Three Crises Are About to Collide Into One Giant Crash
A long live episode of The Tom Bilyeu Show, taped the morning the United States launched its biggest strikes on Iran since the ceasefire began, arguing that three crises are lining up to hit at once. Bilyeu walks through the energy and geopolitics shock keeping oil high, a debt and currency crisis where Japan raising rates threatens to unwind the yen carry trade that has flooded the world with cheap money, and a possible AI bubble whose revenue is arriving too slowly for its debt. He frames all three as a potential rogue wave using the real version of the boy who cried wolf, then covers the Graham Platner allegations, the Mitch McConnell disappearing act, and the opening of the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing, where he and his cohosts find their algorithms feeding them opposite realities.
Published Jul 8, 20261:40:08 video36 min readAdded Jul 11, 2026Open on YouTube →
At a glance
This is a long live episode of The Tom Bilyeu Show, taped the morning the United States launched its biggest strikes on Iran since the ceasefire began, and Bilyeu uses the chaos to argue that three separate crises are lining up to hit at once. The first is energy and geopolitics, an Iran conflict he calls a forever war that keeps oil elevated and inflation sticky. The second is debt and currency, where Japan is finally being forced to raise rates, threatening to unwind the yen carry trade that has flooded the world with cheap money for decades. The third is a possible AI bubble whose revenue, he says, is arriving far slower than its debt requires. His organizing image is a rogue wave, three shocks that are each survivable alone but devastating if they converge, and his organizing lesson is the real, non Disney version of the boy who cried wolf. Along the way he and cohosts Drew and Ryan work through the Graham Platner allegations, the Mitch McConnell disappearing act, and the opening days of the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing, where the two hosts discover their own algorithms are feeding them opposite realities.
Figure 1. Bilyeu's thesis for the whole episode. Three distinct shocks, energy through Iran, debt and currency through Japan, and a possibly overbuilt AI market, are each manageable in isolation. His fear is that they arrive together and reinforce one another into a contagion, what he calls a rogue wave.
Crisis one: the ceasefire is over
Bilyeu opens on breaking news. The United States has launched its biggest series of strikes on Iran since the ceasefire began, and the markets are freaking out. Oil is up and gold is down, which he notes is not the direction you would expect in a moment of geopolitical fear. He explains the counterintuitive part: investors are now assuming inflation will keep climbing, which means interest rates stay high, which lifts the risk free rate of return, which makes holding gold, an asset that pays nothing, the wrong play. So money flees gold even as war fear spikes.
The peace, in his reading, was always going to be litigated through violence. Both sides said what they needed to say to buy time, Trump to calm the markets and Iran to get cash flowing again, and the memorandum of understanding was so vague that within days each side was telling the press the opposite of what the document said. The specific spark this time, he says, is that Iran attacked three ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz while they hugged the coast of Oman, routes Iran claimed it had not authorized. That triggered Trump to hit back hard, and to call Iran scum on camera.
Bilyeu plays the clip. Trump says the ceasefire is over, that he does not want to deal with Iran anymore because they are scum led by sick people, that if they had a nuclear weapon they would use it, and that as far as he is concerned dealing with them is a waste of time. Crucially Trump still leaves the door cracked, saying his negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner will keep talking if Iran comes back to him. Bilyeu reads that as the tell: if Trump truly wanted the talks dead he would end them, so keeping the negotiators in play means he wants that card in his back pocket. His advice to viewers is to watch interest rates rather than words, because the whole conflict is being throttled by how much stock market pain Trump can tolerate.
He lays out Iran's strategy as pure delay, telling you everything you want to hear to kick the can down the road, a tactic he says he understands from business, where buying yourself a day or a week can be smart as long as you never actually lie and torch your reputation. He expects this to punctuate itself over and over, peace to calm the markets or rebuild the war chest, then violence again, because the two sides agree on nothing: no nuclear weapons, the fate of Lebanon, the open strait, and the roughly 300 billion dollars Iran expects that Bilyeu says he will just call reparations.
The market reaction is precise. Brent jumped more than 6 percent to nearly 79 dollars a barrel, the biggest one day move since early June, though still far below the triple digits seen at the peak. Dow futures dropped more than 400 points, energy stocks rallied pre market, and chip stocks kept selling off, so all the peace gains unwound at once. There are rumors of a US naval blockade going up as early as that day, and if it holds for a week he expects Brent to push back toward the 80s and 90s, which would hold the Federal Reserve to high rates for longer and kill any hope of near term cuts.
On the details, he says CENTCOM hit Iranian air defenses, radar, and more than 60 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fast boats, and claimed to have killed more IRGC leadership, though he warns that is a never ending basket of people and you cannot kill your way to a better regime. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent brought the US Treasury into the fight by revoking the oil sanctions waiver that had been refilling Iran's coffers, with buyers given until July 17th to wind down. Since oil is roughly half of Iran's revenue, Bilyeu finds it maddening that the waiver was ever granted, because the moment Iran gets money flowing it leverages that strength to negotiate harder. Iran fired back the same morning, sending missiles and drones at US bases in Bahrain and Kuwait, which Kuwait said it intercepted with no damage, and warned US allies, specifically the UAE, that there would be no more restraint on attacks against their infrastructure.
Spark Iran attacks three ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz while they hug the coast of Oman, calling the routes unauthorized.
Retaliation Trump orders the biggest US strike since the ceasefire, calls Iran scum, and says the talks are over while keeping his negotiators in play.
Targets CENTCOM reports hitting Iranian air defenses, radar, and 60 plus IRGC fast boats, and claims more IRGC leaders killed.
Treasury Scott Bessent revokes the oil sanctions waiver that had refilled Iran's coffers, giving buyers until July 17th to wind down.
Counterstrike Iran fires missiles and drones at US bases in Bahrain and Kuwait, intercepted with no damage, and warns the UAE that restraint is over.
Markets Brent up over 6 percent to nearly 79 dollars, Dow futures down 400 plus, chips selling off, and rumors of a US naval blockade.
Figure 2. The escalation sequence Bilyeu walks through, from the ships in the strait to the market reaction. His point is that none of it resolves anything, so the pattern of strike, pause, strike is likely to repeat for years.
He and Drew agree this is a forever war, at least two more years by Drew's estimate, minimum in Bilyeu's. He does not expect ground troops, though he notes a commentator he calls Professor Jung is convinced Trump will eventually have to put boots on the ground, and Bilyeu will not put it past a president with a long record of bad decisions. What he does expect is the endless back and forth, calm words that soothe the markets for a while, then more bombing, with energy prices holding surprisingly firm across the strait, the Russia and Ukraine war, and now talk of the Red Sea. He notes that necessity is the mother of invention, with the UAE and Saudi Arabia building pipelines to bypass the strait, and says Saudi Arabia can already route something like 60 to 70 percent of its oil around the chokepoint, though a truly robust workaround would take years to build and would itself be vulnerable to Iranian drone strikes.
The boy who cried wolf, told properly
The through line of the whole episode is a fable, and Bilyeu insists on the original rather than the sanitized version. In the real story, he says, the boy goes to the edge of the forest and actually sees wolves. He is not lying. He runs back, everyone checks, and the wolves have receded, so the village decides he is a liar. It happens again. Then finally the wolves come, nobody believes him, the boy gets eaten, and anyone who goes in after the wolves gets eaten too. The moral is not simply that lying is bad. It is that crying wolf destroys your credibility even when the wolves are genuinely there, hiding, waiting.
He applies this to everything. On the economy he cites people like Peter Schiff, who he jokes has called nine of the last two recessions, so the crowd tunes out. On inflation he says the wolves have already been eating people for years while the official line stayed reassuring. On Japan he says the carry trade unwind has been predicted so long that people stopped believing it, and then COVID era inflation finally reached Japan and forced the issue. And on Iran he says the danger is real even though the alarms have been false so often that running on Iran as an imminent threat in 2028 would be political suicide. The United States, he adds, is the big Satan and Israel the little Satan in Iran's framing, and the open question is what happens when Iran fields ballistic missiles that can reach Europe or the US. His conclusion is uncomfortable on purpose: the current approach is not working, the danger has not gone away, and the way you get sucked into disaster is by dragging things out until everyone lets their guard down to avoid looking like fools.
Crisis three, previewed: is the AI story broken
Drew asks directly whether the AI story is broken, saying he is on team broken. Bilyeu's answer is a study in intellectual humility. He says the historical pattern is so obvious to him that he fears his own confidence, because that is exactly when a black swan blindsides you, and it is why he refuses to tell viewers where he actually invests. The pattern he trusts is the classic one for any genuinely transformative technology: it gets flooded with investment, gets out over its skis, wipes out the early investors, and then an inheritance generation comes along, buys up the infrastructure that bankrupted everyone, and over the next 10 to 20 years builds the real surviving companies.
He says the early data now fits that pattern. Revenue flowing into the AI industry is arriving far slower than the debt taken on would require, corporations are starting to back out and get paranoid, and he points to the Alex Karp rant about whether AI vendors are quietly absorbing their customers' business models through the very data those customers hand over. That paranoia, he argues, is pushing companies toward cheaper open source Chinese models like DeepSeek, which is great for consumers but brutal for an industry that needs big revenue now. As a consumer he is thrilled to let the first generation of investors get wiped so the world gets the 20 year build to a world changing technology. But he will not short the market, because he does not trust his read enough for that, and he frames the wise posture as a bet against the AI timeline stated in words, not in trades, an intellectual humility rather than a conviction that AI will imminently eat everything.
Drew ties the threads together: a debt time bomb, the international crutches the US has leaned on, Japan for finance and Israel now pulling it in another direction, Russia's energy reserves being bombed and possibly reshuffling the whole oil map. Bilyeu agrees there is real potential for a contagion effect, and returns to COVID, noting that what is now unfolding in Japan is itself a delayed COVID aftershock, the wolves finally reaching the first people at the edge of the forest years later.
Russia, Ukraine, and the nine year clock
Bilyeu says he was too nonchalant about Russia and now thinks that was a mistake, up to and including the risk that Putin gets backed into a corner and lashes out. He credits Zelensky for pulling his punches, refusing to be provocative even while Russia bombs Ukraine nightly, and reads Zelensky as sincere in wanting to negotiate, redraw borders sensibly, and end the aggression, while pushing hard to get into NATO. He cites Russia losing roughly 30,000 troops a month and notes the whole board is still live: Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Hamas, plus an Israeli resettlement colony the hosts flag for a future segment.
Then he states his headline economic claim. By his estimate the US started a ten year ticking clock nine years ago, visible in the M2 money supply, and if nothing changes there will be a gigantic crisis inside that window, an everybody gets poor situation that has happened before in history and is nothing like the revolution some Marxists romanticize. It is, he says flatly, not fun to live through, least of all for the people with the fewest resources.
Graham Platner and the physics of power
On Graham Platner, the candidate Democrats are abandoning after fresh allegations, Bilyeu makes a general argument about politics rather than a partisan one. Politics, he says, is the ugliest game in the universe, and politicians steer by power, never by morals. Once you accept that all they want is to gain and retain power, their behavior becomes perfectly predictable. He points out that Trump faced very credible allegations, including rape and sexual assault, and still became president, and that Democrats got behind Platner despite a Nazi tattoo and credible allegations of sexual impropriety, exactly the way Republicans got behind Trump. Drew's point, which Bilyeu endorses, is that anyone morally outraged about Platner should be equally outraged about Trump.
He says the country long ago abandoned morality tests, recalling when Bill Clinton had to insist he did not inhale, versus a later candidate caught on a hot mic and elected anyway. He notes Elizabeth Warren reportedly called Platner her kind of man. His real explanation for why Platner is being cut loose now is not that a new credible claim finally landed, but that the accumulated claims pushed him underwater in the polls, and parties abandon anyone they no longer believe can win. He calls it grotesque, ties it to a broader populism problem he has covered before, and says morality only ever enters politics as a cudgel to be swung when it is an effective route to power.
Crisis two: how Japan holds the fate of the American economy
This is the longest and most technical segment, and Bilyeu treats it as the sleeper threat. He pictures Japan as a slow motion shot of Godzilla breaking the surface of the water, something clearly large charging toward shore. The trigger is that a Bank of Japan board member, Naoki Tamura, told the markets to brace for impact, urging the Bank of Japan to keep hiking rates toward 2 percent, double where they sit today, and to accelerate the pace, in Tamura's phrase, without hesitation, if inflation keeps intensifying, which the Iran shock makes more likely.
To explain why that matters he rebuilds the yen carry trade from scratch. About 30 years ago Japan made a Faustian bargain, holding rates artificially low to stimulate its economy, at one point leaving a four to five point gap between what you could borrow money for at the Bank of Japan and what the Fed was setting in the US. That is an enormous arbitrage, so large that, as he jokes, Jay-Z rapped about the yen he handles. The trade is simple: borrow cheaply in yen at one or two percent, then put that money to work anywhere you can earn more, roughly seven percent in US markets for a sensible portfolio and up to 13 percent if you go further out on the risk curve. That five to six point spread, run at scale, created a flood of liquidity, and the US has been the primary beneficiary, carried through a period of stagnation where the Magnificent Seven were largely propped up by cheap Bank of Japan money.
Figure 3. The carry trade in one picture, using Bilyeu's own numbers. You borrow yen near 1 percent and earn roughly 7 to 13 percent elsewhere, and that spread, run at global scale, has pumped cheap liquidity into US markets for years. As the Bank of Japan lifts its rate toward 2 percent, the spread narrows and the fuel starts to drain.
The danger, he explains, is what happens as Japan jacks rates up. Even at two percent there is still a spread, but the window narrows, more investors get paranoid, and the easy money starts getting sucked out of global liquidity. That would be brutal for anyone still riding the carry trade and for anyone counting on AI to keep getting funded to high heaven, which between them is a lot of people. It also hits Japan's ability to hold US debt. Japan is still the single largest holder of US Treasuries, and it is selling now to defend the yen, which is falling like a rock against a dollar that is paradoxically strengthening as inflation rises. A stronger dollar is good if you hold dollars but bad if you have to refinance debt, which is exactly what the US must do, and bad for stimulating the economy, and Trump wants a weaker dollar, so the whole thing runs against him.
He layers on the reserve shift. Foreign central banks now hold US debt at what he calls regional psychotic lows, and for the first time in a long time, he believes in 2025, the primary reserve asset central banks use to backstop their currency is gold rather than US debt. They are using gold as gold again. If the US can no longer count on foreign buyers to soak up its debt, the Fed has to step in, and the only way the Fed buys debt nobody wants is to print money, which drives the inflation already running around 4 percent. Stack that against an on again off again war clicking back to on, Japan forced into selling, and other central banks exiting, and you get a serious return to money printing feeding inflation. That, plus the carry trade draining global liquidity and the shakiness in AI, is his rogue wave of shocks converging at once.
The numbers he cites: the yen hit 162.84 to the dollar, its weakest since 1986. Japan recently spent a record 11.7 trillion yen, about 72 billion dollars, defending its currency across April and May, and it has not stopped the bleeding. Investors are now openly discussing 200 yen to the dollar, unthinkable two years ago, with Monex's Jesper Koll and Blue Edge Advisors both calling it very possible if the Bank of Japan keeps struggling. Per Reuters, Japan's Ministry of Finance has gone silent and will stop telegraphing its moves, and Bilyeu notes the new US Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, is doing the same, trying to remove the dot plot and say fewer words. Two systemically important banks adopting an ambush strategy, intervening without warning to catch short sellers off guard, means investors are left guessing, which makes markets harder to read even if not necessarily less stable. Japan's rate gap against the Fed is still about three points, a cushion before the carry trade unwinds purely mechanistically, and the whole question becomes whether Japan can get its situation under control before that cushion runs out.
The Fed buying ETFs, and the Trump accounts fix
Drew brings a pitch he found from Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas: the US stock market has arguably become too big to fail, it is now effectively America's retirement fund and the presumed savior of Social Security, which is expected to run short in under a decade. With 55 percent of people owning stocks, the most in the world, and Trump accounts bringing in an additional 28 million Americans, the idea floated is that the Fed, instead of buying debt, could start buying ETFs outright. Bilyeu says they already do a version of this, pointing to 2008 when the government picked which companies lived and died. He will not predict whether they buy ETFs specifically, but he guarantees they will manipulate the market and pick winners and losers.
He frames only two real long term choices. One, get rid of the central bank entirely, which he says he would genuinely love given a sensible path. Two, get every American meaningfully into the stock market. He argues the wealth transfer from the working class to the wealthy happens precisely because a central bank steals from everyone through inflation but only gives back to people who own assets, so the fix is to get everyone owning assets. This is where he defends the Trump accounts, the program seeding 1,000 dollars for newborns, with donors like the Dell family adding billions. He calls it an unmitigated good as long as it tracks a broad index like the S&P 500 rather than specific companies, because it ties a whole generation to the American economy and, since no 20 year window has ever been negative, should compound into serious money by retirement. His worry is the disbursement moment: at 18 the smart money could rob these kids blind, an 18 year delayed theft, unless the rules keep the money locked toward retirement with narrow exceptions like starting a business or medical bills.
The hosts argue about Social Security. Drew says the people caught mid switch get screwed, having paid in for decades toward a system that may not roll their contributions into a 401(k). Bilyeu agrees the Trump accounts do not solve that group's problem, and says the honest answer starts with balancing the budget, then extending the retirement age, trimming benefits modestly, and driving growth for more tax revenue. He says he cannot take anyone seriously who does not start with balancing the budget, and predicts the budget will eventually be balanced not by choice but by force, when his nine year clock runs out, there is no appetite for US debt, and the only options left are to hyperinflate or balance, a mechanistic wall rather than a moral one. He notes the US already fails to print the full 2 trillion dollar deficit, selling most of it and printing only around 40 billion a month, and that the day buyers vanish is the day the math breaks.
The socialism fight, zombie companies, and getting 100 times better
A big chunk of the segment answers viewers calling the Trump accounts free money and socialism. Bilyeu leans into a martial arts metaphor: if every tax dollar is wealth redistribution, then socialism has degrees, and Zohran Mamdani is a ninth degree black belt while he is maybe a third, because he is not chasing zero percent government, a position he says only Michael Malice really holds. The prosperity engine, he insists, is capitalism and free markets, and every degree you move away is a distortion that causes problems. He uses a biology analogy: eating forces metabolism, which ages you, but the answer is not to stop eating, it is discipline, and the same is true of taxes and regulation, a little but not too much, which is why Franklin warned you have a republic if you can keep it. He reminds viewers that tax revenue only exists because free market capitalism creates things people value, letting society mint wealth almost out of thin air, and the moment you distort that ratio you have a problem.
He is scathing about governments investing in specific companies, calling out Trump's stake in Intel as stupid regardless of who does it. The right approach is to invest in criteria, the way the S&P 500 qualifies companies, so you never care which specific firm wins. Picking companies creates zombie companies that cannot survive on their own but kill off competition for customers and capital, which is exactly what Japan did and why it is now riddled with them. He would not do it for SpaceX or Amazon either, however great they are. To a viewer asking whether owning a piece of Intel means owning the means of production, he says the government should invest in criteria, not companies, and keep that criteria list as light as possible because it will get abused, pointing to the old anti fat dietary guidance as an example of well meaning rules that killed people.
Asked why he spends 90 minutes attacking a Mamdani speech but less on Trump's mistakes, he explains he fears the left more because its death toll is ideologically driven and has terminated the same way everywhere throughout history, whereas his mental model of Trump is a man trying to build a prosperity engine while making parasitic mistakes. He gives a warm shout out to Destiny, whom he calls smart and sincere and more afraid of the right than the left, and says the honest move for a viewer is to build your own mental model by combining voices who fear different things. He also declines to go full Marjorie Taylor Greene style speculation elsewhere in the show, a posture he keeps returning to.
The segment closes on career advice sparked by a viewer who was told last week to just find another job and pushed back that the market is brutal. Drew reframes it honestly: people are searching a year or more, LinkedIn and Indeed are full of ghost jobs, and the old walk in with a resume world is gone. Bilyeu, who is 50 and tried to start a company in the brutal 2009 market, says you either make excuses no one will fault you for or you ask now what and work harder. He is careful to say he has real empathy, especially for people who simply were not dealt the intellect, since he says he would be further along with more of it himself, and frames a person as roughly 50 percent hardwired and 50 percent what you do with that wiring. Using the World Cup as an analogy, he says all the structural excuses can be true and completely irrelevant at the same time, and that everyone can get 100 times better. He spends hours a day, seven days a week, understanding the economy, and from more than 1,500 interviews he says the vast majority of people cannot interview well and are not actually good at their jobs, so the person with even a spark stands out enormously. Be the one with the spark, he says. A late clarification notes the 1,000 dollars in a Trump account is for babies born between 2025 and 2028.
Weekend at Mitch McConnell's
The hosts open this bit as satire, pretending to have just spent 20 delightful minutes with Mitch McConnell, who is sharp as ever and will cook you barbecue, a parody of politicians and cable news insisting he is fine. The name is a play on Weekend at Bernie's. Bilyeu says he has no insider information and will not claim McConnell is brain dead, but finds it deeply weird that he has been kept out of sight for about three weeks, and weirder still that his wife, former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, reportedly flew to China to meet a vice president roughly 72 hours after McConnell needed CPR. The theory he floats is procedural: they only need to keep him alive until about August 18th to avoid a special election, after which they can simply pick their preferred candidate in the primary. This is Kentucky, where Thomas Massie would be eligible to run for the seat, and Bilyeu suspects the whole maneuver is partly about keeping Massie out. He praises Massie's trolling, recalling the earlier stunt where Massie flipped a hostile question by asking a reporter about porn, and says that where there is this much smoke there is probably some fire, while stopping well short of calling anyone a Chinese spy.
Tyler Robinson and the algorithm problem
The final segment covers the opening of the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing for the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and the most striking thing to Bilyeu is not the evidence but the conspiracy theories the algorithms are already manufacturing. He and Drew realized they were living in different realities: Bilyeu's feed funnels him into a nothing to see here read, while Drew's funnels him into a this is all staged read. He turns it into a public service announcement, telling viewers to wildly distrust their algorithm and constantly seek disconfirming evidence. The hearing runs five days and simply asks whether there are reasonable grounds to try Robinson, and everyone estimates the odds of it not proceeding at essentially zero.
He lays out both sides fairly. The state's case, the nothing to see here read, is that surveillance video allegedly shows Robinson arriving on campus about four hours before the shooting, returning multiple times, and climbing over a railing onto a rooftop overlooking Kirk's event. DNA consistent with Robinson was found on the rifle, the fired casing, and the towel it was wrapped in. He allegedly confessed in a note to his roommate and romantic partner, Lance Twiggs, and again on Discord. Twiggs gave a sworn recorded statement in April in exchange for limited immunity, saying Robinson confessed to the killing, to hiding the rifle, to destroying his clothing, and to telling Twiggs to stay silent with police, backed by texts, including one where Twiggs asks you weren't the one that did it, right, and Robinson replies I am, I'm sorry. Charging documents say he further implied guilt to his parents, who asked why he killed Kirk and got the answer that Kirk was spreading too much hate, an answer the prosecution reads as an implied admission because he never denied doing it.
The defense, the this is dodgy read, raises real questions. Initial ballistics on the bullet fragment pulled from Kirk's body came back inconclusive and could not be matched to the rifle, which fueled a second shooter hypothesis and even staged death theories. The first officer on scene admitted nothing found that day specifically identified any shooter. Lead investigator David Hull confirmed an unfired round was found on the roof of a different building, but could not say which building, when it was found, or where the round is now, only that investigators believe an officer ejected it while clearing his own rifle. No shell casings were found on the rooftop where Robinson supposedly positioned himself, though the state notes a bolt action rifle does not automatically eject them and the casing was found in the gun. At least two other firearms reportedly turned up at the scene, the first officer's body cam died while he was on the rooftop, and Hull admitted he never interviewed two witnesses whose own rooftop video allegedly showed someone whose cap did not match Robinson. Even the FBI's DNA analyst conceded her report names Robinson only as a possible contributor, not a confirmed source, which Bilyeu says will come down to percentages a real trial will spell out, a 98 percent match meaning one thing and a 42 percent match meaning quite another.
Thread
The state's case
The defense's open questions
Placement
On the roof. Video allegedly shows Robinson arriving four hours early and climbing to the rooftop over the event
Nobody identified. The first officer admitted nothing found that day named any shooter
Forensics
DNA match. Consistent with Robinson on the rifle, the casing, and the towel
Inconclusive. The fragment from Kirk's body could not be matched, and the FBI analyst says possible contributor only
Confession
Multiple. A note to the roommate, a Discord message, I am, I'm sorry, and implied guilt to his parents
Hearsay. The judge refused to make the roommate testify live, so only recorded statements stand
Casings
In the gun. A bolt action rifle does not auto eject, so the casing stayed in the weapon
Wrong roof. No casing where Robinson sat, a round on a different roof, two other firearms at the scene
Crime scene
Treated as a warm up, with experts held for the full trial
Paved over. The dirt under the tent was cemented, the body cam died on the roof, two rooftop witnesses were never interviewed
Figure 4. The two realities Bilyeu and Drew found their algorithms feeding them. Green marks where the state says the picture is clear, amber where the defense flags a hole. Bilyeu's own bet is that most of these gaps get resolved at trial by specialist witnesses, but he concedes he understands why the open questions unsettle people right now.
He adds that the defense accused prosecutors of running a media tour to taint the jury pool, that hearsay is allowed at this stage so the judge declined to make Twiggs testify live, that Robinson has not yet entered a plea, and that prosecutors are pursuing the death penalty. His repeated caution is that this is only the preliminary hearing, a warm up before experts walk the jury through everything step by step, so people running with the loose ends are going way too far. The one thing that genuinely bothers him is the decision to pave over the dirt under the tent at Utah Valley University, which he calls insane, and the muddle over whether the lead investigator answering questions is with the FBI or the Utah police.
The super chats
Two super chats close the show. Benjamin Nickel of Texas observes that Trump manufactures demand destruction when oil goes too low and announces a deal when oil goes too high, and Bilyeu agrees completely, saying markets are easy to manipulate because they react instantly to anyone with a big enough voice, which is the whole game of trading on the news. A 50 dollar super chat from Tux C1B offers that terrible violence is the final arbiter of incompatible opinions, and Bilyeu agrees grimly, arguing that whether it is two people fighting on the road or two nations bombing each other, it is the same mechanism: someone wants what you have or wants you to stop saying something, you refuse, and you escalate to find out who can impose their will. He closes on his most fatalistic note, that people are unrealistic about humans being animals, and that until we change our foundational DNA we should expect humans to go to war.
Key takeaways
Bilyeu's central thesis is that three crises are lining up to converge into one, energy through the Iran conflict, debt and currency through Japan, and a possible AI bubble, each survivable alone but dangerous together.
The Iran conflict, in his view, is a forever war of at least two more years, litigated through violence, with strikes on the Strait of Hormuz keeping oil elevated and inflation sticky, and interest rates the truest signal of where it is heading.
His organizing lesson is the real boy who cried wolf, where the wolves are genuinely there but recede when checked, so false alarms destroy credibility without removing the danger, which he applies to Iran, inflation, and the Japan carry trade.
Japan is his sleeper threat: the Bank of Japan pushing rates toward 2 percent narrows the yen carry trade spread that has fueled global liquidity, forces Japan to dump US Treasuries, and pressures the Fed back toward money printing and more inflation.
He cites hard figures, the yen at 162.84 to the dollar, its weakest since 1986, a record 11.7 trillion yen or 72 billion dollars spent defending it, talk of 200 yen, and a roughly three point rate gap that is the last cushion before the trade unwinds mechanically.
On the AI bubble he trusts the historical pattern, flood, wipeout of early investors, then a 20 year build by an inheritance generation, and notes revenue is arriving too slowly for the debt, but he refuses to short the market out of intellectual humility.
On domestic policy he defends Trump accounts as asset ownership for a whole generation, attacks government picking specific companies like Intel as a recipe for zombie companies, and insists the only real fix for the debt is balancing the budget before the math forces it.
The political segments share one frame: politicians steer by power not morals, algorithms quietly build people into opposite realities, and the honest move is to distrust your feed and argue mechanisms rather than villains.
Chapters
0:00:00 Intro
0:02:30 Ceasefire Is Over
0:16:18 Boy Who Cried Wolf, Why Credibility Matters
0:30:42 Russia Ukraine War
0:35:01 Graham Platner Accusations
0:40:45 How Japan Holds The Fate Of The American Economy
1:24:19 Weekend At Mitch McConnell's
1:26:54 Tyler Robinson Prelim Trial
Notable quotes
"To me, I think it's over. I don't want to deal with them anymore. They're scum. They're led by sick people, and they're vicious, violent people. And if they had a nuclear weapon, they'd use it." Donald Trump, in a clip, 0:03:20
"Bombs are going to be the ultimate negotiator." Tom Bilyeu, 0:05:40
"The moral of the story is the wolf is really there, and when you go to look for it, it recedes. You walk away, it comes back, until finally the wolves attack and you've got a real problem." Tom Bilyeu, 0:17:40
"I am so confident in my read of AI that I'm afraid of myself. I fear my confidence. That's when I'm like, there could be something here." Tom Bilyeu, 0:26:10
"Japan continues to be a looming threat. It is like a slow motion shot of Godzilla just breaking the surface of the water as it charges towards the shore." Tom Bilyeu, 0:41:20
"Guess how the Fed is going to buy debt that nobody else wants? They're going to print money. Now guess what printing money does? Causes inflation." Tom Bilyeu, 0:52:30
"The budget will be balanced. I guarantee it. And it will be balanced because there will be no money, no appetite for our debt. That's my nine year clock." Tom Bilyeu, 1:03:10
"You want to avoid picking winners, because you will do a terrible job of it." Tom Bilyeu, 1:14:20
"Almost nobody is trying to get better at their job. Be the person with the spark." Tom Bilyeu, 1:20:40
"Wildly distrust your algorithm, and constantly seek disconfirming evidence." Tom Bilyeu, 1:29:40
Because the show mixes reported fact with heavy projection by design, it is worth separating the two.
The settled parts are real. The Strait of Hormuz genuinely carries a large share of the world's seaborne oil, so any threat to it moves energy markets, and a spike in Brent on escalation is exactly what you would expect. The yen carry trade is a real and long documented mechanism, Japan is among the largest foreign holders of US Treasuries, and a weakening yen against a strengthening dollar plus rising Japanese rates really does pressure that trade and Japan's Treasury holdings. Central banks really have been adding gold at a strong pace in recent years. And the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing, the death penalty pursuit, and the evidentiary disputes are matters of public record.
The contested parts are where most of the runtime lives, and they are Bilyeu's analysis rather than confirmed fact. His specific figures move fast and should be checked against current data: the exact yen level, the precise size of Japan's intervention, and the 200 yen forecasts are attributed to named analysts and outlets but are projections, not certainties. His nine year debt clock is a personal estimate, not a consensus timetable, and his flat prediction that the budget will be force balanced inside that window is a strong claim built on assumptions about buyer appetite for US debt. His read that the AI market is repeating a historical bubble is a plausible pattern match that he himself hedges heavily, refusing to trade on it. And his motive readings, that Platner is being cut only for polling badly, that the McConnell blackout is a scheme to block a special election, that a given algorithm is deliberately funneling viewers, are interpretations he presents as such, several of which he explicitly flags as speculation without insider information.
The frame worth keeping is the one he repeats: that the danger in each of these stories is easy to dismiss precisely because the alarms have gone off falsely so many times, and that the useful discipline is to watch what actors do, price the mechanism rather than the narrative, and distrust the feed that is quietly deciding what you get to see.
Full transcript
Welcome to another episode of the Tom
Billy Show live. I'm excited that you
guys are joining us. Uh it is wild out
here. So, we have Eric flagging me.
>> We're playing something. There we go.
All right, everybody. So, the guy was
beating me to the punch there. The US
has launched its biggest series of
strikes on Iran since the ceasefire
began. That's fun. The markets are
freaking out. We'll talk all about that.
More essay allegations are coming out
against Graham Platner and the Dems are
backing away now as fast as they can.
That one's interesting. Welcome to
politics in 2026.
US debt is under pressure again from
weakness in the Japanese bond market. Uh
Japan continues to be a very distressing
looming threat out there. Uh we'll be
going into that. Tyler Robinson's trial
for the assassination of Charlie Kirk is
now sort of underway. It's really the
pre-trial, but it's already getting
weird. We're going to be talking about
some algorithm things that are happening
there that have Drew and I living in
alternate universes. And Mitch McConnell
is potentially brain dead, but
Republicans are playing weekend of
Bernie to avoid a special election. That
one is wild. And we've got some fun
trolling uh on behalf of Thomas Massie
out there. It'll be fun to look at that.
All right. Shout out to our sponsor
today, which is Straight Arrow News.
These guys, their whole brand is that
they don't uh manipulate the news.
They're trying to make sure there's no
bias. They don't have an agenda. They're
all about helping people discover the
facts and the context that they need.
And man, in this media environment, that
is going to be incredibly important for
us all to stay grounded on that. Uh I
certainly appreciate Drew as somebody
that's always trying to keep me honest.
Uh when we were talking about the
differences in our algorithms uh over
the Tyler Robinson thing, it was very
startling uh to realize how fast
decisions can be made for you about what
is being presented to you. Uh and
Straight Arrow News is trying to do that
for everybody. So shout out to those
guys. Check them out. Um go to
sn.comtomill
to get the unbiased truth on the stories
that matter and to support our sponsors
which mean a lot to us. All right, guys.
Iran has really popped off again with
the biggest strike since the ceasefire
was announced. And the markets are
swinging hard. Oil is up, gold is down.
It is not the right up and down uh that
I like to hear in my rap songs, but
nonetheless, that's what's going on.
Investors now are really assuming that
inflation is just going to continue to
increase. So, if you're wondering why
you've got oil in a time of uncertainty,
you expect gold to be the thing that's
stable. I think everybody understands
why oil is spiking. But why is gold
going down? Uh and that's because people
are far more afraid of inflation uh
going up which means rates are going to
be kept up which means the um rate the
risk-free rate of return is now going up
and so being in something that doesn't
return like gold is just not the play at
least as far as investors uh are going
with what has just happened. Um so you
can expect the markets to continue to be
very weird. Um things were quiet for a
while, but theou now is just it it is
such a vague mess when you really
understand what both sides I think are
doing. Uh it is obvious that this was
always going to be litigated through
violence because both sides have said
the things that they needed to say.
They've said those shibilis to buy
themselves time to regroup. Trump was
trying to calm the markets. Never be
confused about that. and Iran needed
some cash and they were both all too
happy to give the other what they needed
to buy that time, but there was no real
uh available piece in theou. If you guys
read theou, it was so ridiculously
vague. Uh and then both sides were just
going out to the media and saying
basically the exact opposite of the
things that were in theou was wildest
[ __ ] I've ever seen. And so it was
obvious that the piece was not going to
last long. play clips of me saying
exactly that uh in previous weeks. Now,
the specific spark that kicks things
that kicked things off with Iran this
time was that they attacked three ships
that were transiting the straight. It's
always when people uh are hugging the
coast of Aman and so that is what
triggered them. They were saying that
these were not um routes that they had
authorized. Now, them attacking the
ships that were going through the
straight obviously pissed off Trump. So
he then hit them back with the biggest
attack since the ceasefire was
announced. He said, in fact we should
pull that clip up, but he said straight
up that um he thinks the talks were
over. He left just a little bit of
softness in his language um for more
negotiations to continue. Uh but he did
call Iran scum. Uh so let's play that
clip.
>> Ceasefire over. Is the ceasefire done?
Is theou dead?
It's a very interesting question.
>> Yes, it is.
>> To me, I think it's over. I don't want
to deal with them anymore. They're scum.
You know what scum is?
>> They're scum. They're sick people. I bet
she's confused.
>> They're led by sick people.
>> And they're vicious, violent people. And
if they had a nuclear weapon, they'd use
it. As far as I'm concerned, it's over.
I'll speak to our negotiators. They want
to negotiate. They're good people. Steve
Woodco, Jared Kushner, but they have to
come back to me. As far as I'm
concerned, it's just a waste of time
dealing with him. They're liars. We make
a deal. And they if I make a deal with
him, we have a deal. And he goes out, he
talks. We make a deal. Everyone's
agreed. No nuclear weapon. We make a
deal. They go outside, talk to the
press, they say, "We never even talked
about it. There's something wrong with
them. They're cuckoo."
>> So yeah, you can expect this to
continue. This is going to be something
where bombs are going to be the ultimate
negotiator. Trump is talking like he's
not in complete control of this. If he
tells uh Wickoff and Kushner that the
negotiations are over, then they're
over. So, the fact that he's still
sending them back in tells you that he
always wants to have that card that he
can play in his back pocket of like,
hey, we're back to negotiating. You can
watch interest rates. I mean, it's
really uh pretty wild. I guess it
shouldn't be um unexpected, but it is
pretty wild that the negotiations are
predicated on what the market will bear
in terms of Trump's tolerance for stress
uh in the stock market. So, yep, keep
your eyes there. That's going to signal
a lot more clearly than anything that he
says or anything that Iran says as to
whether or not we have to have a moment
of peace or whether we can go back to
the bombing. I don't see any way out of
this. So, you either litigate via war um
knowing that that is the ultimate
leverage point or you're just going to
be in this position. Now, you can
mentally model Iran however you want.
The most common mental model for Iran is
that uh they're going to buy themselves
as much time. They're going to tell you
everything that you want to hear so that
they can keep kicking the can down the
road. Uh I've talked about this uh in
business. This is absolutely something
that whenever you can, you want to buy
yourself time for things to work out
more naturally. Um, and so whenever, not
that in business it's advisable to lie
because if you're doing that, you're
just going to absolutely blow your
reputation apart. You're not going to be
able to get anything done. But if you
see an opportunity to buy yourself a day
or a week uh when you're not able to get
the things that you want, you never know
when something might appear. And so this
is Iran's strategy through and through.
Everybody has talked about this about
their strategy of deploying um delay
tactics by promising you something that
they never plan to deliver on. So, uh
this to me is yet another punctuation
mark that we're going to see over and
over and over until something finally
makes this come to a head. And I don't
know if that's getting on the other side
of the midterms. There are plenty of
analysts that think no matter what
happens, whether Trump wins or loses, on
the other side of this, he's going to be
unbridled. uh if he wins, obviously he's
going to have wind at his back and he
can go in and get back to uh bombing
things and not have to worry about the
election. If he loses the election, then
he really has nothing to lose. Uh
obviously, Congress is going to be
pushing to impeach him basically
immediately. Uh but he'll still be able
to do things through executive order.
And so, if you guys remember what
happened when Obama uh ended up losing
the midterms, uh he said, "Well, I still
have a phone and I still have a pen." I
think is exactly how he said it, meaning
the executive orders. And so, expect
Trump to do that exact thing and just go
back to um running the same kind of
blitz of EOS that we saw at the
beginning of his term. So, uh, I'm not
expecting anything to play this out
other than this constant back and forth
of peace to re either on our side calm
the markets or on their side rebuild the
war chest followed by um, okay, now we
can go back to being violent because we
we just do not agree on anything. If you
listen to the things that Iran is
actually saying, um, all the key
elements of theou that'll make this a
deal that they're never going to have
nuclear weapons. um what Israel is doing
in terms of Lebanon, which continues to
be this big question mark about how
Lebanon feels about that. But anyway, so
you've got that going on. You've got the
straight being open, them not being able
to charge. Uh you've got them obviously
expecting the $300 billion in they're
not calling it reparations, but I'll
call it reparations. So, do not expect
any of this to go smoothly. This is
going to be something that will be
played out with strike after strike
after strike. Now, the markets are
getting that message very clearly. And
on the back of this most recent strike,
Brent jumped more than 6% to nearly $79
a barrel. Now, that's a far cry from
where we were when we were up over a
hundred, but it is the biggest one-day
move since early June. Dow futures have
dropped over 400 points. Energy stocks
have rallied pre-market because they're
expecting the price to go up. And chips,
those stocks just keep selling off. So
all of the peace gains that we made
basically have been immediately unwound.
Now that doesn't mean that they won't
reassert themselves if we go back to
peace. Uh but that's going to be the
sort of ping-ponging you can expect in
the markets. Now there are rumors right
now that the US is going to put up their
naval blockade uh as early as today.
We'll see if that actually happens. But
if that does happen, then I imagine that
the markets are going to swing even
harder. Expecting this to really go back
to driving inflation. I think you'll see
Brent go up even more. Will we start
pushing 80s and 90s again? I think it's
very likely if we go into the blockade
and we see a week go by without any
other movement. I would expect to see
that number go up. Uh that's also going
to hold the Fed uh hold their feet to
the fire in terms of having to hold
their interest rates high for longer. So
anybody that was still fingers crossed
holding out that the rates were going to
be coming down soon. Um it's going to be
tough to do that when you've got oil
prices going up and up. So that is the
standoff that we're really in. So we'll
see. All right. As for the details uh of
this most recent flash point, the ships
that Iran hit, as I was saying earlier,
were the ones that were using unapproved
routes. Uh the sententcom targets that
were hit were Iranian air defenses,
radar, and more than 60 IRGC fast boats.
They've also claimed that they've hit uh
and killed some more IRGC leadership. Uh
but that really does seem to be a
never-ending basket of people that they
can draw on. So I would not expect there
to be uh any sort of oh, we finally hit
the one guy. Um that just isn't going to
happen. So maybe more instability, maybe
more infighting, but nonetheless, don't
expect us to be able to kill our way to
a better regime over there. Now, Scott
Besson has also brought the US Treasury
into the strikes. They've launched some
attacks of their own, revoke the oil
sanctions waiver that had been refilling
Iran's coffers. And that that's the
thing that in all of this is maddening
to me. It was self-evident that the
second you do that, Iran, who has made
it abundantly clear in their rhetoric
and how vague the things are in theou um
that they just want to get money going
again. Once they do that, then they're
going to leverage that to uh build up
their strength so that they can
negotiate even harder. Um oil sales are
roughly half of Iran's revenue. So to
give you an idea, you can cut off half,
but then the second you open those spets
again, uh, real money is flowing in and
the administration has given buyers
until July 17th to wind down their
transactions. But Lord only knows how
much is going to happen in the nine days
between now and then. So we'll see. Now,
needless to say, Iran has hated all of
this, and they fired back this morning.
Uh, they sent missiles and drones at US
bases in Bahrain and Kuwait. Kuwait says
that it intercepted everything, that
there was no damage, no casualties. But
Iran has warned US allies in the region,
specifically the UAE, that there are
going to be no more restraints on their
attacks on their infrastructure. So,
expect that to get better or expect that
to get worse before it gets better. It
is wild. I'm actually surprised how
energy prices have held on between
what's going on in Russia and what's
going on in the Strait. and they're
talking about the Red Sea now. So, this
really could get wild and it's going to
be interesting to see if we meaning the
West more broadly can actually start
working around the straight of Hormuz.
So, necessity is the mother of
invention. So, we'll see if we see um
places like the UAE, Saudi Arabia
building more and more pipelines to get
around. Saudi Arabia has done a
phenomenal job of that already working
around a lot of the straight I forget
the exact percentage but I think it was
somewhere around uh 60 or 70% of their
oil was now able to bypass the straight
of hormov I don't know if there are
reasons that they would prefer not to
have to use that but certainly people
are working at a pace to try to get
around all of this but I would expect
that to take years to build out
something more robust than what's
already in place and the real question
becomes how do you protect that from
more strikes from Iran. Given what we're
seeing from drone warfare in the Ukraine
Russia war, man, you can do a lot of
damage with long range drones. And I
would suspect that Iran is going to have
access to very similar kinds of
technology as time rolls on. So, uh,
drones aren't going anywhere. You've
even got stuff in China, if you guys
have been paying attention to this,
they've had massive flooding there, and
they're using drones to airlift people
out of the flood zone. So, drones are
getting more and more sophisticated.
extraordinarily rapidly. So, yeah, this
this one's going to get weird and it is
going to affect the markets and it's
going to force um Trump's hand or
anybody else's hand that's at the wheel.
So, regardless of who's in power, energy
as it affects inflation is such a big
deal, you just cannot look past it.
We'll get into this more when we talk
about Japan, but it's it's going to be a
rough ride.
>> Um, I'm going to take my claim right
now. This is a forever war. We're going
to be in here at least two more years.
>> Oh, minimum. Yeah. Jes before his
president. I
>> I can't imagine. I can't imagine. You're
going to see this back and forth that
they're not going to call it a war.
There almost certainly will not be
ground troops. I know Professor Jung
>> is just convinced that Trump is going to
have to put troops on the ground. I
don't put it past him. He has now a
long-standing history of making terrible
decisions. Uh so it is certainly
possible that he ends up doing that. I'm
not expecting it. Uh, but I am expecting
this back and forth tit fortat kind of
thing where he's constantly saying,
"Hey, they're saying all the right
things. I know they're saying bad things
publicly, but no, this is going to be
all good." And so, and that will calm
the markets, but it will only do it for
a while. And the um,
God, do I want to do a tangent on the
real story of the boy who cried wolf?
I'll stop for now. But there's
>> No, I know. I need that. Come on. All
right. So, foreplay me. Here here is the
really fascinating thing about so many
of these um stories is that the way that
they've been sort of um smoothed over
largely by Disney gives you an
unrealistic version of what the actual
thing the moral of the story that um
were trying to be told with the
original. So in the original the boy who
cried wolf story is the kid goes up to
the edge of the forest and he sees
wolves. He's not making it up. He
actually sees wolves. He goes back and
he says, "Hey guys, there's wolves."
They all go check. Nope, no wolves. Hey
kid, you're lying. Don't [ __ ] do it
again. Kid goes back to edge of the
forest. The [ __ ] wolves are back. And
so he goes back. He's like, "Guys, I'm
telling you, wolves." They go check. No
wolves. This kid, we can't [ __ ] trust
him. The wolves are trying to use the
boy as a way to convince everybody that
the radar system, the early warning
people who are like, "No, no, no, for
real. This is a real problem." When it
doesn't happen, this is like with the
economy. when it doesn't happen again
and people say like Peter like people
like Peter Schiff have called nine of
the last two recessions uh it's you
start to go yeah yeah these these guys
are full of [ __ ] there's nothing real
and so finally the kid's like uh I don't
know what to do and so he ends up going
into the the woods and the wolves eat
him and so the kid really does get eaten
nobody believed him and then now anybody
that tries to go in after the wolves
they get eaten too and so it is a tale
of You do ruin your credibility when you
cry wolf and then the wolves hide but it
doesn't mean that there aren't actually
wolves there. So that's where I would
say yeah like there is going to be a lot
of that whether it's from pundits
whether it's from me saying like hey
this is going to be risky or Japan I can
already feel this one. So there's three
points of spread still between even
Japan like at their worst and where the
US is. So the Japan yen carry trade, it
is unwinding. It's going to keep
unwinding.
>> Uh because you you can't hold that
forever. And so but I'm sure people have
been saying that for a very long time.
But then COVID hits and now all of a
sudden that inflation actually does
reach Japan. And now all of a sudden
they're having to react. And so people
are going to say uh this is all
[ __ ] All these people saying that
the Japan carry trade is going to
unwind. They're they're just crying
wolf. But remember, the moral of the
story is the wolf is really there. And
when you go to look for it, it recedes.
You walk away, it comes back. You look
and you just keep getting that until
finally the wolves attack and you've got
a real problem. So expect a lot of that
with Iran. Expect this to drag on for a
very long time. But remember, ultimately
the kid does get eaten and the wolves
really are a problem. And so I would
expect that to play out both from uh
Iran actually is a problem. Iran really
does have negative intentions towards I
think everybody will get on board that
they have very negative intentions
towards Israel. Uh but remember the US
is the big Satan, not the little Satan.
Israel is the little Satan. So um what
happens as they get ballistic missiles
that can reach Europe? What happens if
they get ballistic missiles that can
reach the US? So it's like yeah, has
Trump done a ton of damage? Have all the
people that have said, "Hey, they're
about to get a nuclear weapon. Hey, they
really want to do bad things." Uh, yes,
because then they don't do bad things.
Uh, but does that mean that it isn't a
danger? And I would put forth, no, it
doesn't mean that they're not a danger,
but it does mean that the way that we're
dealing with it right now is not
working. So now what? To your point,
we've gotten sucked into something
that's probably going to last for years
with this back and forth, tit for tat,
we're in a war, we're not a war. Um, but
that doesn't mean that the danger is not
real. And that's how you suck people
into this stuff. If you drag it out just
long enough that people finally have to
let their guard down to not look like
complete dumb asses. Because that's the
thing, man. Imagine trying to run on
Iran is an imminent threat in 2028.
Good luck. Good luck.
Like we're still there. So everybody,
there was uh Jordan, I think in the chat
was like, "Trump needs to apologize and
just back out." And I was like, we're
already past that point because Iran at
the very minimum is going to reject that
apology so that way they could do a
victory lap around the world and point
and say, "Haha, we beat the US. Look at
us." Like, there's no incentive for us
to stop this war unless we just bomb
everybody to oblivion and we just kill
90 million people.
>> Well, we have an incentive to stop the
war. That's the bad news. So, just like
we have an incentive to print, uh,
because in the immediate term, it isn't
bad. It's bad in the long term. So we've
been the the boy who cried wolf has
played out phenomenally well with the
inflation. So people have been eaten
people are just constantly getting eaten
by inflation. Uh but yet we keep saying
no no no far better to just keep running
these deficits better than to face the
austerity. Same with the war. Trump
would be uh would in the short term be
much better off backing off because
they're not going to get a nuclear
weapon before he's out of office. Almost
certainly. So now you're in a position
where somebody finally has to say,
"Okay, this may not play out on my
watch, but I really believe that this is
true and I'm going to push this all the
way to the end." Is that going to be
Trump? Maybe. We'll see. He's very
responsive to the markets. If for no
other reason than the markets have made
him fantastically wealthy by trading on
what I'll call insider information,
whether it makes meets the legal
definition of that or not, I don't care.
It's the spirit, I think, is exactly the
same. He knows that his money is
contingent on the policies that he
passes. And so given that, you can
expect him to have a massive incentive
to do things that are good for his
money. Uh again, I think that the way
Trump thinks through this stuff is I'm
going to do what's good for me. If it
happens to be good for America, too,
great. Uh but I am certainly going to do
what's good for me. So he has that
personal incentive to calm the markets.
So this one is weird. It's like a glitch
where there's the sort of Mount Rushmore
of it all. Listen, I've laid out my full
thesis. I'm not going to do it again
here. If people are confused about why I
think Trump did what he did, I can
certainly answer that. It's not as
simplistic as um it's what's good in the
short term for the markets, but I do
think that he's got a long-term vision
for needing to get the investments into
the US anyway. I've talked about this so
many times. So, um you've got all of
that at play. There is a reason to end
the war. I don't think he'll take it.
Yep. We're going to be here for a while,
so get comfortable. Um,
>> is there pressure from the allies that
could possibly force Trump's hand?
>> If if Iran is really honest that they're
going to take off their quote unquote
restraint if they start attacking the
UAE, Dubai, all like all these other
places and they feel that pressure,
would that be the domino that can make
Trump say, "Okay, okay, we really need
to stop this war. Would it ramp up? What
do you think his response would be if
they really go unhinged?" Um, well, so I
think it's a thought exercise that
probably won't play out quite like that,
but let's run the thought exercise. So,
if the allies turn against Trump, yes,
it could be untenable for him. If it is
literally the UAE, Saudi Arabia, um,
Oman, Qatar, like, if they're all like,
[ __ ] stop, get out of here. Um, we we
are booting you out of our bases. Like,
we don't want you here anymore. You were
not welcome. And they start siding with
Iran. Uh, yeah, that could push him out.
If Turkey comes online with Iran, which
Trump has said nakedly, the only reason
that Turkey didn't enter the war on
behalf of Iran is because I told them
not to. Now, I've got to wonder what he
had to promise because it wasn't just
like, "Hey, bro, please." Uh, it would
have been that Erdogan sees something
that he can get from the US that he
wants. I don't know what that is,
>> relief,
>> but there's going to be Yeah, I mean,
that's a great default assumption. So,
uh, if Erdogan comes in, all of the, um,
countries in the region are like, "You
got to get out of here. We don't want
you here anymore." Then yes, I think he
would then be like, "All right, I tried.
These guys want to blow themselves up.
Uh, then fine." Um, I'd be very
interested to see what the relationship
it it will matter a lot what the
relationship is between the US and
Israel at that point as to whether um
the US completely
ejects out of the region or if they just
keep funding Israel so that they can
fight the fight and go back to basically
using Israel as a proxy um to try to do
something uh in the region. But
certainly if we really do have energy
independence in the US, we're able to
stabilize our market. We're getting um
because we're getting massive cash cash
inflows into the US market right now
from all around the world. Like I don't
know that we're at historic levels, but
I think we are. I'm only hedging because
um I don't have the graph in front of
me, but if I'm not mistaken, we have
literally historic levels of foreign
investment like over the last 60 days.
So it is right now for all of the
weirdness in the US market, for all of
the missteps that the US is doing,
people are looking around the world and
they're not seeing anywhere else to put
their capital and capital will always
seek a return. And so if there is
nowhere better, even if it's just like
this is like the best of all my bad
options, the money is still pouring in.
Now I think that's predicated on AI. If
the AI story crumbles, expect that to
stop. Also, if the AI story crumbles,
you could have a global recession,
especially if it's riding on the back of
Japan and uh you know, war in the Middle
East. So, yeah, this this gets nested
very quickly. I am going to tease these
things out more. We're going to be
talking about Japan in a minute. Um but
these are the dots that start
connecting. You've got um energy stress
that will affect Europe for sure,
maybe even all the way to China. I don't
remember how much oil China is getting
from Russia, but if you've got Ukraine
hitting the energy infrastructure in
Russia, uh you've got Europe continuing
to shoot itself in the foot. Um you've
got continued instability in the Middle
East. If Iran really does start
destroying um civilian oil
infrastructure all across the region,
you could put a real squeeze on the
energy markets. Um, combine that with
what's going on in Japan, combine that
with a broken AI story, this gets global
real fast.
>> Do you think the AI story is broken? Cuz
I'm on team, it it's looking broken.
>> Here's the problem. To me, the
historical trend is so obvious that uh
it I I am so paranoid about my read. So,
anybody that if you ever put in the
comments, where does Tom actually invest
his money? The reason that I don't post
that is because I am so paranoid that
I'm going to be blindsided by something.
The last thing I want is people being
like, "Well, Tom really understands this
stuff and so this is what he's doing, so
I should do the same." Jesus Christ. I
live in a constant state of paranoia
that either there's a black swan event
or I'm not mapping something correctly.
And so I am so confident in my read of
AI that I'm afraid of myself, if you see
what I mean. I I fear my confidence.
That's when I'm like there there could
be something here. So the historical
loop that AI is a part of says very
clearly that what will happen is
whenever you have a truly extraordinary
new technology, it will get flooded with
investment. it will get way out over its
skis and the early investors will get
wiped out and then what they call the um
inheritance generation will come along
behind those people take advantage of
all the infrastructure that was built
but that bankrupted god knows how many
people along the way and then they'll
build over the next 10 to 20 years
they'll build the real surviving
companies and so I'm watching this play
out and I'm like I do not trust myself
to get the timing right I do not want to
be overinvested in AI I don't want to be
overinvested even in the US though right
now I probably am And so all of that is
like to me so self-evident a pattern.
And by the way, we're now getting the
early data that yeah, this is really
playing out like that in terms of look
at the revenue going into the AI
industry is so much slower than what the
debt would tell you it needs to be at
this moment. So again, historical
parallel. This is exactly what happens
with all of these new major real
technologies that come on board. They
always go through this. And so the
revenue is um not coming in as fast as
you'd like. Also, corporations are now
starting to back out. Also, corporations
are getting paranoid. The whole Alex
Karp rant about, wait, are these
companies just basically absorbing my
business model through the things that I
give to them?
>> Exactly. And so now it's like they're
going to want to lean on these Chinese
models that are coming out that are open
source. There's potential drama there,
but just follow the logic. So they're
like, "Wait, I can actually reduce my
cost dramatically." So hold on. You're
telling me that we have an industry that
needs big revenues right now, way faster
than they're getting them, and people
are already spending less than expected,
and they're trying to optimize to spend
dramatically less. It's like, as a
consumer, this is great. just kill the
first generation of investors. Don't
care. Give me the 20-year build to the
greatest technology the world has ever
seen. It's going to totally transform
the world. But the gap between even my
own analysis at the beginning of this
was like, yo, this is going to happen so
fast. It's going to eat everything. This
is going way faster than I ever could
have imagined. And then you start going,
hm, actually, I still believe this is
all playing out, but I'm not as
confident about the timeline assessment.
And then you start looking at the
historical example and you're like,
"Yeah, it's probably better to bet
against it happening in the right
period." By bet against I mean in words.
I am not shorting the market. [ __ ] that.
I do not trust my read on this nearly
enough for that. Um but that the
intellectual humility
as a bet against AI I think is very wise
rather than saying, "Oh, this is going
to be everything."
>> I caught it. Eric was about to hit me.
Uh we shall see. This is one of those
things that I'm really interested at how
it plays out because to your point so
many things are interconnected cuz we
have a debts a debt time bomb that's
happening. We have our international
crutches that we traditionally relied
on. Japan for financial Israel who now
wants to just fight everybody taking us
in two different directions. Russia is
getting its reserves bombed. So that
might re reshuffle the entire I get my
oil from like deck. Like there's so many
things being stacked up right now that
one thing breaking one way can just
cause like a domino effect. So yes, I'm
curious to see how it all plays out.
>> Yeah, I mean there's real potential for
a contagion effect here.
>> Uh so yeah, I mean it's it's all eyes on
this stuff, but everything is so
destabilized right now. It's really
unnerving and the really interesting
thing I want everybody to remember what
CO felt like. And I remember somebody
saying at the time, "This is impacting
the kids more than you think." And I
remember thinking, "I don't know about
that, man." Like, if you can't see the
effects right now, what are what are the
odds that it has like some long and
lingering effect?
But now seeing how what's happening in
Japan is actually COVID related, I'm
like, whoa, that's crazy.
>> So this is years later, it's finally
working its way. The wolves are finally
eating the first people at the edge of
the forest. And you're like, "Holy [ __ ]
the kid was right. There really were
wolves hiding there, but it's taken
years for it to play out. And so there
are these longtail knock-on effects that
I don't think people are being realistic
about. And so when I look at all of this
instability, I was pretty um nonchalant
about what was going on in Russia. I'm
now thinking that's a big mistake." Mhm.
>> And so it's like that's going to I think
be a bigger deal than we want to think
up to and including does Putin get
backed into a corner and lash out. It is
very interesting watching the rhetoric
coming out of Zalinsky. Zalinski is
always pulling his punches which I give
him a ton of credit for. He's trying not
to be provocative to Russia despite the
fact that they're bombing the [ __ ] out
of them every night. He keeps saying,
"Hey, let's get to the negotiating
table. We're killing this many Russians.
We do not want to be doing this. this is
not a source of pride. We would very
much like to stop. And you could say
that he's bullshitting and that that's
not really true.
My bet is that is true and he would very
much like to uh have a negotiation,
redraw borders in some sort of sensible
place and be done with the aggression. I
think he's going to be pretty aggro
about getting into NATO for reasons that
I think will be self-evident. I'm sure
Russia is going to be completely opposed
to that. But nonetheless,
um, man, when you look at that and you
see that it's this completely
destabilized thing, they're killing
30,000 people just on the Russian side.
Forget what's happening on the Ukrainian
side. Russians are losing 30,000 troops
a month. So, uh, yeah. Anyway, it's
crazy. You've still got everything going
on with Israel, Gaza, Lebanon,
Hezbollah, Hamas, like all of that is
still in play.
I don't know what you mean by that. I
mean, I think I do, but
>> Israel just built some for Palest Oh,
I'm sorry. It's a resettlement colony
>> because we love the Palestinians.
>> We're going to get into this. Uh, we
should probably make that a separate
segment, but flag planted. So, uh,
that'll be fun. Drew and I will be able
to collide on that. Um, so yes, a lot of
destabilization.
The Iran war, as you very aptly said, is
not going anywhere anytime soon. Uh the
US is on by my estimation, take that for
what it's worth, but we started a
10-year ticking clock 9 years ago. Uh I
mean, honestly, the clock has been
ticking for a lot longer than that, and
you can just look at the M2 money supply
to see the problem. Uh but that clock is
ticking. We're now at 9 years by my
estimate. Uh if nothing changes, you are
going to have a crisis within that
window. Uh that crisis will be gigantic.
Um and when the crisis happens, I know
some people think that they're going to
be fine. they're not going to be fine.
Um, that is a that is a like everybody
gets poor kind of situation. It's
happened before. So, you don't have to
reach too far back into history to
understand how devastating this [ __ ] can
be. And I know the people like Marxist
think, "Yeah, that's what we need. We
need a revolution. We need to overturn
the tables." Bro, it's not fun to live
through. Least of all for the people
with the least resources. So, yeah.
No bueno.
>> All right. Um, we need to talk about uh
Graham Platner and how Democrats are
moving to distance himself after
allegations came out. Um, I find this
story very, very interesting and I think
that the faux outrage that I'm seeing
from both sides is very um, telling
because now all of a sudden we care
about sexual assault allegations.
>> Playing a clip here?
>> No, there's no there's no clip. She's
like, "That was a handoff, man. What the
fuck?"
This is something else.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, headline Straight Arrow
News. Download the app, guys.
>> There you go. There it is. I got uh
you're going to want Straight Arrow News
or somebody that is going to give you
the um the nonpartisan read on this.
Drew and I were talking about this. Um I
don't love topics like this because it
really does sound so partisan no matter
how you approach it. So, I'm going to do
my best to lay out what's going on um in
a way that will help people draw their
own conclusions as to what's going on.
Don't just drop, don't just adopt my
mental model. Uh so, it goes something
like this. Politics is the ugliest game
in the universe. And Graham Platner is
the latest example of how politicians do
not steer by morals at all. They steer
by power. Once you understand that all
politicians want is to gain and retain
power, then the way that they behave is
going to make perfect sense to you. This
is not a thing unique to the Democrats.
They just happen to be the ones that are
in the middle of it right now. So Trump
had um very credible allegations made
against him. Whether you believe they
ended up being true or not, they needed
to be taken seriously. Uh he had very
credible allegations of rape. He had
credible allegations of uh sexual
assault. obviously impropriy. So you've
got that guy becomes president. Then
you've got Graham Platner who's being
abandoned. And so the question becomes
given that they knew he had a Nazi
tattoo. Um he had credible allegations
of certainly sexual impropriy perhaps um
being too rough. I'm not sure what we
would if we're going to say sexual
assault. Anyway, very credible
allegations that this guy was um not
what would meet my definition of a quote
unquote good person. the Democrats were
still willing to get behind him in the
same way that the Republicans were
willing to get behind Trump. And so, uh,
what I believe Drew is getting at is
like, for the love of God, if you're
going to be morally outraged about, uh,
Graham Platner, then you better be
morally outraged about Trump. Uh, I
think that's a very reasonable read. And
I will just say that um we long ago
passed morality tests for our um
candidates for office. And I remember I
lived through when it was like dude the
turmoil that uh Clinton went through
with having potentially smoked a joint.
Man, it was insane because it was just
like, yo, if this guy could do an
illegal drug, then like he just can't be
trusted. He's not a moral person. bad,
bad, bad. And he had to convince
everybody that, okay, yes, they passed
me the joint, but I didn't inhale. And I
remember thinking, wow, like people
really care about this stuff. That's
wild. And so now to be where we're at
where you've got a guy on the mic
saying, grab him in the I just still
can't believe that was recorded and he
got elected, but nonetheless, it
happened. So that to me is uh a
fascinating example of where we're at as
a society that just it it I won't say it
doesn't matter because it's certainly a
cudgel that each side will use against
the other. And by the way, the second
the Democrats can use something like
this against a Republican. They will do
it as if they did not go to bat. I think
was it Senator Warren that said this is
my kind of man. Uh referring to Graham
Platner. So it morality doesn't enter
into it. It never entered into it. It
was always about power. Morality was
only used as a cudgel when it was an
effective way to gain power. Please um
you will eternally be confused by
politicians if you map them against
anything other than what do I need to do
to gain and retain power. So that to me
is what's going on with Graham Platner.
Now is there any love lost for me that a
guy with a Nazi tattoo is going down?
No, there is not. But I think it's
important to understand that the reason
that he's going down now is not because
oh there was finally a credible uh claim
made against him. It was that in the
mind of the public there were enough
claims made against him that people
turned against him and he was losing in
the polls. And that strikes me as far
more realistic that any political group
will put up with anything as long as
they're polling well. And what you're
seeing now is just they no longer
believe he can win. And since they don't
believe he can win, now they're going to
abandon him. It's grotesque. Uh and boy,
do I hope that we go back in the other
direction where it's like we actually
really do give a [ __ ] about the morality
of our candidates. This is a populism
problem. I did a whole deep dive about
what populism is, how it bites you in
the ass, how it will just make
everything worse. We are smack bang in
the middle of a populist moment. Um,
watch that video. It It is just, I
think, going to give people insights
into why this kind of thing is so like,
yeah, no big deal. All these things
leading up to this moment, and then all
of a sudden they turn on him because
he's not winning in the polls. So, yeah,
it's gross. It's real. It is happening
on both sides. It is the nature of
politics and that's why politics really
is the ugliest game in the world.
>> IO facto to that. Let's talk about Japan
now. Uh cuz
>> let's
>> we're not we're not we're not moral. We
care about money. So let's talk about
our money. And right now Japan is
dumping aggressively foreign bonds.
>> Break it down for us, Tom.
>> Japan continues to be a looming threat
in the global economy. It is like a slow
motion shot of Godzilla just breaking
the surface of the water as it charges
towards the shore. And as the water's
like doming and you're like, "What's
coming?" It's hard to tell how big the
thing is, but you know it isn't small.
The Bank of Japan has a board member
that just told the markets to brace for
impact. Naoki Tamura has encouraged the
Bank of Japan to keep hiking rates
towards 2%. That would be double where
we're at today. And if inflation
continues to intensify, which given
what's going on in Iran, it's going to,
the pace of the hikes should accelerate,
and this is a quote from her, without
hesitation. So she is saying stomp on
the gas of these rate hikes, which if
you do not understand how the global
economy is structured right now, you may
not get what a big deal that is. Japan
like 30 years ago made a sort of
Foustian bargain, a deal with the devil
where it was like, "All right, we're
going to basically do anything and
everything that we can to stimulate our
economy by holding rates artificially
low. We're going to let there be I mean
at one point was there like a four or
five% gap between the price you could
borrow money from the Bank of Japan and
the price that the Fed was setting in
the US. That is insane. that creates
this ultimate arbitrage to the point
we've got Jay-Z uh rapping about the yen
that he handles. Okay, what he's talking
about is the carry trade. I can go get
money for cheap in Japan and then I can
put it to work anywhere where I can get
a better return than the effectively one
or two% that I might have to pay there.
Uh man, right now if you're investing
wisely, you're going to be you can be
pushing like 13% on certain asset
classes more if you're really willing to
go out on the risk profile. So, let's
call seven uh just like dead simple. So,
now you've got a fivepoint spread
between the two that you're paying on
your yen and the seven that you're
getting in the US markets. Like, god
damn. So, people were doing that like
crazy.
That just created a flood of liquidity
in the global markets. Now the US has
been the primary beneficiary
and that has kept us going through
really a period of stagnation where the
growth stocks that we would normally
count on weren't really growing that
much. You had obviously the Magnificent
7, but that was kind of it. And the
Magnificent 7 was largely being driven
by the cheap money that people were
getting from the Bank of Japan. Okay, so
that's like the setup. So for Japan to
go basically, [ __ ] that. Now we're going
to jack our rates up. Now you start
seeing that window narrow where there's
not so much of a spread. Now even at two
points there's still a spread to where
we're at, but it's getting more narrow.
More and more people are going to get
paranoid and it's going to start to suck
that easy money out of the liquidity of
the global markets. And that would be
brutal for anybody that's still riding
the yen carry trade and anyone that's
expecting AI to just continue to get
funded to high heaven. And between those
things, that's a lot of people. And it
is certainly going to impact Japan's
ability to hold US treasuries. I believe
Japan is still the single largest holder
of US treasuries. Okay, they own a lot,
like a lot a lot. And if they continue
to sell, which they are doing now to try
to support the yen because it is falling
like a rock compared to the dollar. So,
the dollar is getting stronger,
ironically, as inflation goes up, which
by the way, remember, Trump doesn't want
that. Trump wants a weaker dollar. It's
where it gets complicated and where,
boys, I will trust that you will ask
questions if chat gets confused about
how these things go because this [ __ ] is
complicated when you start really
getting into the weeds. A lot of it's
very counterintuitive. But the dollar is
getting stronger, which is bad for the
yen. great if you hold dollars, but it's
bad if you have to refinance your debt,
which is what the US has to do. It's bad
if you want to stimulate the US economy,
but nonetheless, that's where we're at.
And so, that's going to put the uh Bank
of Japan in a situation where they've
got to get rid of their US debt. Now,
the US debt, I don't know if it's at
all-time lows, but it's at like regional
psychotic lows in terms of how much of
our debt is being held by foreign
central banks. Okay? For a long time,
foreign central banks used US debt like
gold. Now they're using gold as gold.
And so that is for the first time, I
think it happened in 2025. For the first
time in a long time, you've got the
primary reserve asset being held by
central banks as a way to backs stop
their currency is not US debt. It's
gold. So that shift is happening. We're
going to talk when we get into China. Oh
baby, we're really going to talk about
this. So, we're going to be doing, by
the way, we're going long today, boys
and girls. Anybody that wants to stay
with us, we're going to go real deep on
China here at the end today in into our
third hour. So, stay with us for that.
But that is where all of this stuff
starts to really get dicey for people
trying to navigate their way through all
of this. Because if the US
can't count on these foreign investors
to soak up the appetite for their debt,
then guess what has to step in to buy
it? The Fed. Now, guess how the Fed is
going to buy debt that nobody else
wants? They're going to print money.
Now, guess what printing money does?
Causes inflation. We're already at 4%.
Okay, we've got the on again offag again
war which is click back into the on
position and now if Japan can't keep
holding their debt and they're in a
selling mode and other
federal or other central banks have
decided they're not into the game of
buying US debt anymore and many of them
are also selling now you're in a
position where you're going to have to
turn back on money printing in a very
serious way and that's going to drive
inflation further. layer on top of that
the inary trade is being fueled or sorry
is fueling global liquidity and has been
for decades and couple that with the
shakiness in the AI markets and now
you've really got like a looming set of
shocks that may converge all at once
into a rogue wave of shocks that can be
very destabilizing for the global
markets. Now going back to this idea of
the boy who cried wolf I cannot tell you
what the timing is going to be on this.
Is it going to hold out for another
year, 5 years? Does it go 10 years? I
mean, at some point, just
mathematically, it is going to break.
But the fact that it's moving as rapidly
as it's moving now, and you've got
members of the Bank of Japan just
straight saying, "Listen, you've got to
deal with the inflation." Like, we had
almost 30 years of effectively zero
inflation. And so now, because of COVID,
it's really started. Now it's being
exacerbated by what's going on in um the
in Iran, the war in Iran. And so this is
all putting the yen in this like
horrible situation. And so the yen hit
162.84 yen to the dollar. That's the
weakest since 1986.
Japan has recently, like really
recently, spent a record 11.7 trillion
yen, that's 72 billion, defending their
currency in April and May. but it hasn't
successfully stopped the bleeding. So,
when you've got the Bank of Japan being
like, "Yeah, this isn't working. We're
going to have to be prepared to just go
and crank these rates up." You've now
got investors talking about something
that would have been just absolutely
unthinkable two years ago, and that's
200 yen to the dollar. You've got
Manex's Jesper, Cole, and Blue Edge
advisers both saying that 200 yen to the
dollar is very possible if the Bank of
Japan uh keeps struggling to get this
under control. Now, according to
routers, Japan's Ministry of Finance has
gone silent and doesn't plan to continue
telegraphing what their moves are going
to be. Now, for anybody paying
attention, guess who else has said, "Ah,
we're going to stop telegraphing, at
least to the degree that we have been."
Kevin Walsh, the new US Fed chair. So,
you've got two very systemically
important banks saying, "M, we don't
like the way that you guys are
responding to everything that we say."
Japan's really got their eyes on people
trying to short the yen. So, now those
two banks are like, "We're going to use
something that's basically like an
ambush strategy." And an ambush strategy
is where they intervene, but they don't
tell you it's coming. They don't warn
you. and they're trying to catch those
yen short sellers in Japan's case
offguard so that they can stop them from
exacerbating the risk. So this is uh
this we're going into a very unusual
time when our own Fed is trying to
remove the dot plot. Worse refused to
give his own dot. There's still whatever
uh 17 18 other dots that we're getting
but he's trying to say fewer words which
he literally did in the last update.
He's trying to give fewer indications on
where things are going and Japan
obviously has a reason to do the same.
So now you can have investors basically
guessing which is going to make them
less predictable. Uh it doesn't mean
that the markets are going to be more or
less stable, but it does mean it'll be
harder to read what investors are going
to do. And so that makes it harder for
the average person to know how to
position themselves, which just puts us
in a very weird position. Now, like I
was saying before, Japan's rate gap
against the Fed right now, I think, is
still about three points. So, we still
have some cushion before the yen carry
trade unwinds um purely mechanistically.
Right now, people are doing it by
choice. But, there will come a day where
it's just it will have to unwind because
people will be losing money by holding
yen. So, this is going to become
ultimately a question of whether or not
Japan can get the situation under
control before that cushion runs out.
And man, I don't know that there's any
way to see that super clearly. So once
again, approach the markets with
humility with a very large degree of
paranoia. Uh as I say in business, only
the paranoid survive. That is doubly
true in investing.
>> Okay, I got a pitch. Let's go.
>> I went down the uh Twitter rabbit hole.
This idea might work. This is how we fix
the stock market. This is how we avoid
the Roman collapse that everybody wants
to happen. This is how we like free us
from our debt. This is from Eric
Bakunas.
I published a note today that I've been
thinking about for months about how the
US stock market has arguably become too
big and too imp to fail. We know what
those words mean. It's basically
America's retirement fund now and plus
even the savior of social security which
is expected to rent out in less than 10
years. Everybody wants us to shift
social security to the stock market
making 401ks instead. Currently 55 55%
of people own stocks by far the most in
the world and Trump accounts bringing in
28 million additional Americans into
stock market ownership. The vast
majority of people including the top 1%
who own half the stock market middle
class lowered income. We now have a
financial interest in the health of the
stock market and they're all voters. I
say all this to say the Fed instead of
buying debt. What if it starts buying
ETFs? The stock market's already propped
up. We already all on fire. we might as
well have the Treasury get in on this.
>> They're already doing that. So, this was
a big part of 2008 was just going, "H,
this company's going to live. That
company's going to die." They went in
and swooped up a bunch of their debt.
>> Um, so yeah, it's
>> guaranteed ETFs.
>> Will they buy ETFs? I don't know. I I
won't make a prognostication about that,
but I know that they will pick winners
and losers. I know that they will
manipulate the market.
>> Um, that is a guarantee. Now, the
reality is you only have two choices.
Choice number one, you get rid of the
central bank. I love it. I'm here for
it. And if we have a sensible path to
doing that, I would legitimately be
thrilled. Choice number two,
>> can we talk through those choices? Oh,
I'll let you list. I want to talk
through what that actually means,
though, like we talk about it, but let's
go to the ramifications of it. But yeah,
>> uh, choice number two would be that you
have to um get every American in the
stock market in a very meaningful way.
Those are your only two options because
you have to get them into assets. Let me
say it in a in a more truthful way. Uh,
now, will
the government ever back something that
isn't just US? Probably not. So, they're
going to get you in the US stock market,
>> but you have to do that. Anything else
is truly sinister. and the the wealth
transfer from the middle and working
class to the wealthy happens because you
have a central bank but the vast
majority of people because that stat
that he gave is so misleading. uh the
vast majority of people don't have any
meaningful amount of wealth in the stock
market. And so you've got to get them a
meaningful amount of wealth so that it's
like, "Oh, this is real." And without
that, you're just going to continue to
bleed them dry and you're going to
continue the K-shaped economy and
everybody's going to be like losing
their minds. Now, show me the incentives
and I'll show you the outcome. if every
American is bought in literally by using
um tax dollars and donations to get kids
from birth, which is the Trump account.
I'm sure many people hate that it's his
name on it, but I don't give a [ __ ]
>> Like, you've got people like the Dell
family donating billions of dollars just
to American kids. And so now all this
and doing it by the way in a way that
sort of teaches them financial literacy
but certainly ties them to America. They
now own a piece of the American economy
in a very real way. That one to me is is
an unmitigated good because now they
care as long as you don't have them
investing in specific companies and you
treat it like the S&P 500 where it's a
qualification. It is a set of sensible
things that they must do. uh have been a
company for so long, be profitable, uh
things like what the S&P 500 does. And
then you just say you don't need to care
which companies are in this, just that
companies in America are thriving such
that your net worth is going up. Now, at
least as the central bank steals from
everybody, it's also giving back to the
poor, to every kid in America that has a
Trump account, they all So like when we
say, "Oh, the poor get poor and the rich
get richer." Now, it would be if you
don't own assets, you're [ __ ] But if
you do, everybody's boat rises up. Now,
it puts them in a position where if when
they turn 18, they start taking that
money and doing dumb [ __ ] with it. Now,
you've got a problem. And so, that's one
thing that people are worried about is
you just the smart money is going to
[ __ ] rob these kids blind. So, it's
like an 18-year delayed theft from the
people that know how to play the game
against people that don't know how to
play the game. And that one I take a
principled stand. I just become
absolutely I rateate when people are
like this is a nanny state and people
should turn to the government for
everything. You give them the chance.
You make it um tied to there are certain
things that they can take it out for and
certain things that they can't. And the
things that I've seen them put forward
are like uh you can start a business. I
think pay for medical bills. Like there
were a few things where it's like you
could take the money out as of 18 to pay
for those things. But the goal should be
to get them to hold and this is their
retirement account because there's never
been a time where there's been a 20-year
uh period where you weren't positive. So
if you give it to kids when they're
young and then they hold it to when
they're 65, like holy [ __ ] Uh this
should be worth an insane amount of
money. And again, show me the
incentives, I'll show you the outcome.
If all Americans are in a position where
it's like, yo, I need American companies
to do well. You would have looked at the
World Trade Organization been like, [ __ ]
you. No way. There's no universe. I'm
not letting you outsource all of our
jobs and weaken our companies. Like, no,
no, no. Like, we're not playing that
game. So, uh, you're going to do things
that are good for American companies.
So, that is a great place to be where
you're making people very invested in
what's going on in America.
>> But this is the ultimate play for social
security. We're just going to stop
throwing it into the social security
fund, giving it to the government, and
instead putting it in the stock market.
And I mean, you know,
>> that's way better use for it. way. The
boomers are cashing in on the check and
they don't think so cuz they're
guaranteed till their death. It's the
young people who are going to get
screwed cuz then now we're
>> Wait, wait, wait. So, you think young
people are screwed by the by
>> I think young people are screwed because
I've been paying social security into
all this time for something that I'm not
going to benefit from. So, if my total
contributions to social security are now
going to be rolled into a 401k, oh, I
love it the most. But that's not going
to happen. It's going to be like, sorry
guys, starting now, all social security
dispersements are going into this 401k.
So the 30 something years of uh working
history I have, none of that gets
allocated. None of that gets compounded.
None of that gets to 7% interest play.
So the people that are in the middle of
the flip switch, they're going to get
screwed. Um but
>> well, so I would say it a slightly
different way. What I would say is uh
the Trump accounts don't protect those
people who need a solution, but the
solution is you're going to run out of
money in social security. So now when
you look at social security, it's like
okay, how do we want to solve this
problem? I can't take anybody seriously
that doesn't start with we're going to
balance the budget. Then as a part of
balancing the budget, do things like
extend the retirement age. Love that. Um
if we need to reduce benefits somewhat
so that we make sure that it isn't going
to run out of money, I love that. If we
want to focus on growth to make sure
that we have more raw tax dollars so
that we can make sure that people are
going to be taken care of. I love that.
But if you don't start by balancing the
budget, you just keep doing the same
thing. You are stealing from everybody.
You are making them poorer and you are
only giving back to people who own
assets. And so that group of people will
just continue to get hammered. So for
them, it's like if you actually want to
solve the problem, you want to be voting
for things that do the things that I
just said. So that stopped the bleeding
in terms of unbalanced budgets that
reduce the bleed out of the system given
that we're now a column and not a
pyramid. And so uh that's going to be
very important. But you it that doesn't
make the Trump accounts a bad thing.
That is such a net positive and you want
to start that now so that it starts
paying off in, you know, 18 years from
now. And then the real payout being when
the kids that are born today go to
retire and it's like the first thing
where we're planning so far out into the
future. I love it. Like that could
really really be a win without taking
away from the fact that yes, you're
pointing to another thing that we have
to solve, but you're going to solve that
almost certainly by different means
>> cuz I think that there's two things that
are true. Something that happened
historically is if something happens,
it's a quote from the alchemist. If
something happens, it's never going to
happen again or it's going to happen
repeatedly. We're going to keep deficit
spending. It happened before. It's going
to happen again. It's going to happen in
the future. I haven't found a politician
yet that has talked about austerity.
>> Yeah.
>> So, now that we know that this is going
to happen, how do we solve it? Central
bank, I don't think the central bank is
leaving anymore. America likes being the
boss and telling other people what to
do. So, we do that by throwing money in
their faces. So, we're not going to give
up that power either. So, Central Bank's
not going away. We're not balancing the
budget. Next thing, Trump account. I
love it the most. Three of my family
members signed up. I got a new guy. Uh I
got a new nephew and um Lynn has two
more siblings. They're both all Trump
accounts. They're going to be rich when
they're 18.
>> Did you get one for You got one for
Lynn.
>> No, Lynn's uh she's doesn't count.
>> Yes, she does. I think if they're under
18, they count.
>> Uh under Ryan, look it up.
>> Under 18, they can start one. I have to
invest in it, but I already have like a
529.
>> But they don't they won't put anything
under they,000 is only for the babies.
>> Got it. So, she gets the tax breaks.
>> She gets the tax breaks in the the
account creation uh benefit, but she
doesn't get the actual the dispersement.
I'm not beefing on that, though. I get a
free 401k I don't got to pay for. That's
I'll take it. Again, I'm not mad at
this. I just know that the next thing is
going to be like, okay, how do we fix
social security?
>> Well, the Trump accounts are going so
well. Why don't we try with and I think
that's going to be an interesting
conversation that we're going to have to
figure out
>> in terms of how we fix social security
>> cuz they're going to I think Trump
accounts are going to be the plan of
like Trump accounts have worked in two
three years. are going to look back and
they're going to say, "Okay, x amount of
people signed up. They had this money
when they started. The stock market
went. They now have y amount of money.
They grew up 30 13%. This is great for
everybody. This is better than social
security. Let's get everybody on there."
Yes.
>> Which is all true.
>> Um the dispersement is going to be the
problem. That's going to be the next
issue that we're going to see. Just like
the straight up
>> when you say when they take the money
out, is that what you mean by
dispersement? when the how they're going
to convert people from social security's
current system to the Trump account for
adult system.
>> Oh, I don't buy that argument. So, I
don't think that they're going to try to
do that for
>> uh the for the kids. Sure, maybe, but
that doesn't help with the the core
group. It is a better answer in my far
better answer for the young people
today.
>> Um the people that are already outside
of that system, what are we going to do
about them? So, going back to where you
started, we're not going to get rid of
the central bank. That's almost
certainly true. We're not going to um
balance the budget. That is almost
certainly false. We are going to balance
the budget. The budget will be balanced.
I I guarantee it. And it will be
balanced because there will be no money,
no appetite for our debt. And the that's
my 9-year clock. And at that point, they
won't be able to raise the money. And so
their only two choices are going to be
to hyperinflate or balance the budget.
And at that point, they'll be forced.
And that's the thing I can't seem to get
people to understand. There's a
mechanism you're going to run up
against. This is not me like saying,
"Oh, there's a moral reason why uh we're
going to have a crisis in nine years."
No, you're you're going to hit a me
mechanistic thing where if people don't
buy your debt, the only thing you can do
is print. And if you need $2 trillion a
year like we do now, you can't print
that much money without hyperinflating
your currency. So, um, because the
reality is when we have a $2 trillion
deficit, we're not just printing all of
that. If we did, we'd already have the
hyperinflation. It's that we're able to
sell a huge hu the vast majority of
that. People buy up for us. And then
there's small amount. It's like $40
billion a month right now.
>> Not saying that's trivial. I'm just
saying compared to $2 trillion, it's
trivial. So, you've got
>> that reality looming on the horizon. And
you also have the just debt repayment
which I mean man do we even make it nine
years but let's just assume that we do
that there's just ah plenty of
interventions and we slow it down enough
and we really do get to nine years but
yeah that is that will force a balancing
of the budget but it will force it in a
way that will be so traumatic um that I
don't imagine we get away without
bloodshed internally. Um there's some
criticism of the Trump account
>> because some people are saying, "Hey
guys, um this is free money to the
taxpayer." And I thought we didn't want
to give away free money because I
thought that was socialist.
>> This is free money to the taxpayer. I
don't understand that statement.
>> Trump accounts. I'm giving $1,000.
>> Taxpayers are funding the free money.
>> We're we're paying it ourselves.
>> Well, I think that I I think people are
confused. 50% of Americans don't pay
tax. They pay 3%. But it's nothing. So
this is now going from
>> they don't pay income tax because I feel
like we still we minimize taxes home the
most like yes. Um okay let me restart
this. I thought giving free money away
to the citizens were bad and that was
socialist communists. We're going to
start eating babies and now we're giving
$1,000 to every kid and we're
high-fiving and saying we solve the
future.
>> This is amazing. Okay. Uh if this is
sincere uh push back
>> there is people calling it socialism.
I'm being like,
>> okay, sure. So, if we want to say that
um every dollar in tax is um wealth
redistribution, which is a very
reasonable thing to say, um I don't know
anybody maybe other than Michael Malice
that believes the answer is zero tax.
And so if you want to um say okay there
are like a black belt there are nine
degrees of socialism and uh mom Donnie
is a ninth Dan black belt and I am uh a
third ranked black belt. Okay sure um
because yes I'm not looking for 0%
government. I'm looking for a
mechanistic solution to our problems.
One of our problems is that because we
have a central bank and because our
politicians are unhinged because we vote
for it. Uh but because of all of that,
we steal from everybody and we only give
back to the mechanism only gives back to
people that own assets
>> and so therefore must get people owning
assets. Um I don't have a problem with
that. Where I have a problem is where
people don't recognize that the
prosperity engine is capitalism and
every free markets more aptly. Every
degree you move away from that is a
distortion that causes problems. And so
there's um for instance when you eat,
you're running cycles in your body. Um,
and the reason that you can freeze
somebody and for like 90 minutes or
whatever and you can unthaw them and
they actually survive. And it's like,
how the [ __ ] is that possible? It's
possible because you stop the body's
metabolism. When you stop the
metabolism, the cells can't degrade. So
when you eat, you are, even if you're
eating a healthy diet, you're forcing
metabolism to happen. The system is
degrading over time and you're aging. So
is the solution don't eat? No. Because
you're just going to die from something
else. you're going to die a hell of a
lot faster. So, I'm just saying you
can't organize in groups this big
without a government. Once you have a
government, somebody has to fund the
government. And so, you're in a
situation just like you are with food
where you have to be disciplined. You
want to take some in taxes. You want to
curb the free market in some ways
because very powerful people that are
very good at playing that game will
become parasitic. And so, you want to
put checks against that. But those
checks can go wrong. And so the reason
that um I think it was Franklin said you
have a republic if you can keep it is he
understood what they were asking us to
do was to walk this tight balancing act
and where you tax a little bit but not
too much. You regulate a little bit but
not too much. And so if people want to
try to be right and get a gotcha and
say, "Haha, I knew what these
[ __ ] like. They were socialists
all along." Or these dumb asses don't
realize that they're socialist, like
whatever thing, whatever emotional um
satisfaction they get from saying that.
It's like, yeah, that's kindergarten
schoolyard like retardation. And if they
want to [ __ ] Max, that's totally up to
them. But I would advise against it. And
I would say look at the cause and
effect. What are you saying? Anarchy?
and we just people hoard as much money
as they want and if you can get them to
voluntarily interact with you do it. Or
do we want to say mm probably good that
we have defense so now we're already
taking money for collective defense. Uh
probably do want a fire department.
Yeah, that's good. Oh, but by the way,
as a reminder, the only reason we have
tax revenue in the [ __ ] first place
is because of free market capitalism
creating things that people want. And
that allows us to make money literally
out of thin air. Whether they're se
seashells, glass beads, dollars, gold,
doesn't matter uh what you use, but what
you're actually doing is creating things
of value in proportion to the amount of
glass beads that you have. And so as
long as that is working, your economy
functions and it can grow literally with
no limit. Uh and the second you [ __ ] up
that ratio, you have a problem. And I'm
just saying it's very hard to stop
people from [ __ ] up that ratio. Um
but my solution is not zero taxes.
>> So we just need like thirdderee
socialism and not ninth degree.
>> Yeah. I mean look if look that's so the
the problem with that is then people
will go Tom is an admitted socialist.
It's like okay sure like if if we want
to play [ __ ] games we will get
[ __ ] prices. And that is people have
the right to do whatever they want. But
that really is [ __ ] maxing and I don't
understand why people want to play that
game. It's like really really for real.
So this the number one complaint about
me will go something like this. Um this
guy's an idiot. He doesn't know what
he's talking about.
>> Cool. Uh which part?
>> So I will routinely reply in the
comments. Um and by the way, Ryan, you I
certainly check, but if you guys ever
see a reply that's thoughtful, send it
to me. I want to know. I want to be at
the interface of cause and effect so
that I can make my own life better. Uh,
and it just so happens that I like being
a part of a big group and so I'm all for
a nice stable society. Um, so I'm trying
to figure out where I'm wrong. I know
I'm wrong somewhere. It's just very hard
to identify. Uh, so if somebody really
sees it, but anyway, the the attacks on
me are almost always like that. They're
not annunciating, okay, he has this fact
wrong, with the exception, shout out to
some of our um the people that do super
chats. They've been phenomenal. But the
more specific they can be about what
they think I'm getting wrong, the
better. And people are almost never
specific.
>> I got I got two things for you. One
person has come out and said, "Okay, ask
him if he thinks that owning a piece of
Intel is owning a piece of the means of
production."
>> So yeah, that would be a fool's errand.
The the last thing you want to do, for
the same reason that Drew does not want
to see the Fed deciding what companies
live and die, you don't want the
government to invest in specific
companies. You want them to invest in a
criteria. So if a company meets this
criteria, then we buy it and we buy it
in these proportions. That way we don't
care if a company falls off. If a new
one replaces it, doesn't matter to us.
But the interventions that we're going
to pull as a government are going to be
to create the economic environment where
companies can thrive and meet those
criteria that that's great. And if that
criteria is about
uh innovation, uh US dominance,
things like growth, um life expectancy
extension, I mean there's we can put
together a group of things that we like
really care about and we really want to
see companies that meet that. You want
to keep that list as light as [ __ ]
possible because it will get abused.
Just look at the antifat stuff uh that
people did that killed uh generations of
people far too early. But anyway, um, so
when you are doing that, now you've got
a chance. But when you're investing in
Intel specifically, you create zombie
companies. And a zombie company is a
company that isn't actually able to
survive in the real marketplace, but you
kill off competition. You either kill
off competition for people, you kill off
competition for capital, or both. Uh,
and so that's where you run into
trouble. That's exactly what Japan did.
That's why they're now just absolutely
riddled with zombie companies. That's
what is going to increasingly happen um
under Trump, who seems hellbent to
invest in specific companies, which is
[ __ ] stupid. Uh he needs to stop
immediately. Um yeah, that one's dumb.
No matter who does it, no matter what
company they invest in, don't do it for
uh SpaceX AI. That would be really dumb.
Don't do it for Amazon. These are great
companies, but don't do it for them. Uh
that'd be really dumb. Don't do it for
Intel where they are doing it. So, I get
there are going to be industries that we
want to make sure are able to thrive in
America, manufacturing being the most
obvious, uh, but you still don't want to
invest in specific companies. That
doesn't mean you don't make grants
available and people don't take
advantage of those grants. Someone,
that's why you made the grant available.
Someone is going to take advantage of
that. But that grant needs to be
available to anybody. Uh, and then
whoever wins wins. But yeah, you you
want to avoid picking winners because
you will do a terrible job of it.
>> I got one more for you. Um I guess this
is a scale conversation. They're saying
you spent an hour and a half on mom
Donniey's speech and then you should do
like an hour and a half on handing out
free money is bad and socialist like you
did with mom Donnie speech.
>> I don't understand why.
>> Cuz mom Donnie speech you were talking
about all the bad things that can
possibly happen if this ideology. But
why do they need the like same amount of
time? I don't understand.
>> Cuz it's basically like you have that
same energy on one side, you need that
same energy on the other side. So
>> on which side? So wait, they want me to
do an hour and a half on Trump shouldn't
invest in Intel. Is that what they're
saying?
>> And the free the free the Trump accounts
is free money and it's socialist and we
need to stop paying people
>> and they want to hear me talk about that
even though I'm for it. They want to
hear me talk about it for an hour and a
half. I don't
>> It's one of those things where you said
socialism is all these bad things. is
once you start giving people money,
you're going to remove the incentive. I
I think they're having a trouble
differentiating the line between this is
an ideology that I think leads to
something bad and then when actual
policies, Intel owning the means of
production, Trump handing out free
money, the things that actually are
socialist in practice, whereas to your
own admission, Mam Dani's free things
haven't even made it to the budget yet,
>> it doesn't get that same level of
scrutiny.
>> Okay, so I'm trying to read their mind.
Welcome to the the channel. It's
wonderful to have a new visitor here.
Um, I've talked about this before. I
gave an extended tirade as to why you're
always going to get me more animated
talking about somebody who's a socialist
versus somebody like Trump who is trying
to get the um industry going, roaring,
ripping and roaring, who is making a
mistake by investing in a given company.
Probably doing it because it holds some
advantage to him somewhere. I don't see
it with Intel, but I'll just assume that
it's there. That's bad. We should talk
about it. I have talked about it. I'll
put time and energy into that for sure
because it is bad regardless of who is
doing it. But if you want to understand
why fear the left more, their death toll
is ideologically driven is the only way
that that can terminate has been run
everywhere through all of time. And
that's where it ends. They are saying
aggressively they are socialists. they
want to do that. They have a litany of
things that they are doing that is um
horrific. Then you've got over here
you've got Trump trying to create a
system upon which he can be a parasite,
but he's trying to create the system
that works in terms of being an engine
of prosperity. Now, there are things
that I think that he's going to do that
will make it work less efficiently, but
my mental model of Trump is he wants
industry to thrive. Now, if you think
that Trump doesn't want industry to
thrive and he is also trying to um make
sure that the government controls
everything that we want to get rid of
the free markets and we want to um make
sure that the to use the language of
socialists, we want to make sure that
the workers are able to come in and take
over these companies. The people that
are making money are doing something
intrinsically evil. that billionaires
shouldn't even exist. If that's your
mental model of Trump, then I don't
recognize that. So, I'm gonna call out
the things that he's doing that are
going to [ __ ] things up. I'm gonna say
that nice and aggressively, but they are
not the litany of ideologically driven
uh catastrophes that I see on the left.
Now, I understand that that's not going
to be everybody's cup of tea, and there
are going to be people that build a
mental model. This is part of why I
think that doing the show with Drew and
Ryan, quite frankly, uh, works, if you
guys will grant me that, as well as it
does. They don't have the same mental
model of the world as I do. And so, they
are constantly reminding me that there's
another way to see this. So, if you
resonate with somebody that's like, "Yo,
I just want to tell you about how bad
Trump is." By the way, Destiny, I think,
is phenomenal at this. So, Destiny is
very smart. I think he's very sincere. I
disagree with him on the vast majority
of his views, but I'm very glad that the
world has him and that you can go
because he is way more afraid of the
right than he is of the left. And I'm
way more afraid of the left than I am of
the right. So um yeah, you're never I'm
not going to fake the um level of fear
that I have, but I think it's very
reasonable of you at home to go, "Ah, I
got to balance this out with somebody
that's as afraid of the right." That
seems very reasonable to me. And my
advice to you is then build your own
mental model. What meaning be able to
say it to yourself. What are the base
assumptions like what I just walked you
through with why I'm not as afraid of
Trump even though I think he does really
dumb [ __ ] and I would like him to
immediately stop doing it. And if you
give me a viable candidate that is
better than him, I will vote for them in
a [ __ ] second. Uh versus my thinking
on the left and I will keep articulating
it. Um, I think you probably have a base
assumption that people that speak into a
microphone are swaying the world, which
is very reasonable. And you're worried
that we should be more afraid of the
right than the left. And therefore, each
person needs to spend more time on that
or they need to spend equal time on.
Anyway, I'm going to stop there. But,
um, I don't share that base assumption.
But if you can become a far more
elevated human than I by combining
people that view these um issues very
differently. Godspeed.
Last but not least, um this is a
personal thing, but I think this is
something that you talk to very well, so
I'm bringing it up. They said last week
when we were talking about wage theft
and all this other stuff, you told them
to just quit their job. That their c
their c county was
>> I would rather say it like this. Find
another job. It isn't just quit.
>> Well, get another job.
>> Yeah. Take your talents elsewhere.
>> They listed a bunch of reasons why they
couldn't get another job. They due to
restrictions in their county, in their
state and local politics, whatever it
may be. So a lot of times it's like the
market that
the job market that was thriving when
you were an active job seeker is a
different market than we see now. We
have people who have been searching for
jobs for a year plus is like the norm.
Default has been moved up. LinkedIn
indeed all these things that have tried
to make that process easier. A lot of
them are ghost jobs are not actually
being filled. So the job market itself
is a little bit different and it's no
longer just go to that office and give
them your resume and show them how hard
of a worker you are. I'm 50. So, I've
seen 2008.
>> Uh, I was trying to start a company in
2009. So, this was like [ __ ] brutal.
And nonetheless, we we talked about it.
It was like, okay, well, we can make
excuses and no one will fault us for it
>> or we can say, and now what? Uh, I'm
going to have to work harder. It's going
to be harder to get capital. All that
stuff. But you either overcome the
obstacles before you or you don't. That
doesn't mean I don't have empathy for
things being harder for some people than
others. That is for sure true. Um the
thing that I have the most empathy for
is somebody that just doesn't have the
intellect to pull it off. That is
[ __ ] brutal. Um clearly if I had the
intellect that I wanted, I'd be much
farther along in life than I am. Uh but
I've been dealt the hand of cards that
I've been dealt. And so my job is to
figure out how with the talents that I
have, uh, how far can I push myself? How
much can I develop myself? So you're 50%
hardwired, 50% um, what you do with that
hard wiring. And so all of us are
trapped in some way by our biology. All
of us are products of our time. I get
all of that. But the reality is if you
just because we're still in the middle
of the World Cup, I'll use that as an
analogy. You're on the pitch on the
World Cup uh and you're either gonna win
or lose and no one's coming to save you.
This is it. And there are excuses that
you can take. I get it. And if you take
them, people be like, "Yeah, there's
just there was no way for the US to
win." For instance, um okay. Or you can
look at that and go, "All right, well,
uh, we didn't make it this year because
we have not had a soccer culture as long
as some of the Europeans, even though
the best we've ever done in the World
Cup was 1930." Um, and but for whatever
reason, that culture fell off and so
kids didn't grow up revering it. So,
they didn't grow up training. So, we
don't have the right coaches. We don't
have the right financial incentives to
make the team what it could be and all
of that stuff. And the MLS is weak
compared to the rest of the world. So,
we don't have the training ground for
the talent and all that. All of those
things are real, but they're also
completely [ __ ] irrelevant. And so,
you either figure out a way to overcome
those things or you're forever trapped.
Again, there there's a real moment where
everybody realizes their life is not
going to be what they thought it was
going to be, myself included. And how
you react in that moment is going to
determine the quality of your life. If
you let that be the most devastating
thing that ever happened, or you just
go, "Cool. Well, I'm gonna have as much
fun as I can playing this game. And I
will say when I audit people's lives,
they often leave a lot of optimization
on the table. So, I can obviously give
this speech from a very [ __ ] place.
I am um actively not feeling that vibe
right now. So, I will just say look,
we all have the same amount of hours in
the day. We all have different
abilities, but everybody can get a
hundred times better. And so if you're
struggling to find a job, imagine
pouring yourself over the next year or
two into getting a hundred times better
at your job than you are today. The odds
that you will be able to get a job go up
dramatically.
And when I think about how much time I
put in just to understanding the
economy, it's hours a day, seven days a
week. So now it's like I've gotten
better. And if you apply that to
whatever, whether you're a marketer, a
salesperson, customer support, whatever,
I think you will be shocked. Basically,
nobody does that. Almost nobody is
trying to get better at their job. And
if you just put time and energy into
becoming the goat of accounting,
whatever your thing is, you will be
shocked at the opportunities that open
up for you. As somebody that interviews
all the time, I have conducted well over
1500 interviews at this point. That's a
lot. It might not sound like a lot, but
that's a lot. And when you really start
um putting the patterns together, you
realize the vast majority of people come
in, they can't interview for [ __ ] Uh
they're not actually very good at their
job, and that when you find somebody
with even the slightest spark, it it's
like, oh my god. So, be that person. Be
the one with the spark.
>> All right, we need to
>> I have the Trump account thing from
earlier. I was gonna add a qualifier
because you hit all the points, but um
the 10,00 goes in for I don't know if
y'all mentioned it specifically, but for
people between born between 2025 and
2028.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. All right.
>> Just newborns.
>> Thank you.
>> Um so, hey bro, hit it raw. You get
$1,000 from Trump.
>> Damn.
>> Um
>> true though. And we do need more kids,
so let's go.
>> I just spoke to my good friend Mitch
McConnell. Um so he's good guys.
>> Spent 20 minutes with him this morning.
>> Spent 20 minutes talking to him.
>> He says he's all good. He tells me to
bring his regards. Um he's gonna cook
you some barbecue when you get back to
Kentucky.
>> Can't wait.
>> He loves your um roadside chats and he
just cherishes them.
>> Understood.
>> Um are we really doing this? Because
this is kind of like the Platiner thing.
Like remember when everybody was on news
on CNN? What? I just talked about it.
He's so sharp. The he yo he memorized my
my aunt's birthday and he asked about my
cousin's twice removed. He's the
smartest person. Like we're doing the
same thing.
>> If he was well they would just show him
>> or just talk to him.
>> Yeah. Like
>> for 20 minutes.
>> Yeah. like put have him live stream for
20 minutes and then I'll believe it.
Like this [ __ ] is so wild. Politicians
are a [ __ ] mess. Uh I Yeah, I
continue to love uh Thomas Massie. His
when he did that thing, so tell me uh
why uh you like gay porn. Like I was
like, "Wait, hold what? What?" Uh I just
thought that was [ __ ] brilliant. Uh
so Massie was trolling today with the
same thing. So many people are claiming
to talk to Mitch McConnell. Um I don't
know that he's brain dead. Obviously, I
don't have any insider information
whatsoever, but the fact that they're
keeping him hidden and have been for
like 3 weeks now. Uh, and there's
something super weird that if so, his
wife like 72 hours or something after he
had this heart attack or whatever it was
that required CPR. He had to be resuscit
resuscitated.
She ended up going to China to meet with
like a VP in China. I was like, "What?"
So, that [ __ ] is crazy. If my wife did
that, I would be mortified. Uh, so yeah,
I have a feeling this is just straight
down the middle. They've got to keep him
alive until like August 18th or
something. I forget the exact date, but
if they keep him alive until then, then
there's no special election. Uh, and
they can just pick the candidate that
they want to see in the primary and
that'll be that.
>> And it's Kentucky. Thomas Massiey's like
is eligible to get that run for that
seat. They're trying to keep Massie out,
>> dude. So wild. God, that'd be awesome if
he got back in. Like that would tempt me
to believe in God.
>> I was like, "Oh, really? Oh, really?
>> Hey, Mitch, it's that
>> Hey, Mitch, it's that time. Yeah, but
that's crazy. You needed CPR and your
wife hopped on a 17 hour flight.
>> That's wild.
>> I'm like, I can understand if she went
from like DC to Kentucky
>> to come home.
>> Yeah, like something. But, oh, you're
you're going to the hospital? I'll be
back in 17 hours in three different time
zones. Come on, man.
>> That's crazy.
>> Fixes in. I'm not going full MTG,
though. She's calling her a Chinese spy.
I don't know anything about his wife.
I'm not going to, you know, allegedly I
like electronics. I don't want nothing
to blow up on me. Um, but I would say
there's when there's smoke, there's
fire. So, there's definitely some
>> It's weird. No matter what, it's weird.
>> There's some politicking happening over
there.
>> Um, speaking of it's weird. Let's talk
about these Tyler Robinson preliminary
hearings. Yeah.
>> Uh, okay. So, there's somebody in the
chat who's been trolling me for like the
last like two weeks. I haven't even been
here. It was my daughter's birthday,
guys. Like, I'm sorry I can't be here
every day. I'm the only one on the set
with kids. Y'all don't understand my
plight. So, I'm not Everybody thought I
got fired on Monday. Everybody was
trolling me in the chat. I'm like, "This
is cool. I just I have a 15-year-old.
She requires a lot of attention. Um,
>> rightly so. And by the way, I could not
support that more if I tried. Uh, and I
have said this to you off camera. I am
so grateful for you raising your child
well. It's incredible. Drew is dope. So,
>> I appreciate that,
>> man. For sure.
>> Our handshake has added another um
layer. I don't know if I told you guys
this. Um, ever since she turned into a
teenager, we had like a secret handshake
growing up. For every teenage year, we
add like another like layer to it. So,
it was her birthday. We added a new
layer. I'm excited for it. when she's
19. Our handshake is going to be like
two hours. I'm so excited for it. Um,
but okay, I have to play some of these
videos that we've seen online.
>> Now, preliminary hearings. They're
talking through the evidence. They're
trying to see what's admitted, what's
not admitted. We still don't have a full
breath of knowledge. There's still a lot
of things that need to be admitted,
>> but there are just some very interesting
things that the defense is pointing out
that they want to make sure is laid out
on the record. This is something that I
think we both talked about. Um, this is
the defense talking about the decision
to pave the crime scene.
>> I want to go back if I can to the scene.
Um, the scene itself, pres the
preservation of the actual scene where
the um where Mr. Kirk passed. Um, did
you all have K-9 dogs at any point that
sniffed that area?
>> I don't know specifically that area, but
I do know that Kines's were present or a
K9 was present on the day. But you don't
know what task the K9 was given.
>> My understanding was that it may have
been used in an effort to track an
individual that had jumped off the roof,
but I don't know for certain.
>> And obviously that didn't produce any
results or we would have heard about
that, right?
>> Yeah. Not that I was made aware of.
>> Okay. Um
were
do you know when the tent and the stuff
was actually removed from the scene?
I don't I would imagine it had been at
least a couple of days if not longer
than that before anything was removed
from the scene.
>> You didn't have to give permission to
remove the tent?
>> Me personally?
>> No. No.
>> So, you're not sure when it was removed?
>> No.
>> Um, and were you involved in the
decision to pave over the dirt that was
under the tent
>> at UVU?
>> Uh-huh.
>> Did you know that happened?
>> Only because it was in the news. All
right. But you don't know when or who
ordered that?
>> Nope.
>> So, who's that guy?
>> Lead investigator,
>> the agent leading the investigation.
>> So, okay, this is all going to come out
in trial. Is he with the FBI or is he
with the Utah police?
>> I don't know. Let's check.
>> So, that'll be an interesting thing
because if the they're calling him the
lead investigator. If he was the lead
investigator for the Utah police, but
there is an FBI guy that has the answers
to all this stuff. Awesome. Um, but that
that's going to be something people need
to account for. or the fact that they
paved over that is so insane to me. But
just to go back and start at the
beginning. So, um, Tyler Robinson is
doing the pre-trial hearing part of what
he's doing now. But the thing to me
that's interesting far more than the
details that are coming out is the
conspiracy theories that are being
kicked off. Uh, and we're just getting
started now. Again, this this isn't the
trial, but despite that, the algorithms
are like funneling people into either a
look, there's nothing to see here funnel
or uh uh it seems like dodgy funnel. And
I didn't even realize that until Drew
and I Drew was telling me what he was
seeing. I was telling him what I was
seeing. And I'm in the like there's
nothing to see here uh camp apparently.
And Drew is like in the no this is all
like this is all fake camp. So it was
pretty wild. So, just as a public
service announcement, remember to wildly
distrust your algorithm, to constantly
seek disisconfirming evidence. Very,
very important. But this week in the um
it's a 5-day preliminary hearing, and
when they get to the actual trial,
you're going to see a lot more experts.
You're going to see people putting
forward um all the like data, walking
people through it step by step by step.
So, don't think that what you're seeing
in the preliminary um shows like a lack
of intensity or anything for um what the
prosecution is going to look like or for
that matter what the defense is going to
look like. Um all of this is just a
warm-up so that the judge can assess
whether there's reasonable grounds to
try Tyler Robinson for the murder of
Charlie Kirk. Now, people are estimating
that basically the likelihood of this
not going forward is essentially zero.
So, this is more or less prefuncter. We
are going to see this trial move
forward. The state's case, which
represents the there's nothing to see
here camp. This is exactly what it looks
like, goes something like this.
Surveillance video allegedly shows
Robinson arriving on campus about 4
hours before the shooting, returning
multiple times, climbing over a railing
onto a rooftop overlooking Kirk's event.
You've got DNA consistent with
Robinson's uh that was found on the
rifle, the fired casing, and the towel
that it was wrapped in. Prosecutors say
that he confessed in a note to his
roommate, who was also his romantic
partner. I think everybody knows that.
And he confessed again on Discord. The
roommate, Lance Twigs, gave a sworn
recorded statement in April in exchange
for limited immunity. And in that, he
says Robinson confessed to the killing,
confessed that he hid the rifle, and he
confessed that he destroyed his
clothing, and that he told uh Lawrence
specifically to be silent with the
police. And then there were texts back
and forth that back it up. And when
asked, Twig uh sorry, when Twigs was
asked um to Tyler Robinson, he said,
"You weren't the one that did it,
right?" And then Robinson allegedly
replied, "I am. I'm sorry." And then
charging documents say he further
implied implied though, and this is the
prosecution's own words, that he further
implied guilt to his own parents before
surrendering. And when his parents asked
him why he killed Kirk, and this is why
they say it was implied because he
doesn't challenge the um context of the
question, he doesn't say, "I didn't kill
him. What do you mean?" He just gives an
answer. And he said that Kirk was
spreading too much hate. So his parents
directly ask him, "Why did you kill
him?" And he gives an answer, which is
he was spreading too much hate. So he
didn't say to them, "I killed him." But
obviously it really is pretty strongly
implied. The prosecution is saying that
this is a slam dunk case, but the
defense disagrees. They note that the
initial ballistics testing on the bullet
fragment that was actually pulled from
Kirk's body came back inconclusive and
could not be matched to the rifle. Now,
this is a big part of what fueled the
second shooter hypothesis. And some
people are even saying that this was a
stage death uh that's sweeping uh the
land. On cross-examination on Monday,
the first officer on the scene admitted
nothing found that day specifically
identified Tyler Robinson as a shooter
or identified any shooter uh any
specific person that would be the
shooter. The lead investigator, David
Hull, further confirmed that an unfired
round was found on the roof of a
different building. uh he couldn't say
which building when it was found or
where that bullet is now only that
investigators believe an officer ejected
it while clearing his own rifle. Um so
these kinds of things are the type of
things that are getting people going
that I think are going to be cleared up
when we're actually in the trial and you
have individual experts that are meant
to cover very specific parts of the
case. So, it's like you bring in the guy
that knows where that shell is now, or
you bring in the guy that knows when
things were cemented over, who made the
decision, that kind of stuff. So, um I
don't think we know one way or the other
yet what this is all going to look like.
Uh but it is um interesting that no
shell casings were found on the rooftop
where Tyler supposedly had his sniper
pad, but they say it was found in the
gun and that boltaction rifles don't
automatically eject them, but you can
get what people are starting to put
together. There is a casing found on or
a bullet found on another rooftop. There
isn't one in the rooftop that he was on.
You sort of get what people are queuing
off of. Uh at least two other firearms
apparently turned up at the scene. So
going to need answers as to what that
means. Then you've got that this is this
always drives me crazy. The first
officer's body cam died while he was on
the rooftop. Isn't that convenient? Uh,
and Hull, the first, sorry, the lead
investigator, admitted he never
interviewed two witnesses whose own
rooftop video allegedly showed someone
whose bill doesn't match Tyler Robinson.
So, why the hell would he not
investigate them? Are we going to find
out that somebody else did and it just
wasn't him? Or are we going to find out
that, oh, they didn't think that it was
credible for some reason? Who knows? But
that's weird. Even the FBI's, and I
should say it's weird given what we know
now. in the fullness of the trial. It
may not be weird at all, but it
certainly I understand why people have a
hard time with that one right now. Even
the FBI's DNA analyst conceded her
report names Robinson only as a possible
contributor, not a confirmed source, but
you see these kinds of questions all the
time where it's like, yes, I can't tell
you that it's exactly him, but it will
come down to percentages. Was this like
a 98% match, which makes it highly
unlikely that it's anybody else? Was
this a 42% match? in which case maybe
it's far more questionable. And that's
the kind of stuff that when you actually
get into like the fullness of the trial,
you'll have people testifying
specifically about percentages and what
they mean and all of that, what we can
take away from it. So again, this is
just preliminary.
So I wouldn't expect any of this stuff
to I people that are taking this and
running with it, I think, are going way
too far. Um, so just keep that in mind.
Now, the defense also accused
prosecutors of running a media tour to
try to basically taint the jury pool.
And the judge refused to make Robinson's
roommate testify in the pre-trial
hearing. So, that's only recorded
statements because apparently hearsay is
actually allowed at this stage in the
trial, which I didn't realize, but hey,
there you go. Robinson still hasn't
entered a plea. So, we don't know if
he's going to say he was guilty, not
guilty. Don't know. I imagine they hold
off on that till they get some more of
the cards put on the table during the
pre-trial. So, it'll be interesting to
see what comes out of this. Um, so
again, he hasn't said one way or the
other. Prosecutors are pursuing the
death penalty, so obviously this is uh
very high stakes and like I said at the
beginning, the odds that this go through
are basically 100%. So, um, stay tuned.
We'll cover this as we go, but um
there's I don't think anything obvious
on either side was presented at trial,
so we'll see.
>> We shall see. Indeed. Weird way to start
an investigation. I would say that. Uh
all right, we got some super chats.
>> Yes, we do.
>> Let's go.
>> First up from Benjamin Nickel, Texas
says, "Trump creates demand uh creates
demand destruction when oil prices go
too low and says there's a deal when oil
prices go too high."
>> Yes. That is correct. That I mean that's
like the whole game right now
unfortunately is markets are very easy
to manipulate because they respond to
anybody with a big enough voice that
people think oo because I heard that and
I react fast that I have insider
obviously not insider information but I
have asymmetric information by moving
quickly on this thing. That's why people
say that you trade on the news. Um so
yeah it it it has nothing to do with the
fundamentals. It's just when you say a
thing, you know that you can bump the
price back down. Uh, and so that's going
to continue.
>> Tux C1B with a $50 super chat.
>> Wow.
>> Terrible violence.
>> Super chat.
>> Terrible violence is the final arbiter
of incompatible opinions.
>> Yeah, I was thinking about this um
yesterday just okay, how do you think
through this process? How do you get to
a point where we don't have to navigate
all of this stuff with violence? But the
reality is that's just how humans work.
Someone is always going to want
something that you have or they're going
to think that you believe something
that's so wrong uh that you have to be
stopped from talking about it and then
that person doesn't want to stop talking
about it. And so now whether that's two
individuals punching each other on the
road or that escalates all the way up to
two nations bombing each other. It
really is the same idea. It's like, hey,
you're doing a thing that I don't think
you should be able to do. You won't back
down. So I escalate and then we find out
who can actually impose their will on
the other. And then there are all these
different points of leverage that can be
used because we're all living in very
complicated worlds. And so it all plays
out like that. Un that is the human
animal. Um and that is something that I
feel like people are not honest about.
The vast majority of people when they
are mapping how the world works, they do
not take into account biology. I don't
think they're realistic that humans are
animals. I don't think people are
realistic that we're automata. Uh and so
yeah, they are routinely convinced that
we can do something else and we can't
unfortunately. That's just until we
change our foundational DNA, expect
humans to go to war.
>> And that's it for the super chats.
>> Nice. All right, we are
