motive or do some in the party think that way, but there are real kind of kind of call it a small group of highly influential folks at the top of the Democratic Party that recognize that this is going to grow the voter base and they're kind of motivating this.

29:06What do you think of the construction of what sounds to some to be a conspiracy and how much of this is really like widely understood. Look, many, I'll tell you what I have seen. I've told you the actual information. If you look at the social administration, we set all the defaults to kind of max open. No idea requirements, right? You get a social screen number before we got here by walking in office, answering, you know, with a medical record and a school ID that had your name and your date of birth on it. That's it, okay? We opened up, we set the defaults to open on social security. We set the defaults to open on pay, pay people out, and we set the collections defaults basically to zero.

29:48So that's how the system looks. I'm just reporting the facts. Do I think that the average person is a Democrat in Illinois or the guy's eye in New Echo of Chicago, they know this, they don't know this. They don't know this. So were there people at the top of the system to do this? Yeah. People created this policy. the former administrators of these agencies created these policies. I've seen them. I've read them myself. I've gone to the data myself. They've seen them. Now this isn't everybody. If you're the average person out there who's a Democrat and you see what I've seen, you, I believe you will, you concluded I concluded which is this isn't right.

30:25These policies are wrong. They're evil. They're wrong. We gave an incentive for people to get traffic. That's terrible. I just don't, I just don't think people know. The reason I'm even willing to do all, You guys know me, I'm pretty private, I've come in your podcast with my buddies. But like, man, the reason I'm talking about this is not political. It's because it's a human rights issue and the human rights issue is being confused. It's not, it's we are incenting people to pay traffickers to come to America. We were doing this, right? We got to find better ways to do that. And I just, I don't believe any American, the 80 % of people that Jason's talking about that would say close the border, that's the 80 % who come to get on this issue with a man.

30:59We got to take care of people. Antonio, can you talk about what the next big push of effort from you and your team will be? Is there some next chart? I'm not trying to be reductive, but is there something that you can demonstrate that is going to be equivalently as powerful as this first chart, which then helps us start to move these gears towards doing the logical and right thing? I think the right thing is to figure out who's who, right? Who are the criminals? Who are Number two, who's moving off the system. And then number three, the people that are working that Jason's talking about, you know, what we do with them.

31:38That's the right answer. I would add a fourth, because I think that there's probably no more electric issue than this idea of voting in propriety. And I think it has become so brazenly partisan that everybody has suspended logic. If it turns out, if it turns out that there was a manipulated effort in 2020 and there is even a threat of legitimacy to Trump's claims You would never be able to see the light of day because so many Americans just turned turn off, right? And that's because of the rhetoric that they've been fed. This is a really important thing that I would just offer to you Is that if it is true that these people illegally voted I Think it's a thunder clap and I think it opens wide the aperture on voting illegality and voting reform.

32:30And I think that irrespective of who you are, you should want to make sure that people who are not allowed to vote are not voting just to put it simply. Yeah, wow. What an incredible class. It's amazing. I can't, I can't, I can't get an airplane in America without ID, but I can go vote in some states that ID. I think that's crazy. I had so many crazy. That is crazy. That is crazy. And we're down to like, Ben, you know the number. It's 15 states now are the ones that don't have voter ideas. So this is becoming like a very obvious issue in a loophole for us to close. I think the best next thing for you to do is actually publish this list of people who voted get it to the Heritage Foundation and put some line on it.

33:07The truth shall making free and sunlight is the best disinfectant because I think the whole issue is absurd because if you look at the votes in the swing states, it would take 100 ,000, it would take tens of thousands and it's illegal. I've spoken to the person at the Heritage which is foundation who does this, they found like 2400 cases over 40 or 50 years, the number of people voting illegally is minuscule in order to swing even but one state, you would need a coordinate effort. Hold on, let me finish. You would need a coordinated effort. I'm just giving you data, Tramon. I am not part of you.

33:43There are tens of thousands of votes that would need to be manipulated. In each of these markets, it's impossible. Well, there's the keyword. Here's what I would ask you to consider. Sure. Your results are only as good as your prompts. Your results are only as good as your prompts. Say it in English. What do you mean? I suspect that if you put three or four of the smartest data scientists in the world, they would get to a very different answer than the answer that has been arrived to. I don't know whether that'll validate or invalidate the claim. But the quality of the people that are able to interrogate this data is directly correlated to the output that is created.

34:25Well, listen, we all want the data cleaned, Ben, I'll maybe let you kind of answer the question from your perspective. Do you think there is any chance that a swing state could be swung by this strategy? In addition to that, Trump is a populist. All these people, and his biggest gains were with people from South America, Mexicans, and so on. College educated. So if you were going to plot this incredible strategy, it seems like the democratic strategy of importing a bunch of voters is the stupidest possible strategy because the Republican party has won those people. Well, I don't think that it would be a great short term strategy because of the problems that you mentioned in terms of the size of the voting gaps, even in closed swing states, although obviously you have outlier cases like Florida and 2000 where the entire state is being decided by hundreds of votes.

35:12And there is actually a good, you see a state actually shift on that basis. It's a rarity, but it does happen. In some cases, it decides a presidential election. When you're talking, however, about the long -term play, I think the question that needs to be asked is, if you are importing a bunch of people who are more dependent than average on the American government, for example, or who are not interested in assimilating to free market values, for example, or free speech values, or who come in. And then many of these people are going to get married. Many of these people are going to have kids.

35:41They're going to marry American citizens. They're going to have children who are American. and then they stay. Now you're talking about actually generating a change in the voting population. And that isn't a right -wing point. That's a point that was made by Roy Toshera all the way back in 2004 when he was a Democrat and he was making the case. Essentially, there was a demographic wave that was going to shift the electorate in the United States in the direction of Democrats permanently. Now, the point that you're making is that even as a long -term strategy, that might be a bad play because it may be that these populations shift over time.

36:06That doesn't mean that that's not the intent in the moment. Meaning maybe they're wrong. They could have gone wrong. They could have gone wrong. decision. Antonia, I think we have to drop you off here. Any closing comments you want to make, and I just want to thank you. I know you've got other things you could be doing in your life, but just on behalf of the American people who I speak for here on the program, we want to thank you all Americans for your service to this country. And I know that you are balls and strikes, and you're going to let the data speak. So I just want to thank you. Thank you for your attention.

36:37I will close this on this conversation, which is Go to California, go to California. Okay, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, came to California. Ronald Reagan signed Amnesty, and you know, some 40 years later, it is now a solidly blue state. And I think, so much on this program, I know you Jason, are refugees in California because of that, because of some of those policies. And I want to be, I want to be careful about this because it is, it is actually a tip of the iceberg, man. We have a very small sample of data in a couple of states. It's the tip of the iceberg. And so I don't know what the unintended consequences will be long term, but I doubt we'd already have in America.

37:15We're an M &D program actually turned a very large state, you know, from one party to another. And I want to leave you as this thought, this is not political. I'm not doing that. There's no political motivation in my mind. This is about America. It's about securing the American democracy. And we will shine light onto the data when we can. and we prefer these people to prosecution and we're gonna keep looking. We'll keep going and the data will lead us and the truth will lead us in a little bit. You can walk on the Sun, I get right. But we're gonna follow the truth. That's our primary motive. That is our offering parameter and what we're gonna do.

37:52All right, thank you Antonio Grasis and continue success and good to see you. Talk to you in 30, 60 days when you have your next findings. Let's go. Thank you. You're a refugee from California too, aren't you? Yes, yeah, we took off in 2020 during during COVID we took off my company took off we all got the hell out I was born in California. So I spent 30 36 years there before before I moved and yeah, they certainly did a good job of recognizing that state I mean I did the same thing you went to oh I'm in Florida. Yeah, my company's in Tennessee. I'm in Florida. Yeah, yeah, I mean, it's just You can't raise kids in California and just think about the crime and and taxes and what you're getting for your dollar, it doesn't make any sense.

38:34White House is off the Zoom boys, now we can start to work. Oh, okay, now open it up. Oh, we can open up the airport. Oh, okay. What do you guys think about what you just saw? Battle, you go first as our guest. I wish the entire Trump administration will roll down as well as Antonio just rolled that out. Is it what I would say? Totally. You know, I think that that is high levels of competence and expertise and a meticulous message that is data first and difficult for anybody to deny. I think that the success of the Trump administration, the success that they've had are taking the 80 side of 80, 20 issues.

39:08And I think that the success of President Trump in 2024 was that he oddly became the normie candidate. He was the guy who was a returns a normalcy candidate to see and in the face of a Biden and the bizarreness of, of Harris. And, you know, I think that as we see many of Trump's policies rolled out, the ones that are rolled out the way that Antonio is rolling it out are incredibly well received by the American population because they're seeing serious people doing serious work that needs to be done. And the ones that are not rolled out that way, I think are going to be a little more unpopular with the American people.

39:35And that's kind of, I want President Trump to succeed at a lot of these agenda items. And I don't want his, his good agenda items getting essentially railroaded and run over by the, by the bad rolled out of other agenda items. So you think thoughtful is good and well thought out, constructed and communicated. What, what, um, when you talk about this being done right, what do you think is being done wrong, it could be done better, I guess, would be a generous way of saying it. What could they communicate better? I mean, not to jump into the pile of rakes that is the tariff plan. Yes. I think that the way that the tariff plan was rolled out is bad, it's bad or all out as you could do.

40:12You know, the reason, I say that is not just because of my disagreements on the actual policy. I'll either be right or I'll be wrong on that. But the way that it was rolled out with very, with essentially kind of a surprise announcement, I don't mind a surprise announcement if what is then rolled out is not replete with with sort of contradictory justifications, statistics that are labeled one thing, but really are not that thing. And so it opens itself up to all sorts of critiques from every possible side of the, if you wanna make the argument, make the full scale well -fought argument, and then we can argue over whether it's true or not, but there's four or five different claims that are being simultaneously made about the tariffs.

40:51One, they're gonna raise revenue, two, they're gonna reshore, three, that you are going to somehow I'll reach a good -of -the -world trading system. Some of these are mutually exclusive. If you're going to, if you're going to re -shore, you're not going to raise as much revenue, for example. Those two things are mutually exclusive, and they're both being trotted out at the same exact time. If you're going to put out a giant chart that the president holds up that shows tariff rates plus unspecified variable, then what I'd like to know is what the actual tariff rate is as opposed to what the calculation seems to be, which was the trade deficit with country divided into the imports to that country.

41:27That has nothing to do with the tariff rate. I mean, just technically speaking, it has literally nothing to do with the tariff rate. And so what that means is now you're boxed in logically if President Trump wants to do a reciprocal tariff reduction, for example, how do you do that? Because he actually has used a statistic for the tariffs that have nothing to do with the tariff rate and are actually just trade deficits. So the only way to actually rectify that statistic is they have Madagascar by a bunch of American and product, for example, in order to get their quote -unquote tariff right down.

41:53That sort of stuff seems badly calibrated, even if you like the policy, for example. All right, yeah. So unless from a poker point of view, they spent many months declaring they're gonna do tariffs. And everyone thought they were bluffing. And so everyone said, there's no way you're gonna do tariffs. It's like someone in poker is saying, I'm gonna play every hand I get, I'm gonna be crazy, you don't believe them. And they actually have to do it in order to get the negotiating leverage that they need to be able to negotiate trade deals ultimately, and they have to look a little crazy maybe. I mean, that's your position, free -bud.

42:24I'm trying to rationalize one kind of rational reason for why a lot of smart people would end up putting that board up, that poster board up, where to your point, Ben, they said that these are the tariffs that are being levied upon our country. When, in fact, it is simply the math of imports, minus exports, divided by imports. That's what the number will have. and it was maxed out at that number or 10%. And that's what they did. So they did that basically as a way, in my opinion, it looks like, and I'm just trying to take a read on this, that they're using this as a way to anchor for negotiations going forward.

43:02To make the case, we are declaratively, crazily off the friggin' ship, going to do whatever the heck we wanna do here in this administration. Now everyone takes them seriously. Now everyone shows up to the negotiating table, and now they can actually negotiate and then announce a series of win after win after win and say, we got this set of countries to capitulate today. This is the deal we worked out. It's a totally unique deal. This set of deals we worked out today. This set of deals we worked out today. And basically getting all the trade representatives to the table by making the case that they're actually willing to go all the way to the wall on stuff.

43:34So that's the only way I can kind of rationalize this rollout then. That's what it feels like to me. For months, they've been very declarative. We are going to do tariffs. best and said it to us on our interview. Let Nick said it to us on our interview. And no one took them seriously. I did. I did, by the way, I will say that I took them totally seriously. So much so that I called my financial advisor after the state of the union address and told them to rejigger my stock and bond ratio and my portfolio because I figured that something like this was going to happen. I think you went heavy treasuries.

44:03Yes, I went light stocks. I'll say that. And the reason for that is because again, I think that the thing about President Trump is that he may not be serious in every single thing that he says, but he is very clear that when he says that a thing over and over and over, there is no hidden motivation. And this is the part that I always have trouble with sort of the 40 chest reads on President Trump. There's almost never a hidden motivation. He pretty much just says the thing that he thinks, right? It's one of the things that makes him so popular and authentic is that there isn't a 40 chest game being played.

44:36If he says that he wants a thing to happen, it's because he actually wants the thing to happen now. The thing about President Trump, he's also a real So if a bunch of bad headlines hit him, he may then change his mind and decide that he wants to drive a truck directly through the center of the tariffs because the prices are going up too much on, for example, semiconductors. So one of the big exemptions from these tariffs is in fact in the area of semiconductors. Again, there you see a sort of couple of different justifications that are mutually exclusive that are fighting each other. One of them is the idea we need to reshore semiconductor production because it's a national security asset.

45:04And the other is we need to raise revenue on semiconductors. So he exempted them, which kind of, you know, kind of ballets is up the logic. And I think that the, the, there are a couple of tells that that isn't what's happening. I mean, listen, I think it may end up being the thing you're saying. I think the most likely result of these tariffs is that within the next few weeks, the headlines are not good. President Trump starts driving trucks through the center of the tariffs. And then he starts getting wins from various parties outside that allow him to find an off ramp on some of these tariffs.

45:32Now, a company in Belgium says they're going to build a factory in the United States. He has them to the White House. They have a big ceremony. And then he says, and as a result of this, we're now lowering the tariffs and sort of the same way he did with Colombia when he said not the university, the country, when he said he was going to hit them with tariffs, unless you accept these illegal immigrants and then they did. So that very well might be the offer. I don't think that's what's going on right now. I think what's going on right now is the strategy that Lutnik has repeatedly expressed, which is that they actually kind of like the tariffs.

45:59They actually think that this is good economic policy and that between 1880 and 1910 was an amazing time in American history. And so they agree. I think that that is a bad read on economic history because there are a lot of confounds there that are being ignored among those confounds would be the fact that actually - Yeah, just a revolution. Yes, so a few. Just a few. In the industrial revolution, extraordinary high levels of immigration, by the way, during that period. So you had an incredibly cheap labor base that was actually coming into the United States at that time, massive expansion of the American population, no income tax.

46:34So free capital. A newly discovered continent, right? Like truly like many, many confounds, right? And by the way, less international trade generally. So tariffs aren't going to have the same sort of impact on global supply chains as they would now where every product that you buy has gone through 10 different countries in 10 different ways. So, so I, no, I don't think that that is a comp, but that doesn't mean that that, let me, doesn't think that it's a comp for example. And I think that when it comes to, you know, the rollout, again, a methodical rollout, I totally get the crazy man theory and I think that sometimes President Trump does that.

47:07I'm hoping that that's what he's doing, but a good example of an off -ramp he could have taken if that's the thing he's trying to do. So yesterday in anticipation of this, Israel, which had very, very low tariffs on United States goods anyway, announced they'd removed all tariffs on American goods, right? There were no tariffs on American goods anymore. And the administration that afternoon listed their tariff rate at 33 % and then hit them with the 17 % tariff. for a country that is just a different man and just use them as an example of a great partner. Exactly. Exactly. I think it didn't do the same.

47:37Didn't Canada drop tariffs like the morning of the before? They were on CNBC and they said we're totally willing to go to zero and then the anchor is correctly on CNBC. We're like, well, then why haven't you done that already? To Ben's point, Israel did do that. But I think your theory, Ben, is like absolutely correct. If you make this analogy to what he did with overturning Roe v. Wade, it is the same exacting. He told us over and over again, I'm going to put two, maybe three people on the Supreme Court, I'm going to overturn it. And then afterwards, he kind of wiped his hands through it and was like, listen, it's up to you guys.

48:08I had nothing to do with it. He will tell you what he's going to do. He told you he was going to do these tariffs. He's done them. And I do think there's something embedded in what you said, Ben, which is I think he likes everybody to come to Moralago or to come to the White House. And he loves doing deals. He's addicted to it. He wrote a book, The Art of the Deal. He loves people coming to him. hanging out and Shamaaf maybe you could give us your perspective. Crazy man, very crazy grandpa. Or this is a negotiating tactic everybody has to come through him. Or, let Nick believes it as he said very clearly.

48:42I'm gonna add a trillion dollars in taxes here. What do you think it's going on here? Because if when I went through all the top people on the internet, all our group of friends who are deeply in finance, I can't find anybody deeply in finance who's not in the administration who thinks this is well executed or a good idea. What's your thought? Let me start by saying a couple things. To use the Donald Rumsfeld code, I do agree with Ben tremendously that this was a known known. We mentioned this last episode. Donald Trump has been speaking about tariffs for 40 plus years. So this is not a new thing.

49:18And I think that he tried this in Trump one, but to your guy's point, it didn't really go well because he didn't have the team around him that had his back. And so it was inevitable that he would have tried it and tried to, he said it and he's been able to do it. So if you weren't planning for it, whoever was vested in this outcome, you really needed to be focused on this. It was a known, known. And so there was a little dereliction of duty if you were caught off guard, I think. That's one. The second is, and we've said this all year since January 1 on this pod, we started it even with that polymarket bet that I made, which is the Trump administration does not care about the stock market.

50:06And by the way, this the trade actually closed out, so congrats to all these people that won $650 ,000 on poly. And let me just explain, polymarket, put a betting market, suggested by Chimapai and Humpatia, they are partners of ours, magnificent seven shrinks below 30 % of S &P 500 in 2025. This was free money. This was like the stock market giving out free money. But why did this happen? This happened because it was very clear to me early on that the rhetoric had shifted to say we care about MAGA, we care about people that have working class and middle class jobs. None of those folks are deeply invested in the asset economy the way maybe some of us are.

50:50And so it was directionally clear. And by the way, Scott Besson, what a cold -ass quote yesterday. The equity market sell -off is a mag seven problem, not a mag a problem. So they're again putting all of this into the realm of this is a known known. So I think it's pretty clear. One, Trump has out of 40 year view on tariffs, they're going to go through with this and they're going to see it through. I don't think you're going to see this grand capitulation. Two, they are okay with the volatility in the equity markets. And then three, which is the other thing that we've been talking about a lot is where does this move our practical financing cost?

51:29What is this, right? We've talked about this. We have six trillion dollars we need to finance in the next nine months. So the singular goal, in my opinion, of the White House has been moved the tenure as aggressively and as quickly as possible and look what they've done. As of yesterday, it's unbelievable what's happened in the tenure. You know, you're kissing 4%. And we talked about this. If it had gone in the other direction, guys, 30 or 40 basis points and it touched 5%, you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars of extra money that would not have been found that would have had to be printed, right?

52:06And now this is hundreds of billions of dollars that we will save. So if we cut rates, if the Fed cuts rates, that's all predicated or no, no, no, no, no, this doesn't matter anymore. No, this is this the fed cut doesn't control the back into the curves on the treasury, the treasury markets, the government sells treasuries. Government's will I know that 10 years and the auctions will clear at around 4%. It is an enormous like as an American, what we should all be thinking is irrespective of what you think you know or what you think you like about tariffs, we should all have a moment where we exhale because the long end of the curve is giving us a respite in a storm and we should be incredibly thankful.

52:49Because what I'm referring to, Chimap, is you said yesterday Jerome Powell, you're on the clock. So maybe you could explain what you meant by that. Okay. So this is, that's a different part of the curve. I understand it's a different thing, but I'm just trying to put these two things together because those are the two things. were saying this action took. Okay, so now, okay, so let's play the ball where it lies. Okay. The Wall Street smart money thought this was a $250 billion event. They were wrong. This is part of why the stock market is react, it's so violent today. This is a $750 billion to trillion dollar event.

53:22Okay, this is a big moment in the market. So what does it create? It creates the risk of a recession. How do you minimize that risk? That is all about how easy it is for the average person to be able to borrow money. Where is that dictated? That is more dictated by the Fed and how they priced the front end of the curve. So what we need to have happen now is while Scott is out financing $6 trillion on the back end, we now need to get Jerome Powell to cut the front end. And if you do it aggressively enough, you can introduce liquidity in a moment where small and medium -sized businesses can go and get financed to weather the storm.

54:04Jim, I want to add on to your point just so you guys know, there's roughly 12 to 16 trillion dollars of private corporate debt in America. So this is debt held by small businesses, medium businesses, partnerships that have on average, call it a 15 % operating margin. So they're going to be under pressure if there is some recessionary risk to make sure they have access to capital. And if you remember the interview that Besson gave to us a couple weeks ago, he was very clear that one of his mandates is to enable the re -leveraging of the financial system, meaning he wants to give banks the ability to issue more debt, to introduce more capital and more liquidity into the markets by taking away some of the regulatory restrictions that have made it more difficult for the banks to issue credit to business owners and to individuals.

54:57So if they are successful in their deregulatory efforts, it will introduce more liquidity into the market, coupled with deregulatory work that they're making in the other parts of the administration, as this is their declaration, not mine, their intention is to make sure that that capital flows into building businesses, building new businesses, underwriting new jobs, creating more employment. That's the theory that they're trying to execute. Obviously, it's part of this three -legged stool, but if it doesn't all work, the stool falls over. Okay, Shamaaf, give us an example here, and I'm trying to get you to paint the entire picture here because the tariff, Kajou, is not making sense to all the folks.

55:35Okay, so it's not all good news, right? So let's paint the, so I'll give a very specific example. A friend of ours, runs a hundred plus your company. I'm just gonna say in generic terms so that I don't betray his confidence. But, and this is a business that's been built over 100 years, owned by an American family, an incredible family, and they make products that we all know and love. And what did this action do? So in their example, they're in a very difficult position because they have, as David said, a very tight operating margin because they have to compete ferociously against China. and they've done everything possible to maintain their capabilities in America, higher American workers in the heartland, but still compete against China.

56:23It's tough. And the affection today swings them from profitability to a potential yearly loss, in a meaningful order of magnitude like hundreds of millions of dollars. So Jason, that's the other side of this tear of coin. So we have to find a way of finding those examples and as Ben said, excluding them somehow or giving them reprieve, because that wasn't the intention I think of what Trump was trying to do yesterday. That's an example of a company that should be winning and should continue to win and fight the good fight against China and try to continue to employ thousands of Americans. But this thing because they had some capacity in some other countries, not China by the way, got it.

57:07blows the thing up and so now you have to fix those things. All right, Ben, let me get you involved here. I'm gonna play you a quick clip from Rand Paul and I wanna get your feedback on executive power and then on tariffs themselves. And if it's a good idea or a bad idea, I'll play the clip. What's the rationale for getting behind this? Well, one, we should not live under emergency rule. The Constitution said taxes are raised by Congress. Most specifically, taxes originate in the House and come to the Senate. some against emergency rule. We are richer because of trade with Canada and so is Canada.

57:41Whenever you trade with somebody, when an individual buys somebody else's product, it's mutually beneficial or you wouldn't buy it. If the trade is voluntary, it's always beneficial. There is no Canada versus the U .S. The consumer wins when the price is the lowest price. Terrace raised prices and they're a bad idea for the economy. Van your thoughts on the two issues. It's very good for consumers. This is what, you know, I think is on top of everybody's mind that, yeah. The whole Trump presidency and he won in large part due to inflation and Biden economics and that he was going to reduce inflation.

58:16And I think a lot of people believe inflation is about to come roaring back your thoughts on the two issues. I mean, obviously on a macroeconomic level, I totally agree to the senator, Paul. When it comes to the powers of the presidency, I think that it's pretty extraordinary that that we should be able to use the trade deficit as a national emergency sufficient to put down what effectively amounts to a $700 billion tax increase on the American people. If you're talking about them paying the price of the tariffs on the other end, Congress, you know, I think that if things get bad enough, there are a bunch of, you know, streams obviously here that cross.

58:49One of the big things here is that Congress is up for re -elect in a year and a half. And if the Republicans lose Congress in a year and a half, then whatever tricks President Trump is trying to pull in terms of being able to rejigger the rate at which we are paying back our national debt. All that stuff goes by the wayside because of Democrats when Congress pretty much everything comes to a crashing home. And there are a lot of Republicans who are in swing districts or in, say, R plus five, R plus 10 districts who are suddenly going to feel pretty vulnerable. A recession takes everybody with it.

59:18It takes secretary Besson to take the president to take shady vans, takes everybody with it. Recessions tend to crush the president who is in power at the time regardless of what their long term plan is. So when they say short term pain for long term gain, again, I think that there are a few factors here that I would like to see played out. For example, if there is an inflationary effect to the tariffs in terms of price, does that mean that Jerome Powell is going to eject additional liquidity into the markets by decreasing interest rates? It's hard to see how. I mean, he's holding the interest rate steady right now without decreasing the interest rates despite President Trump basically blasting him publicly since before he was even the the president formally, just the president's elected that time.

59:57So again, it's hard for me to see how all of this squares into what looks like a really well calibrated policy. And then beyond that, in the long term, tricks that we play with regard to the rate of interest paying back our national debt are not going to be sufficient to pay back our national debt unless we have robust economic growth. And so a lot has to be bet on the robust economic growth out, out earning essentially the levels of debt that we are currently racking up. And while I love what Doge is doing, the systemic drivers of our national debt are not actually being touched at this point by Doge.

1:00:28I mean, it's the mean -stested welfare programs that are really the systemic long -term drivers of our national debt. And military, I think, would be number two, yeah. Military? Military is a percentage of the GDP or is a percentage of the budget has been relatively stable, and in some cases decreasing since the end of the Iraq war. True. But when it comes to the mean -stested welfare programs, those continue to grow as a percentage of the budget and over time are increasingly unfunded. Yeah. As our population ages and the population grows, Freiber putting aside executive power in the midterms, which, yeah, that would change everything.

1:01:03What do you thoughts on just inflation and tariffs and the chance that this comes back and explodes in the administration's lap? Well, I think there are three consequences, not necessarily related to inflation that or just were spending time on one of which I don't think gets talked about enough. The first is just the challenge of tariffs in general. And I shared this clip with you guys over the group chat yesterday from Ronald Reagan talking so funny. I haven't screwed up. I actually added it. Let's do that. Let's play this clip and get your reaction. And today many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation passed back in that period called the Smooth Halle tariff greatly deepened the depression and prevented economic recovery.

1:01:45You see, at first when someone says, let's impose tariffs on foreign imports, it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs, and sometimes for a short while it works, but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is, first homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then what all this is going on, something even worse occurs. People stop buying. Then the worst happens. Market shrink and collapse, businesses and industry shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs.

1:02:28The memory of all this occurring back in the 30s made me determined when I came to Washington to spare the American people, the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity. So let me just say three things that I think are gonna be important consequences. is one of which doesn't get talked about much at all. The first is the important point about the decline in competitiveness that arises when you use protection as tactics like import tariffs. So ultimately, in order to be competitive in the market, you need to have a free market to test how good you are relative to your competitors. And if you use tariffs or other taxes or other government intervening systems to distort the natural forces of markets, meaning there's a buyer and a seller, there may be multiple sellers and ultimately the buyer will choose the best seller, then you're creating a disincentive for American enterprise to be more competitive.

1:03:20We lost manufacturing because we weren't competitive in manufacturing. Putting a tariff on other manufacturing countries does not make Americans more competitive. It basically gives American businesses a crutch. Get it ultimately. Yeah. So let's talk about manufacturing. So if I'm using a traditional assembly line with low efficiency systems, I'm going to be more expensive to make a device than a Chinese factory that's built with a lot of automation, high efficiency systems, et cetera. And so if I'm saying, well, to buy the Chinese product, you've got to pay twice as much because there's a tariff now.

1:03:51The American company does not have an incentive to invest in automating or building better technology or adopting new technology to make themselves competitive in the marketplace. So that's the challenge with tariffs long term is that they distort economic consequences that arise in a traditional free market system. The second consequence I think is important is under this guise in the near term, the effect of some of these tariffs is gonna be the loss of revenue for a significant chunk of the American businesses. In particular, I'll use one example. People may not remember this because it wasn't that big of a thing, but between 2016 and 2020 during the last Trump administration, there was a continued kind of tariff and trade escalation between Trump and China.

1:04:33and during that time China stopped buying American Ag exports and China is the biggest buyer of American agricultural products. As a result the Trump administration had to issue two support payment checks to farmers that totaled $28 billion in 2018 and 2019. Just because of that China stepping out of the buying market, American farmers represent a large amount of the voting block for the Republican Party. And so I think that the second consequence is going to be that there is going to need to be financial support Which means increased government spending Concentrate to keep the tariffs in place and the global market stops buying American exports That's the second consequence the third consequence, which is the one I am most worried about which I think about a lot is China had the state council meeting Couple days ago and in that state council meeting they announced a series of measures and a series of steps that they would be willing to take on IP infringement in the case of retaliatory tariff escalation in a trade war.

1:05:39What that means is that China may step up and say, you know what, we are disregarding all of the IP rights held by IP rights holders around the world, and they could steal IP more openly, more brazenly. And because they have a lower cost of manufacturing, they have a larger manufacturing base, a lower cost of power, they could basically take the only thing that much of American enterprise relies on, which is our IP rights, and say, well, people might say, oh, they already do that. They already do that. They do it to an extent. But imagine if China just made copies of Microsoft Word and started selling it around the world for $5.

1:06:12Yeah. I mean, they did that internally for some period of time. Then they started to respect it internally, but they've never done it. Great point. And then, shipping Disney films over centuries. So now imagine if they started taking all of American manufacturing drawings, blueprints, designs, and they have all this manufacturing capacity and they sold everything, a 10 cents on the dollar, to all of the global markets that the US is now cutting trade ties with because of the tariff escalation. And China says, we don't care about your IP rights anymore. We don't care because you've cut us off the rest of the world needs someone that will sell to them.

1:06:42I will also say China, one thing that's not talked about, which I'll add in, seems to have developed three nanometer semiconductor manufacturing technology, which is going to go into production in Q3 of 2025. And we'll end up being in full production in 2026. This will move the base from Taiwan potentially into China. They are developing lithography systems. They're developing advanced semiconductor manufacturing systems. And they will effectively have everything from energy to the minerals to the manufacturing capacity to support and service all and the software now all of technology. And so we are in a really disadvantaged position if China does choose in this moment to disregard the IP rights of American businesses.

1:07:21So that's a big they have the ability to swing back at us, Chimap, you want to wrap us up here? And I'll take the other side of all of this. I'll start with, again, there's no point prognosticating when they're just telling you what they intend to do. Nick, you want to play the clip? I could see in the next few years that we are going to have to have some kind of a grand global economic reordering. There's something on the equivalent of a new Bretton Woods, or if you want to go back, something back to the steel agreements or the treaty Versailles. I mean what is that just the kind of like refresher?

1:08:02What are we talking about? We're talking about commercial relations between at the time 44 countries, right? This is a big statement. I don't think that these kinds of things are said casually that a Manhattan Institute cocktail hour. And I think that people understand if you're kind of like steeped in the history of it, how important these kinds of statements are. So I think I take this similarly to how I take Trump's rhetoric on tariffs. And I'm spending some time trying to now understand how are the scenarios that could play out? Because I think David is right if you assume the status quo, meaning what are the risks.

1:08:43But what they're saying is we're going to question this. We're actually going to go here and just totally rewrite that. If that happens as part of this, all bets are off in my opinion. I don't think any of us know with any certainty what a new economic framework would look like. And if Scott is basically prepping himself to say, hey, put me in coach, I'm ready. I would take that seriously. Ben, what should be, let's talk about ensuring and bringing these jobs, bringing these factories back to America, it seems to me a bit crazy that we're going to make fast fashion and people's Coachella wear and their anchor, you know, USB -C cables here.

1:09:29Pharmaceuticals, sure, we need that for strategic purposes. we obviously need military and chips, but outside of that, is there some rationale here when we have the lowest unemployment of our lifetime and everybody wants to come here to immigrate to this country, to doing these tariffs and trying to create jobs here that we don't necessarily need. We have too much employment right now in the market and not enough bodies to fill all the open job wrecks. What are you about? I mean, I think one of the things that's really fascinating is the the kind of difference in messaging that you hear between the Treasury Secretary, Howard Lutnik, and the Commerce Secretary and the President.

1:10:05I mean, they're all messaging kind of different things. I think Secretary Besson is making the strongest case for what's being done with this sort of long term, what does reordering look like? And even there, I'm still lacking clarity on what a reordered world trade relationship actually, what is the end of the rainbow there? What does that actually look like when all is said and done so that I can kind of grasp exactly what he wants that to look like? I think that, you know, Secretary of the Latinx seems to actually just like tariffs. And President Trump seems to have a picture in his head when it comes to factories that we're going to revitalize the steel mills that we're going to be doing the kinds of jobs that we did back in the 1950s.

1:10:41It's sort of an nostalgia that President Trump has in sort of his own mind about these sorts of jobs that by the way, nobody in modern life actually wants to work at. If you were to work at a Ford factory in 1953 in a non -air conditioned factory riveting for a living, you would actually be quite unhappy. and you should be very happy that actually their machines that do that now. And you hear this kind of talks, I'm sometimes bandied about not just with regard to offshoring, but with regard to technology and machines. And I've talked to, I remember a few years back in 2018, I talked to Tucker Carlson on my program and he literally said that he would outlaw self -driving cars because it would get rid of white trucker jobs, you know, blue collar trucker jobs in Ohio and Michigan.

1:11:19And when I said, well, that sounds kind of bloodied, he said, well, the lot I said at a point. And, you know, then suggested that on the basis of safety, he would ban it. And I remember asking him, but those driving cars will presumably be more safe than human's driving. I mean, that's the thing for, yeah. Yeah. And what he actually said was, well, you know, you asked me on what grounds I would ban it, not whether that was true or not. But, yeah, I think that that is, I think, I think this is the danger that particularly tech runs when we're talking about these sorts of things is to believe that the, the animus for trade relationships around the world, or the anti -competitive nature of many of the activities that are being taken are relegated solely to sort of the foreign sphere.

1:11:59I think that you could easily see that turn on quote unquote job loss that is caused by AI or job loss that is caused by technological gain. And the truth is that if you're talking about job loss in the manufacturing sector in the United States, the vast majority of job loss in the manufacturing sector is not due to offshoreing and student technological advancements. Manufacturing productivity in the United States is actually dramatically risen since the since the 18 years. Okay, so let's play conspiracy theorists for a second because you're right Ben. Like you want that clarity, I want that clarity.

1:12:26Freeberg wants it. J. Cal everybody wants it. But if this moment, if it's a catalyst to your point where everybody is forced into the room and Trump leads a grand bargain across the 50 or 60 most important trading partners in the world, what does that look like? Like it's almost like, okay, we're reestablishing something that's akin to the United Nations and what the United Nations was meant to be post -World War II. But that institution has totally failed. So this new thing exists purely on economic lines and cooperation. I don't know. I struggle actually to your point to kind of imagine what are the outcomes.

1:13:05But there are so many unbelievable outcomes in that scenario if they were able to get the top 50 commercial mercantile countries together in a room and say, let's hammer something up. I totally agree with that. I think one of my questions, however, is the... If you take a look at some of the examples that Scott is using there when he talks about the Bretton Woods agreement, or if you're going to talk about, you know, what Nick said in debasing the dollar, first side. If you're talking, I mean, Versailles at least would be a better example in the sense that you didn't have a global headroom on at the time.

1:13:33If you're talking about the Bretton Woods system, literally the rest of the world effectively did not exist in the post -World War II era. So what is everybody going to bet on? They have to bet on the American dollar. There's no other choice. By the time that Nick's into sides to go off the gold standard, essentially, he has to rely on the organization of the petrodollar in order to make sure that people don't dissociate from the United States. What is the thing that's going to draw people to the United States as opposed to looking to a rising competitor like a China? That's a great question. So what is that thing?

1:13:58What do you think that that's a great question? What is that thing? Yeah, I mean AI is the only possibility, which is why I think the AI regime inside the Trump administration is so deeply important. I also think this is why I'm warning about, you know, the possibility that these sort of anti -free market forces that are related to tariffs, aren't just related to tariffs in some quarters. This is where populism can kind of run out of control and start to actually turn against some of its tech masters in some of these cases. And so one of the things that I'm very concerned about is if I was talking with Danielle Smith, who's the premier of Alberta the other day, and she was talking about the fact that Canada, like she's very conservative.

1:14:31Alberta tends to be a more conservative area of Canada. And she was talking about how if Mark Carney were to become prime minister of Canada instead of Pierre Paulier that he actually is eager for the Terra four because it allows him to reorient toward China and away from the United States. And there are countries that absolutely would love to do that. I mean, there's a case we made that the EU would love an easy off ramp with Russia and China and use this as an excuse as a way of reorienting back toward Russian oil, for example, and then Chinese markets because that Chinese market is lower inputs, right?

1:15:00I mean, you have lower input costs, which makes life better for citizens and citizens like cheap things. They like cheap oil on their cars and they're like cheap cars. They'll be bringing BID cars into Europe. And the thing that I'm worried about is when I look at the, forget about Europe and forget about Canada for a second, the tariffs that kind of shocked me when I looked at that list were all the tariffs on the Southeast Asian countries, right? All of those countries where production has been shifting out of China, two places like, for example, Vietnam or Cambodia, the production has been shifting to those places specifically because companies know that the United States, because the United States is going after China, Well now, why exactly would you manufacture in Vietnam when Vietnam is gonna be with a 46 % tariff rate on the basis that we have a 90?

1:15:44It's more than that, Ben. It's like they've made those investments over the last five or six years. And so you have tens and hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars of sunk costs. Now what do you do in that moment? These are specifically designed, Ben, to be a diversification strategy. Japan was paying their companies to build factories outside of China. And Apple was doing India Vietnam to build AirPods and laptops and even the iPhone being made outside of China That diversification strategy. Jacob did you because did you watch the did you watch the presser yesterday the the worst part?

1:16:18For me I only had one moment where I was like oh gosh. He stopped on Sri Lanka and he goes oh Sri Lanka

1:16:28Amazing Sri Lankan that Sri Lanka very tough on us I was like, sir, I'm accepting. Go ahead, Ben. You can do yours. They can be doing about. Just do a great Trump. And that's the reason why Ben Shapiro's podcast number two to all in now because of the Ben Shapiro Trump impersonation. Ben Shapiro, great American. Have you been to the White House? I have actually. Yeah. I've been invited in this or are you still? I've never. Trump. It was a nasty never Trump or now. He's pro Trump. Exactly. I had the same exact trajectory as JD Vance, except I didn't identify as president of the United States. But you know, the, I think that, you know, that again, well, one, when we talk about the rollout, the fact that for example, the meme online right now, and I know we all kind of live in the moral that the meme is the president and JD Vance lecturing a penguin because on that chart is the heard islands.

1:17:23Have you even apologized I started eating all that back girl. No, wait, what are you guys talking about? There's an island that got a 10 % tariff, but there's nothing on the island except penguins. Yeah, it's amazing. This is where I started. Come on, man. Have you even apologized? There are no cards. There are no cards. This penguin has no cards. You have no cards to play. Okay. You've got a great tuxedo. So at least you show up in a toss, okay? Good stuff. Oh my God. By the way, I think that Ben's framing of this, thank you for that because that was really helpful to me. You're right. Like if we try to reconvene a new Bretton Woods, we have to have an anchor asset.

1:18:14So it's a really great question. What is that anchor asset? It has to be AI. But then, you know, underneath that AI thing, we have these two very complicated problems. One is a meaningful energy problem. I've been talking about this now incessantly. We don't have enough electrons. We just don't. And then the second is what Friedberg mentioned before, which is that we have a very delicate technological supply chain to make the underlying silicon we need for these things. Neither are trivial. These are not things that can be easily solved. Yeah, the AI supply chain is electricity. We're going from one terro up to two.

1:18:48China's going from three to eight over the same time period, just to be clear. So they're accelerating. The second is rare earth materials that we don't mind for, we've outsourced mining. And Doug Bergham told me an interesting stat. He's our secretary of the interior. He said, we only graduate 200 people a year in the United States with degrees in mining. Oh gosh. Because beginning in the 90s, when globalization took off, we basically stopped mining in this country and moved everything to all the places. Because we had this nimbism, We didn't want to have mining in our backyard. The third obviously is the manufacturing of semiconductors, which we don't do, the components to do the manufacturing.

1:19:27So there's a company called ASMR, which everyone that works in tech knows about. They have these advanced lithography systems to make the semiconductors. They don't sell to China. So now China's got their own homegrown lithography systems. The worst thing about it. Yeah, the worst thing. We don't make any of that in -house. So we don't mine. We don't have enough power. We don't have the materials. and we don't make lithography and we don't have any facts. I said this before, but one of the biggest national security threats that we created out of nowhere was when the Wall Street Journal was allowed to do a detailed article on ASML.

1:19:59And one of the craziest and scariest stats is that there is a person, literally one person that can operate these machines that are trained by ASML and then forward deployed. And there is a woman that was profiled. And I thought, this is a national security risk. You should not be outing who this woman is. She's gonna be kidnapped, Breonna Hall. Exactly. Get the end of the day what the US has is the weights. We've got 70 billion parameters and we call that an AI model. That's 70 billion parameters. If someone gets a copy of it, they've got an AI model. So how much of an advantage do we really have?

1:20:35And the other thing that we have is... Well, China's got the whole supply chain and now they're making their own models. And the thing that we had was our trade relationships with all the places that had all of these things that we actually needed, right? This is one of the reasons. It was super high functioning. Yes, it was quite high functioning. And then, and then beyond that, you also have the problem of what happens if there's just less demand for dollars on the world stage. I mean, the exit of the dollar as the world's global reserve currency is going to have some pretty nasty spillover effects.

1:21:02And it's going to require the government to start sucking in more dollars from the American population in order to pay off all of these debts that we're racking up. So I mean, all these things tend like you could see a world where we get away out of this. But this is what I've been saying to J. Cal, de -dollarization is what ends up happening. I mean, I think this is what the stable coins I think is set up to counter. People are now saying, hey, we're going to have there's two stable coin acts that are going around here. One of them doesn't require like know your customer anti -money laundering terrorism stuff, which is, you know, tethers according to many reports, bread and butter.

1:21:34And then the other one is to domesticate all this business, give it to circle, give it to strike, give it to American companies and force them to buy a certain percentage of treasuries and allow them to give interest, which the stablecoin bills are now debating if they should give that. So I don't know if you guys are watching that, but that would be so there's a way to keep a buyer for our currency. There's an analog to this that I think is important. Like, when you look at the debt to GDP of Japan, one of the critical questions is how can you have a functioning economy at 250, 260 % debt to GDP?

1:22:14Right? And we're at sort of like, 112, right? 120, something, whatever. And one of the critical advantages that they have is that they export a lot of incredible goods abroad, but they have an incredibly deep domestic pool of buyers for their own Japanese bonds. And so there is this permanent bid that exists because the net buyer can be a Japanese person on the margins and they're always there. And it's not necessarily a person, it's an insurance company, it's a pension fund, etc. The thing that US dollar stablecoins does is it starts to replicate one of those advantages which again, if you think about having a release fell for the US economy and if we need it to all of a sudden scream to 200 % dead to GDP.

1:23:00The real question is, where is the incremental in that buyer of the US bond? And it could be the person that has to back the stablecoin, which would then say the people in charge of the crypto strategy, we won't name names. No, anybody knows anybody. That legislation needs to be incredibly permissive because to your guys' point, we would want the bid to US treasuries to exist and to be as ferocious as possible. Yeah, but I don't think you should let Tather do it until they do a proper audit and they stop doing money laundering and say, there is them in all the crazies. No, I'm not going all the way there.

1:23:35But what Circle does is I think quite structured and, you know, circles. That's, I mean, I think that's circles USDC, that's their pitch. And I think the Trump family now just launched their own stablecoin this week. So you're gonna see 10 stablecoins. That is a great way to, you know, create competition And I still think it's a really, it's the right question that this administration has a responsibility to articulate. What is it that makes America the linchpin of the global economy, of the Western democracy, of the world is we enter this new era with this rising power in China. And I'm not sure that there's clarity today.

1:24:19I'll tell you what do you think it is. Oh, I'm pretty good at this. Both of you guys, what do you guys think? Yeah, I mean, it's pretty clear what it is. The reason we keep winning and the reason China keeps stumbling is because we have rabid entrepreneurship and an investment, an crazy investment infrastructure. The fact that we will bet on entrepreneurs and allow them to become billionaires or allow them to flame out and start again tomorrow, that entrepreneurial spirit of America is what needs to be preserved. That's what created SpaceX. That's what created Circle. We just talked about Stripe.

1:24:48We need the American exceptionalism and it has to be backed by recruiting A .K .A. immigration of brilliant people like Sachs like Freeberg like Shamar who were not born in this country You can't do it just based on Ben Shapiro and J .K .O. You need to be looking around the world for the smartest people and then plugging them into the entrepreneurial system here That's the magic and that's the golden news of America. David, what do you think? Because that's a very good I mean, I think that's credible I honestly don't know if I can be dismissive of China like J .Kale says they keep stumbling and blah blah blah.

1:25:21I think that's absolutely wrong. There's a very good interview. What are those guys names from the Brookings institution that do that podcast? Then you might know these guys. The three guys might as touch is that who time matter that's a different podcast. It's not. They're not on the top one. They're like, he's better than I don't know. Yeah, it's not on the top. They talked about China and they talked about actually the rise in China where they 30 X GDP per capita and call it 30 years Because they allowed entrepreneurs Good fellows Good fellows sounds right. Yeah, that's a stand for me. That's right.

1:25:54The stand for fellows. Good fellows. Yeah I think that's it. I had a good part of good talk on a good talk. No, no, it's wall door fence statler I think this is wall door fence statler those River instruments are good fellows That's a charming master in the Al Fergason. Nick, find a picture of Waldole from Stuyler for free, Berk DeJogles. They're so great. They're so good. Anyway, they made the point that because China allowed the entrepreneurism of the individuals to let the market run free and they have this throttle. When they let the people run free, they let entrepreneurs and thrive. And then sometimes they pull the throttle back, Jake.

1:26:30And they just did that and they closed the whole thing. Now they've pushed it forward again. And that's what drives the growth and the improvement in productivity and this extraordinary abundance in energy in mining and now in manufacturing. And it's I think going to lead to a great era of prosperity for China. It's pretty clear with or without the conflict with the US. They've dramatically improved the conditions in that country over the last 30 years in a really profound historic way. So I don't I'm not going to be dismissive and say that they're stumbling. Let's give it to Ben and then I'll say when I'm dismissing.

1:27:01I mean, so first of all, I think that China does face some serious, real serious structural problems ranging from demographics to debt. And I also think that, yeah, and I also think that if you take a look at sort of the history of economic fascism, which is what they're attempting to do, which is sort of using capitalist methodologies in order to prop up a very tyrannical government that will step in. And so for a short period of time, that seems like that will work. And then the problem is you can find yourself in a blind alley fairly quickly. And right now, AI is not a blind alley, but we also don't know exactly which way AI is going to develop in the most profitable way.

1:27:35I mean, the amount of money that's been poured into AI has not yet been justified by the amount of net on the return on the actual investment, obviously. And so if you don't, this is the benefit of the American market is that you have everybody chasing everything all the time. And one of those things is going to hit. The benefit of the Chinese market is you have everyone chasing one thing all the time. If that's the thing that actually hits, they'll do amazing, but it's possible that they completely miss it. But the problem is, I think, and this is where you get back to the political in the United States and the necessity of avoiding a recession is that, to me, the scariest thing that is happening inside the Trump administration is not something that's bad.

1:28:11When President Trump was inaugurated, there was one picture that spoke of the, that that kind of summed up the inauguration. I was President Trump there with Tim Cook and with the, and with, um, and with Zuck and with Elon and with all the billionaires behind him, all the tech bros right behind him. If there is a recession, what comes next is not to be salutary to innovation, to investment, to technology, to anything remotely like that. And so the idea of short term pain to better be really, really short term. The American people do not have patience for this. And if it goes sideways, then what you're gonna get is a populist revolt on the left and a populist revolt on the right that is going to take down everybody who is even remotely connected with this idea of free market capitalism.

1:28:51And so I think that one of the dangers in sort of attempting to manipulate the economy this way is that we're saying, okay, we're gonna, We're going to try these kind of methodologies of government control in which you rejigger the world economy in this way and that way. And then we'll magic our way out of it with stablecoin and AI. Maybe, or maybe the best way to do this would actually be to allow the thing to thrive. That is always thrived in America, which is lower the regulations, let people innovate, let people fail, let people succeed, get the hell out of the way. And yes, actually do the things that you need to do in cutting government debt by doing the hard things.

1:29:23And the only way you're going to be able to do all those things is through continued success, not paying to get to some long -term gain. It's got to be entrepreneurship, and there are some subfactors of it. In order to have a vibrant entrepreneurial community, you need to have immigration. That's why I asked Trump on this program, can we get green cards? Can we get people who have degrees here, especially coming out of Stanford to stay in the country? He said, yes, he'd staple them on the degrees. Great. The next thing is getting me a con out and ending the wrath of me a con. We need M &A because when you have M &A, the companies get bigger.

1:29:55The fact that YouTube and Android and AdSense were purchased by Google made it into the massive success it is on a global basis today. And the fact that meta was able to buy things. You may not like it when these companies get too powerful. But what Jack Ma, what happened to Jack Ma is the reason free bird that I don't believe a dictator will ever compete with our country if we stay entrepreneurial and not socialist. Socialism is a cult. The fact is you're saying Ben. and it might work for a short period of time, but then someone like Xi Jinping is gonna do what dictators do, which is in plow.

1:30:30He saw Jack Mogga popular, he sent them to get reeducated and do some painting, and he took up oil painting. He got rid of every educational company and pulled the chart of Chinese investment in there. If you have it. Boom, it just got smashed, and this is what dictators do. They do what Putin did, he invades Ukraine, his economy goes off the rails, and this is what Xi Jinping do. Let me give you a step ladder to get off your soap box. I can ask been a question. Then when you said that kind of recession

1:31:03How come I have a passion or something you guys just give me a hard time You will go on your passionate brand. I get you doing eight ball. What do you do? You just shake it and some stupid some stupid state It's like It's like, oh, Ben agreed with me. Ben agrees. American access. Which was a man and a Ben and I. That's it. I'm leaving. I'm going to use the program. Ben and I are getting all the money ran against dictators for a minute. I'm like, go ahead. No, so Ben, you should just go rant about the Trump administration and get your cabinet position. Go ahead. Ben, when you talk about inter recession, they go after tech companies.

1:31:38Can you just explain that more? Just explain that. I'm not sure I understood that totally. Okay. So there's a recession. and President Trump, just the way that people tend to think of politics is not on a granular level. They tend to see it on sort of a pixelated level because most people don't engage with politics on a granular level. They see a serrat painting, they don't see all the dots, they just see Sunday in the park with George, right? And so when it comes to our recession, the image that's going to come to mind for the Trump administration is that this is an administration that is extremely friendly to business, particularly when it comes to tech.

1:32:06And so whoever is standing next to President Trump, if there's a serious recession, and gets nuked, gets caught in the fallout. And if that happens, then you will see a resurgent left led by a Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, not a sort of technocratic Obama -esque, you know, as reclying abundance, liberalism, you're going to get a resurgent, Bernie's, Bernie's on the left that basically says, these rich people screwed you in order to get ahead. You can feel it because you're feeling the recession. They're still rich, you're still poor. And so what you really need is a complete rejegging of the American economy along the lines of fairness.

1:32:39And you're gonna see something similar happen on the right, by the way. So my friend, Matt Kahnetti, who is the former editor of the Washington Free Beacon, I believe. He has a great point about presidential elections. He makes the point that candidates don't become president unless they run against the wrong party. That it is in order to actually capture the imagination of the American people. You almost always have to run inside your own party against your own party. So you saw this most obviously with President Trump, but this was clearly true with Barack Obama. It was true to a certain extent with George W.

1:33:10Bush even who ran a compassionate conservative campaign against the sort of hard, hard, hard, and gingrich doll Republicans. Clinton for sure did this. So I think it's a great point because then you have to start thinking, okay, look at the, we're turning to the right side of the aisle now. Let's say that you have a politician on the right side of the aisle. What does he run against in the Trump, because Trump has obviously taken command, tremendous command of the Republican base and the Republican party. What is there to run against? Well, there's an economic downturn. Do you think that they're going to run against Trump being not capitalist enough?

1:33:36Or do they think they're going to run against Trump being too capitalist, too friendly, right? Exactly. And that's how you get a populist uprising on the right. And what you end up with is a horseshoe theory politics where both parties aren't favor of leaning on. So it's so awesome. Right, but both parties aren't favor of leaning on. And by the way, this is not a rarity. I mean, I think that I think that the vice president is an amazingly brilliant guy. He is also expressed kind of public support for lean a con from time to time. Right. And that's inside the Republican party. And on the left, obviously, there's tremendous support for Lena Khan.

1:34:03So if what we're saying here is one of the things we need is not Lena Khan. We should be very careful not to step on the rake and then the thing that hits you in the face is Lena Khan. Right. Yeah. Right. That's what my contrary and that for this year was this rise in socialist policy and the response to some of the actions the administration might take. But I mean, how do we avoid making the bottom half of society feel included in all this wealth generation and so on. And so, I think that's the question, etc. Like, what is the plan here? Is it universal healthcare? Is it lowering their taxes?

1:34:35I mean, the administration says no taxes for people under 150K. We have to give something to the working man and woman of this country, the people who feel that they can't get rich, who can't get to the middle class. Does anybody here have a suggestion for that? I mean, I do, I actually do have a suggestion. And it's actually shockingly easy. President Trump has a visceral connection to blue collar workers in this country. Yes. Clearly, as a visceral connection, he should stop preaching the blue collar workers are getting screwed and start preaching that they're succeeding because it's actually true.

1:35:05Tell the truth. Yes, I mean, I think that the fib, the politicians always make bank on is the idea that, for example, the middle class in America is completely dissolved. That is not statistically true. The middle class has turned into the upper middle class. And actually, all Americans, I say this time I show all the time, people have this, again, this sort of rosy -eyed view of the 1950s, which again was a historical outlier because the rest of the world didn't exist, had been destroyed. But they also have this bizarre idea that you were better off to be 30 years old than 1980 than you are to be 30 years old in 2025.

1:35:35And all I can say is in 1980, the only dude with a cellphone was Gordon Gekko and who's a shoebox and who was holding it to his head. Okay. The reality is that everything in your life is better in 2025 on a material economic level than it was in 1980. And the lie that politicians tell in order to gain power is they say, you're getting screwed, somebody is screwing you. I can unscrew the screwing. And so there's this constant sort of race to the bottom in terms of this rhetoric. And what you end up with is in the end, what can I promise you that I can then blame somebody else for not having fulfilled the promise?

1:36:07President Trump, I think, could avoid that because of this unique connection that he has with blue -collar people, where he could say, listen, we're all on the same side here. Right? What we're doing here is innovation. I thought the most important line that I heard from President Trump during his victories speech the night that he won was he, when he said to Elon and it was kind of a throwaway line. When he said, we love our geniuses. Right, so we love our geniuses and I thought, yes, that's the thing we need. Celebrate our geniuses. Celebrate success. Celebrate our geniuses. And this could be you.

1:36:32And we're going to have hiring programs. Mark Andreessen has talked about. We need to have hiring programs that are specifically designed to find the best people, not just abroad, but also in the United States, who might be underserved in rural areas of the country or in blue collar areas of the country. Find the next JD Vans. Find the next guy who really needs that hand up. But like all those things can be done, a rising tide will lift all ships. But this is the problem with the short term pain plan. Americans have a long memory. And when it comes to politics, I think this happened with the Biden administration.

1:37:03People, their relationship with politicians is sort of like a married couple. And good married couples, they kind of talk through the minor problems that they're having in their marriage and then things continue to maintain and grow and get better. Bad married couples, what happens is that they sort of ignore the kind of minor annoyances for years at a time. And then something bad happens and the bottom just goes right out. And this is the thing that I'm afraid of for the Trump administration. Everybody's willing to ignore the things that are kind of mildly annoying like penguins at the White House or whatever.

1:37:29Up until the point where there's a serious recession at that point, everybody kind of looks around and goes, why are we even doing this? I think that's exactly what happened with Biden, with the Afghanistan, with Thrall, for example. Making a misstep is the, is the, is why I'm being critical of the terrorists. It's not because I want Trump to lose, it's because I want Trump to win, right? I think he's doing too many important things like the stuff in Antonio's doing. There are too many important things happening to take, to roll the dice on a strategy that isn't even being articulated. If you're going to make the case for a long term gain, I need to know what the long term gain is.

1:37:59So I can make the case to the American public as to why they should endure the short term pain. You know you're having surgery because after the surgery you're going to feel better. But if I say you're having surgery, it's going to be some short term pain. You say, okay, how am I going to feel after the surgery? You say, well, now, maybe, maybe who knows? I'm having the surgery. We have so many job openings. We have the lowest unemployment of our lifetime. As you said, consumers today can get and live an incredible lifestyle that the rich didn't have in 19. The car you can buy today can drive itself for 20, 30, 40, K you can buy used Tesla and have this car that's better than any car made in the last 50 years.

1:38:34So you get a and then think about generation tool belt. You've got all these plumbing jobs, electrician jobs, construction jobs that pay massively hourly wages that are available for people today. We have too many job openings today and you never hear Trump say that to you. That's always this life. Everything's a disaster and I'll save you when in fact you don't need saving. Go ahead, Freiber. I'll answer to Mox earlier question about what America can anchor to to attract the rest of the world. And I think it's what's been the American story from the beginning, which is ambition. We pioneered the West, we launched the Industrial Revolution, we went to space, we landed on the moon, we had the Manhattan Project, we unleashed the information technology revolution with the development of the transistor.

1:39:26After the ambition is what's been kind of consumed by China in the last 20 years, they've built 30 ,000 miles of high -speed rail. In the next 15 years, they're going to add more electricity, production, capacity than the United States times two has today. There's nothing short of ambition coming out of China, and it's what we're lacking. all of our political gambits, all of our debates, are all centered around what we're trying to fix that went wrong in the past, what we did wrong, and what we got to do to make it right. And we don't talk at all about the ambition of where we can lead the world to next.

1:40:06China's the only one that's doing that. And I think that's where we need to kind of have a bit of an important pivot on the global stage if we want to be able to kind of attract partners and also to have Americans think outside of this week. Where are we headed? And I just I don't know. I mean, I don't know if you guys agree, but I just feel like that's one of the key things that we've kind of lost track of Nirk put out a study just like if this is very tactical, but It's part and parcel of what you and Jason are talking about you guys know that About 25 % of all of our utility workers in America became eligible for retirement Between 2017 and 2022 I did not know so most of the people 56 % of all utility workers now have less than a decade of experience.

1:40:49You know what that's resulted in? In 2021, the average US customer of an electric utility experience seven and a half hours of service interruptions, and it's just growing. I think the average plumbers issue is nerf 50 something. We can't get people to become plumbers. NERK says that 19 states now in the United States can face rolling blackouts during normal peak conditions if these issues aren't addressed. And by the way, this is, that's a human capital problem. But if you multiply that by 10 and 20 and 30 times, there was a different tweet. I don't know, Nick, if you could find it. That talked about an organization trying to find people to help build nuclear submarines.

1:41:27Did you guys see this quote? Where they needed 100 ,000 people to build nuclear subs in the United States. And they could barely find like a few hundred. Yeah, we need to get better at this stuff. I mean, the good news is, we're going to have robots about to spend, you know, if I've run for president on one of the few people here on the pod who can, my position's gonna be build three new cities with five million homes in each because, you know, starter homes, families camp by starter homes, you ever consider running for office, and if you did, what would be your platform? I mean, it would be pretty horrifying to run for office.

1:42:02It seems like a terrible job, and I think the average run for presidents is now in your 70s, so I have like three decades to consider it, but, you know, if I were gonna run, I would be running on the basic idea that in this country, the only thing that you are promised is the adventure. And I'm not going to make you promises that I'm not going to lie to you. I'm not going to make you promises that I can't keep about how I'm going to fix your life because the truth is I really can't. All I can do is help get the obstacles out of the way so you can fix your life and you can make your life better.

1:42:32And I can help break the institutions that have a stranglehold on your future. And there when you're talking about electricians and plumbers, the truth is that we have set up an enormous con game that is our higher education system, particularly in the liberal arts subsidized by the taxpayer. When most jobs that we're talking about right here do not require a college to agree. And there's so many things that the Trump administration should be doing and is doing that again, that are great, that they could break the stranglehold on some of these things that allow for more opportunity. But I think the thing that people really, you know, the thing that I would say that I really think that maybe no other politician would say and I can say some not a politician is your future is in America.

1:43:08America, your future is in your hands. It is not in somebody else's hands. It is your responsibility. It is your responsibility to go out and strive. It is your responsibility to go and succeed. We want you to be able to try again if you fail, but we want you to go and we want you to try and the individualism. And also, the kind of case that was being made a little bit earlier about China, that basically China is saying that it can do things. One of the things that drives me up a wall is when politicians say, I think that's created X jobs or we created X jobs. You didn't create a job. Okay, the government does not create jobs.

1:43:44The government can take money from people and then give it to other people, but it is only entrepreneurs who can create jobs. And so the way that you fight China off is not by the power of a centralized government directing people in a particular direction. The way that you fight off China is by unleashing the collective knowledge, wisdom, and ambition of the American people on an individual level to go out and do all of these unbelievable things. And that would be the promise that I'd make to the American people. I'll get everybody to know how out of your ways you can succeed. That would be the only thing I would promise.

1:44:11Guys, we got breaking news here. It turns out that more reciprocal tariffs have dropped. Look at this. Complaining about the docket, Jay Cal has put a 500 % reciprocal tariff on that. Purchasing dogs from our breeders, now 100 % tariff, freedberg. That's pretty stiff. And Chimath has put one on Laura Piana's slippers. Yeah, too many people have them, 200 % tariff. And, oh, looks like Ben Shapiro Gunn and on it, having Candace Owens on your podcast is now 200%. Ben, what are you doing here? I'm not saying, guys, unkind. It was the popular lucky one. Can you read that one, Dicac? It's put a thousand.

1:44:51This is the biggest one that's just drawn. Thousand percent terrible. I'm working with J .K. Four. Chimoff Polyhapatilla. Oh, you're chairman Dic -Titor. Wait, I have to, do you want to hear about this? Oh, would you like to do a little memory light? We've got so much show here. I'm trying to get this out. but okay, by the way, I created a polymarket on GDP, annualized GDP growth in Q3 of this year of being below 5%, negative 5%. Negative 5%. Yeah, that's brutal. Check it out. If you try to market, what's the probability of that happening? Make your bets. Oh, make your bets with our partner, polymarket.

1:45:27Chimathi, do you want to do victory lap? We're going to wrap here. What do you want to do? Well, I actually think it's fun because we're going to kick off a different polymarket around this because I think it's interesting. So the thing that we haven't talked about is with all of the tariffs, with all of the financing questions, with all of the recession questions, short -term rates, long -term rates, the one thing that we haven't sufficiently talked about. It's not really in the press, but it needs to be talked about is there is a tremendous amount of corporate debt that supports these businesses today.

1:45:59And you would say, well, if long -term rates go down, there's no real risk. But the tariff picture actually impacts revenues, right? And the problem with that is that there's a lot of companies that have debt covenants tied to revenue and EBITDA. And so this is what I spoke about at the beginning of January, which is the one risk that is uncontrollable is what happens to corporate debt. And could we see a wave of defaults and a wave of action? Nick, you may wanna just play the clip and we can talk about what we can do about this. This was my pick for the best investment idea. Go ahead. Here we go.

1:46:43For what do you got you, Ma? So tell me, Preface is by saying that this is a pick that 92 times out of 100 it goes to absolute zero and six out of the remaining eight times you make 10 extra money and then the final two times you make anywhere between a hundred to a thousand extra money. This is a loser trade but I would be long CDS. So what am I buying? I am buying insurance. I'm buying insurance using credit default swaps. I'm buying what's called protection that there is no default event in 2025. I would like a little bit of an insurance policy in 2025 so that the men and the women that we have voted in have the chance to do their work in peace.

1:47:32I think that there is a small chance of some volatility next year. I hope it doesn't happen. I hope that this trade loses money. But if it hits, it will be the best performing asset of 2025. And I just want to be clear, this is not something I think will happen. It's not something I want to happen, but I do think that if you look back in terms of just the tonnage of dollars You can make and the massive risk a symmetry that it presents to you when you look at the concentration of the S &P When you look at just the total gross amount of debt that we have when you look at rates biking all of these things say having a little insurance May not be a bad thing.

1:48:07It has hit Nick you can show the CDS graph So this thing for every billion dollars of risk you would have put on every billion dollars that you put on would have cost you about a million dollars and that million dollars would have made you about seven million dollars in about three months. Did you put it on? I'm not going to comment on my my trades Jason. Oh, okay, we talked about it off air. But if you did put it on, does that mean you're taking us all to Italy this summer? No. What's happening here? Are you getting a boat for us to record from the whole in yacht? No, but there may be some boats for sale if this trade keeps going this way.

1:48:44Oh, why is this important? The CDS actually represents the structural risk in the United States private economy, in the corporate economy. And so Nick, if you just put it back on, so when you see these spreads blowing out, this is actually a very important warning sign. And this is actually a thing that I think Scott understands well, Howard understands well, I think they'll translate this to the president. If I have an opportunity to explain it, I will. But this is a really important market to pay attention to. This is what was the canary in the coal mine for the great financial crisis. This was the stuff that showed us that there was a big default event happening in the mortgage side of the market, but then that spilled over to the broader economy.

1:49:29And so the tariff picture and the recession picture will get played out in this chart, and I think it's something that folks can and should probably pay tremendous attention to because I think now that this trade is in the money, the question is, I don't think we want this to happen, that one sigma, two sigma event where all of a sudden this trade returns a thousand X is really bad. Well, you know, let's keep our eye on the markets and as of the taping here, we're down about 5 % across the boards and Ben you're excellent. You should come back. Yeah, well done Ben. You fit right in. We're in Florida.

1:50:06Are you we're doing an event in Miami at the end of the Five? Okay, yeah, you should be yeah, that'd be fun. Let's do it. You want to come to Miami and hang out We've got like this nightclub. We're doing a stage. We got the track side for me. I want to be a man's got a Ben's got a table out of 11. It's got his name. Ben's got a table out of 11. We're going to live. We're going to live. We're going to live. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. I don't know. I don't know which trip club is sponsoring. We're on this trip, but we'll figure it out. That was awesome, Ben. Thanks for doing that. Thanks, guys. As blessed with Jake.

1:50:34I'll take us out. Take us out. And this is my favorite with Ben. Ben's like, and you know, there are security issues in Ukraine and you have security issues as well. That's why you should use life. I have never, I don't know, I was good. Ben Shapiro is like, and of course we have the tariffs and that's going down, but you know what, won't go down if you buy gold, buy your gold bullion, that gold bullion .org. You are fucking great at this. Is it true 100 million in revenue for daily wires? That true, not figures. Yeah, well, actually last year was 220. Oh my god, 220. What's going on? I saw some headline, you're going bankrupt.

1:51:13We're not going bankrupt. We're not going bankrupt. So, re -fructuring actually been. Now that you saw what's happening with newsbacks, I mean, any thoughts to maybe... Hmm. ...bracing capital. Yeah, I mean, it has, let's just put it, it has crossed our minds. Yes, for sure. You're making 50 times the revenue of Truth Social. Congratulations. But actually, then, what do you think when you see this newsbacks thing trade like this? I mean, it's incredible. Yeah. What is it saying, do you think? I mean, I think it's saying a couple of things. I mean, one is saying obviously look, I think the PE ratio is on the Newsmax trade or ridiculous.

1:51:47In the sense that it's going to revert back to something closer to normalcy. I think that it was supposed to trade at 10 bucks and it came out of 14. It spoke to like 240. So it was more like game stop than anything else. There's a lot of retail traders who are fans of Newsmax who bought the stock and then it leapt and I think it was today back down in the 40s, something like that. It'll end up being, you know, total market cap will probably be somewhere when it lands and like the two to three bill range, somewhere three to four bill, something like that. I think what it says is that, you know, the stock market in the short term is a voting machine and then the long term is a weighing machine.

1:52:21And I think that, you know, when you look at stocks that have name brand recognition, then you're gonna get a lot of voting in the early going. And then it's a question of why they can keep that up, so it turns into weighing. Right. 39 million in quarterly revenue, so they're at $150, $160 million a year. and their evaluation right now, I don't have the market cap here, but what did it peak out at? Real four billion or something? Oh no, and it went and peaked it peaked above 20 bill. Yeah, market cap. Yeah, what's the $170 or $200? $240. $240. Yeah, or two days ago. It's just, you know, it's something weird going on there.

1:52:58Okay. All right, while the all -in and daily wire merger and IPO coming soon, the ticker symbol is all Dally in wire all in Dally in wire the merger is complete and we'll see you all next time

1:53:39Besties are gone, go through it. That's my dog, take it away, she's your driveway. Sit next. Wait, I don't think it is. Oh man, I might have to dash or we meet the athletes. We should all just get a room and just have one big hug, because they're all just like this sexual tension that we just need to release that house. What, you're the big, what, you're the purest. Big, what? We need to get my besties out of that. I'm going, darling.

1:54:11I'm doing all it.