Speaker 1: Hey, this is David Popatopple's host of Elon Inc. We
Speaker 1: have for you this week our interview in Cutter that
Speaker 1: our colleague Michelle Hussein did with Elon himself. Here is
Speaker 1: that interview in its entirety right now. And you should
Speaker 1: also know that our episode, our Elon in episode this
Speaker 1: week is all about me and Max breaking down the
Speaker 1: interview and dissecting it the highlights, the low lights, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Enjoy.
Speaker 2: Hello everyone and Elon Musk. Welcome to Cutter Economic Forum.
Speaker 2: How are you?
Speaker 3: Thank you for having me. I'm fan, how are you?
Speaker 2: Very well? Thank you and very pleased to have you
Speaker 2: with us. You know among those here in the audience
Speaker 2: in Doha are some you will know people who have
Speaker 2: backed you financially. Over the years since you last spoke
Speaker 2: here in twenty twenty two, a lot has changed in
Speaker 2: your life. You're not only running multiple companies you were
Speaker 2: doing that then, but now you also have a role
Speaker 2: in government. So first of all, I hope you won't
Speaker 2: mind it. For time to time, I have to move
Speaker 2: you from one topic to another because we have a
Speaker 2: lot to cover in the time we have. That will
Speaker 2: be all right, okay. Well, let's start then with exactly
Speaker 2: the fact that you now have this combination of being
Speaker 2: a CEO and having a role as a government advisor.
Speaker 2: Tell me about your week. How does it work? What's
Speaker 2: the split of your time?
Speaker 3: Well, I travel a lot. So I was in Silicon
Speaker 3: Valley yesterday morning, I was in LA yesterday evening. I
Speaker 3: mean Austin right now. I'll be in DC tomorrow. I'll
Speaker 3: be there having dinner with President tomorrow night, I believe,
Speaker 3: and then a lot of cabinet secretary meetings and then
Speaker 3: back to Sloton Valley on Thursday night.
Speaker 2: But I mean the balance of your time is it? Well,
Speaker 2: clearly it's a lot. But is it still the case
Speaker 2: as you said a while ago, that it's about one
Speaker 2: to two days a week on your government work.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's correct.
Speaker 2: And what does that mean for your corporate life? Because
Speaker 2: if we start with Tesla, the company has suffered in
Speaker 2: recent months what you've called blowback. So what is your
Speaker 2: plan for turning that around? The declining sales picture? And
Speaker 2: by what stage do you think you're going to be
Speaker 2: able to turn it around?
Speaker 3: Oh, it's all ready to turn around.
Speaker 2: Give me some evidence for that. I've just been looking
Speaker 2: at the sales figures for Europe in April, which show
Speaker 2: very significant declines in the big markets.
Speaker 3: Europe is our weakest market. We're stronger everywhere else, so
Speaker 3: our sales are doing well at this point. We don't
Speaker 3: anticipate any any meaningful or sales shortfall, and the you
Speaker 3: know the obviously the stock market recognizes that since we're
Speaker 3: now back over a trillion dollars in marketcap, so really
Speaker 3: the market is aware of the situation.
Speaker 4: So it's already turned around.
Speaker 2: But sales still down compared to this time last year.
Speaker 3: In Europe. In Europe, okay, and yes, but that's that's
Speaker 3: true of all manufacturers.
Speaker 4: There's no accessions.
Speaker 2: Does that mean that you're not going to be able?
Speaker 3: Does that mean you're quite weak?
Speaker 2: Okay, but you would acknowledg wouldn't you that what you
Speaker 2: are facing. Okay, let's just take it as Europe, what
Speaker 2: you are facing is a significant problem. This Tesla is
Speaker 2: an incredibly aspirational brand. People identified with it, it saw it,
Speaker 2: They saw it as being at the forefront of the
Speaker 2: climate crisis. And now people are driving around with stickers
Speaker 2: in their cars saying I bought this before we knew
Speaker 2: Elon was crazy, and there.
Speaker 3: Are also people who are by buying it because Elon's crazy,
Speaker 3: or however they may view it. So, yes, we've lost
Speaker 3: some sales, perhaps on the left, but we've gained them
Speaker 3: on the right. The sales numbers at this point are strong,
Speaker 3: and we've seen no problem with the mad So what
Speaker 3: do I mean? You can just look at the stock
Speaker 3: price if you want the best inside information. The stock
Speaker 3: market analysts have that, and a stock wouldn't be trading
Speaker 3: near all time eyes if it was not. If things
Speaker 3: weren't in good shape, They're fine, don't worry about it.
Speaker 2: Okay, I was citing sales figures rather than share price.
Speaker 2: Well tell me then, how committed you are to Tesla?
Speaker 2: Do you see yourself and are you committed to still
Speaker 2: being the chief executive of Tesla in five years time? Yes,
Speaker 2: no doubt about that at all.
Speaker 3: Well no, I might die.
Speaker 2: Okay, sure to that.
Speaker 3: Let me see if I'm dead. So there's a slighter mode.
Speaker 2: Does that mean that the value of your pay doesn't
Speaker 2: have any bearing on your decision?
Speaker 3: Well, that's not really a subject discussion in this forum.
Speaker 3: The I think, obviously there should be a conversation for
Speaker 3: if there's something incredible is done, that compensation should match
Speaker 3: that something incredible was done. But I'm confident that whatever
Speaker 3: the whatever some activists posing as a judge in Delaware
Speaker 3: happens to do will not affect the future compensation.
Speaker 2: This is the judge you twice struck down the fifty
Speaker 2: six billion dollar pay package that was that was awarded
Speaker 2: to you. I think the value on the basis on
Speaker 2: the current value of stock options.
Speaker 4: Yeah, not a judge, Not a judge.
Speaker 3: The activist who is cars playing a judge in a
Speaker 3: Halloween costume.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's that's your characterization. I think the value on
Speaker 2: the current value of stock options. I think the.
Speaker 3: Actual justice according to the law, on.
Speaker 2: The current value of stock options. I think the value
Speaker 2: of that pay package stands at about one hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 2: Are you saying you are relaxed about the value of
Speaker 2: your future pay package. Your decision to be committed to
Speaker 2: Tesla for the next five years as long as you
Speaker 2: are still with us on this planet is completely independent
Speaker 2: of pay. No, it's not independent. So pay is a
Speaker 2: relevant factor then to your commitment to Tesla.
Speaker 3: A sufficient voting control such that I cannot be ousted
Speaker 3: by activists, investors is what matters to me. And I've
Speaker 3: said this publicly many times, but let's not have this
Speaker 3: whole thing be a discussion of my list pay. It's
Speaker 3: not a money thing. It's a reasonable control thing over
Speaker 3: the future of the company, especially for building millions, potentially
Speaker 3: billions of humanoid robots.
Speaker 4: I can't be sitting.
Speaker 3: There and weren't going to get tossed out by litical
Speaker 3: reasons by activists. That will be unacceptable. That's all that matters. Now,
Speaker 3: let's move on.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well just one question, well one question before we
Speaker 2: move on to other companies, which is that I wonder
Speaker 2: if some of what you've has happened to Tesla in
Speaker 2: the last few months, did you take it personally?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 2: And did it make you regret any of you all
Speaker 2: think twice about your political endeavors, because it is.
Speaker 3: I did what needed to be done, the violent antibody reaction,
Speaker 3: and I'm not someone who's ever committed violence, and yet
Speaker 3: massive violence was committed against my companies, massive violence was
Speaker 3: threatened against me. Who are these people? Why would they
Speaker 3: do that? How wrong can they be? They're on the wrong,
Speaker 3: on the wrong side of history, and that's an evil
Speaker 3: thing to do, to go and damage some pointocent person's
Speaker 3: car to threaten to kill me. What strong are these people?
Speaker 3: I have not harmed anyone, So something needs to be
Speaker 3: done about them, and a number of them are going
Speaker 3: to prison and they deserve it.
Speaker 2: You're well, you're referring to the attacks on Tesla showrooms,
Speaker 2: but I.
Speaker 3: Think, well, let's into showrooms and burning down cars unacceptable.
Speaker 3: Those people will go to prison, and the people that
Speaker 3: funded them and organized them will also go to prison.
Speaker 3: Don't worry, wouldn't you.
Speaker 2: You wouldn't you wouldn't. Wouldn't you acknowledge that some of
Speaker 2: the people who turned against Tesla in Europe were are
Speaker 2: upset at your politics, and very few of them would
Speaker 2: have been violent in any way. They just objected to
Speaker 2: what they saw you say or do politically.
Speaker 3: Well, it's certainly fine to object to political things, but
Speaker 3: it's not fine to resort to violence and hanging someone
Speaker 3: in effigy and death threats. That's obviously not okay. You know,
Speaker 3: that's absurd. That is in no way justifiable at all
Speaker 3: in any way, shape or form. And some of the
Speaker 3: legacy media and nonetheless have sort of justified which is unconscionable.
Speaker 3: Shame on them.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about your other companies then, in other business area, SpaceX.
Speaker 2: I saw that you said in a speech at the
Speaker 2: West Point Military Academy recently that the future of warfare
Speaker 2: is AI and drones, And obviously defense is an increasingly
Speaker 2: booming sector. With the state of the world at the moment,
Speaker 2: do you we see SpaceX moving into weaponized drones?
Speaker 3: You certainly ask interesting questions that are impossible to answer.
Speaker 3: So SpaceX is is the space launch leader. So SpaceX
Speaker 3: doesn't do drones. SpaceX builds rockets, satellites, and Internet terminals.
Speaker 3: So SpaceX has a a very dominant position in space launch.
Speaker 3: So of the mass launch to orbit this year, SpaceX
Speaker 3: will probably do, China will do the remain half of
Speaker 3: the remaining amounts of five percent, and the rest of
Speaker 3: the world, including the rest of the US, will do
Speaker 3: about five percent. So SpaceX will do about ten times
Speaker 3: as much as the rest of the world combined, or
Speaker 3: twenty times as much as China, which is in China
Speaker 3: is doing actually a very impressive job. The reason for
Speaker 3: this is that we're putting it into orbit the largest
Speaker 3: satellite constellation, the Walls I've ever seen by far. So
Speaker 3: I think at this point about maybe approaching eighty percent
Speaker 3: of all active satellites in orbit are SpaceX and they're
Speaker 3: providing high vand with global connectivity throughout the world. In fact,
Speaker 3: this connection is on a SpaceX connection. So I think
Speaker 3: this is a very good thing because it means that
Speaker 3: we can provide low cost my bandwidth.
Speaker 4: Internet to parts of the world that don't have it
Speaker 4: or it's very expensive.
Speaker 3: And I think the single biggest thing you can do
Speaker 3: to lift people out of poverty and help them is
Speaker 3: giving them an Internet connection, because once you have the
Speaker 3: Internet connection, you can learn anything for free on the Internet,
Speaker 3: and you can also sell your goods and services to
Speaker 3: the global market. And once you have knowledge by the
Speaker 3: Internet and the ability to engage in commerce, that this
Speaker 3: is going to greatly improve quality of life for people
Speaker 3: throughout the world.
Speaker 4: And it has.
Speaker 3: And I'd just like to think anyone in the audience
Speaker 3: who may have been helpful and you know, with Starlink
Speaker 3: and getting it to approved in their country, and I
Speaker 3: think it's doing a lot of good in the countries
Speaker 3: that to have approved it, which is I think this
Speaker 3: point one hundred and thirty countries are very happy with it.
Speaker 3: I don't currently into space space actually getting into the
Speaker 3: weapons business, that's certainly that's not an aspiration.
Speaker 4: We're fre we're frequently asked to.
Speaker 3: Do to do weapons programs, but we have done part
Speaker 3: a client.
Speaker 2: Do you envisage SpaceX or indeed, starlink is a separate
Speaker 2: entity publicly listing in the near future or at all.
Speaker 3: It's possible that starlink may go public at some point
Speaker 3: in the future.
Speaker 2: And what would be the what would be the time frame,
Speaker 2: what kind of time frame you consider it?
Speaker 3: I mean right, I mean no rush to your public.
Speaker 3: The public is I guess a way to you know,
Speaker 3: potentially make more money, but at the expense of a
Speaker 3: lot of public company overhead and inevitably a whole bunch
Speaker 3: of lawsuits which are very annoying. So there's really something
Speaker 3: needs to be done about the share shareholder shareholder derivative
Speaker 3: lawsuits in the US, because it allows plaintiffs law firms
Speaker 3: who don't represent the shareholders to pretend that they represent
Speaker 3: the shareholders by getting a puppet plaintiff for a few
Speaker 3: shares to initiate a massive lawsuit against the company, and
Speaker 3: the irony being that extreme irony that even if the
Speaker 3: class they purport to represent were to vote that they
Speaker 3: don't want the lawsuit, the lawsuit will still continue.
Speaker 4: So how can it be.
Speaker 3: A class action representing a class if the class were
Speaker 3: against it? And that's the bizarre situation we've got in
Speaker 3: the US. It needs a diary to perform that. As
Speaker 3: anyone's running a public company, you've experienced this. It's an
Speaker 3: absurd situation that needs to change.
Speaker 2: Well, do you think Donald Trump might change it? You've
Speaker 2: certainly got his ear. I imagine that you've put this
Speaker 2: to him. Is this something you're trying to change before
Speaker 2: any starlink IPO.
Speaker 4: Well, we need a law to be passed.
Speaker 3: The trouble being that you need sixty Senate votes and
Speaker 3: the Democrats will vote against it. The plaintiff's bar is
Speaker 3: I believe, the second largest contributor to the Democratic Party.
Speaker 3: That's the issue. At the state level, this can be solved,
Speaker 3: and I should say Texas recently passed a law which
Speaker 3: at least the state level made is much more reasonable
Speaker 3: because you have to get at least one in thirty
Speaker 3: three shareholders to agree that they are part of a
Speaker 3: class of sharehold This will be really helped with frivolous lawsuits.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's talk about AI, which is in so many
Speaker 2: of your businesses and in all our worlds in different ways.
Speaker 2: It's one of the big changes the development of generative AI.
Speaker 2: Since you last spoke to this forum three years ago,
Speaker 2: you're in this space, of course with Grop, which almost
Speaker 2: everyone will know. You co founded open ai and then left,
Speaker 2: and you've obviously got a legal battle with open ai
Speaker 2: and Sam Altman. I wonder if you could say something
Speaker 2: about the status of that, because you were together in
Speaker 2: Saudi Arabia with the president last week, with Sam Altman
Speaker 2: in the same place at the same.
Speaker 3: Time, in the neighborhood.
Speaker 2: So does that mean you are pushing ahead with the
Speaker 2: lawsuit against open ai.
Speaker 3: Yes. So look, I came up with the name open
Speaker 3: ai as an open source and as a nonprofit, and
Speaker 3: I funded AI opening I for the first roughly fifty
Speaker 3: million dollars, and it was intended to be a nonprofit
Speaker 3: open source company, and now is they're trying to change
Speaker 3: that for their own financial benefit into a for profit
Speaker 3: company that.
Speaker 4: Is closed source. So this would be like, let's.
Speaker 3: Say you you funded a nonprofit to help preserve the
Speaker 3: Amazon rainforest, but instead of doing that, they became a
Speaker 3: lumber company, chopped down the forest and sold the wood.
Speaker 3: You'd be like, wait a second, that's not what I funded.
Speaker 3: That's opening.
Speaker 2: They've made some changes to their call for instructure, though,
Speaker 2: haven't they since in recognition of of what you've said?
Speaker 3: And now that's just what they told the media.
Speaker 2: Okay, part they have part they have partly walked back
Speaker 2: their plan to restructure the business. I guess that's made
Speaker 2: no difference to how you feel about it. So you
Speaker 2: determined to see them in court.
Speaker 3: Of course.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, that's that's certainly going to be one to watch.
Speaker 2: I also wanted to ask you about AI and regulation
Speaker 2: because when you were here last talking to John Micklethwaite,
Speaker 2: you had some pretty strong words about the risk that
Speaker 2: AI poses and you said that you really felt what
Speaker 2: the US was missing was a federal AI regulator that
Speaker 2: you know, something along the lines of the Food and
Speaker 2: Drug Administration or the Federal Aviation Administration. Now you're clearly
Speaker 2: now in a zone where you're more you're more on
Speaker 2: the cutting regulation side than wanting new regulators. So has
Speaker 2: your view changed on the need for an AI regulator?
Speaker 3: Well, something I don't think there should be regulators. You
Speaker 3: think of regulators like referees on the on the field
Speaker 3: in sport, there should be some number of referees, but
Speaker 3: that you shouldn't have so many referees that you can
Speaker 3: the ball without hitting one. So in many, in most
Speaker 3: perhaps fields in the US, the regulatory burden has grown
Speaker 3: over time to the point where it's like having more
Speaker 3: referees than players on the field. So and this is
Speaker 3: a natural consequence of an extended period of prosperity. It's
Speaker 3: very important to appreciate this. This has happened throughout history.
Speaker 3: When you have an extended period of prosperity with no
Speaker 3: existential war, there's no there's no cleansing function for the
Speaker 3: for unnecessary laws and regulations. So what happens is that
Speaker 3: every year more laws and more regulations are pasted, because
Speaker 3: you know, legislators are going to legislate, regulators are going
Speaker 3: to regulate, and you will get the steady pile of
Speaker 3: more and more laws and regulations of a time until
Speaker 3: everything is illegal. And let me give you an example
Speaker 3: of truly absurd situation. Under the Biden administration, SpaceX was
Speaker 3: sued for not hiring asylum seekers in the US. Now.
Speaker 3: The problem is it's actually illegal for SpaceX under itart
Speaker 3: in National Traffic and Arms regulations to hire anyone who
Speaker 3: is not a permanent resident of the United States, because
Speaker 3: the premise being that they will take advanced rocket technology
Speaker 3: and return to their home country if they're not a
Speaker 3: permanent resident.
Speaker 4: So we're simultaneously.
Speaker 3: In a situation where it's illegal to hire slums US
Speaker 3: and is also illegal to hire asylum seekers, and the
Speaker 3: Biden's Departner of Justice chose to prosecute US despite both
Speaker 3: paths being illegal.
Speaker 4: Down if you do, down if you don't.
Speaker 2: But my question was specifically about a regulator for AI,
Speaker 2: which you said three years ago was needed, and you
Speaker 2: said we need to be proactive on the regulation of
Speaker 2: AI rather than reactive. Have you changed your mind on that?
Speaker 4: No, of course not. What what?
Speaker 3: No? Of course not. What I'm saying is that there
Speaker 3: should be some referees on the field, a few referees,
Speaker 3: but you.
Speaker 4: Shouldn't have a field jam packed.
Speaker 3: With referees that such that you could not kick a
Speaker 3: ball in any direction without hitting one. So the the
Speaker 3: the fields that have been around for a long time,
Speaker 3: such as automotive, so aerospace you know, if the sort
Speaker 3: of food and drug industries are overregulated, but the new
Speaker 3: fields like artificial intelligence are underregulated.
Speaker 4: In fact, there is no regulator at.
Speaker 2: All, so they should be.
Speaker 3: Do you still think that, Yes, I'm simply saying, which
Speaker 3: I think is just basic common sense, that you want
Speaker 3: to have at least you want you want to have
Speaker 3: a few referees in the field. You don't want to
Speaker 3: have an army of referees, but you want to have
Speaker 3: a few referees on any given field, in any given sport,
Speaker 3: or even any given arena industrial arena to ensure help
Speaker 3: that like safety is taken care of. But your already
Speaker 3: have so there's a there's there's a proper number of referees.
Speaker 3: Like I said, it's actually very easy to visualize this
Speaker 3: when compared to sports. If the whole field is packed
Speaker 3: with referees, that would look absurd. But if there were
Speaker 3: no referees at all, your game is not going to
Speaker 3: be as good.
Speaker 2: Okay, So let's then talk about your new world, your
Speaker 2: your role advising government. You are in this unique and
Speaker 2: unprecedented position of having billions of dollars worth of contracts
Speaker 2: with the federal government yourself, mostly through SpaceX and also
Speaker 2: now an insider's knowledge of it because of dog. Can
Speaker 2: you see that there is a conflict of interest or
Speaker 2: a potential conflict of interest in broad terms just through
Speaker 2: that very fact.
Speaker 3: I don't think so. Actually, there have been many advisors
Speaker 3: throughout history and the US government and others who have
Speaker 3: had economic interests, and I am silverely an advisor. I
Speaker 3: don't have a formal power, and that's a president can
Speaker 3: choose to accept my advice or not, and that's that's
Speaker 3: how it goes. If there's a single contract that any
Speaker 3: of my companies have received that people think is somehow
Speaker 3: not was was awarded improperly, it would immediately be front
Speaker 3: page news, to say the least. And if if I
Speaker 3: hadn't mentioned it, certainly my competitors would. So if you're
Speaker 3: not seeing that, then the clearly is not a complex
Speaker 3: to interest.
Speaker 2: The Yeah, there's another way though to look at it.
Speaker 2: That For example, you have many competitors, whether it's companies
Speaker 2: like Boeing or companies wh would like to do more
Speaker 2: of the kind of work you do for NASA Blue
Speaker 2: Origin Rocket Lab. And because those is in every federal
Speaker 2: government department, you or people who work for and you
Speaker 2: are the driving force behind it, have an insight into
Speaker 2: those companies' affairs and those companies relationships with the federal government.
Speaker 3: Now, all we do is we review the organization to
Speaker 3: see if the organization has departments that are no longer
Speaker 3: relevant and and and then are the contracts that are
Speaker 3: being awarded good value for money? In fact, frankly, the
Speaker 3: bar is not particularly high. Is there any value for
Speaker 3: money in a contract? And if there's if there isn't,
Speaker 3: then we make recommendations to the secretary. The secretary you
Speaker 3: can choose to take those actions or not take those actions,
Speaker 3: and that's it. And then any action that that that
Speaker 3: is as a function of DOGE is posted to the
Speaker 3: DOGE website and to the DOGE dog govort at DOGE
Speaker 3: handle on the x platform. So it's it's complete tran transparency.
Speaker 3: And I have not seen any case where so that's
Speaker 3: my large It's even been an accusation of conflict because
Speaker 3: it is as completely and utterly transparent. That's it.
Speaker 2: And what about the international dimension. Now, let's think about Starlink.
Speaker 2: Starlink is obviously a very very good internet service. It's
Speaker 2: sought after all over the world. It's critical to the
Speaker 2: frontline in Ukraine. It has also had more contracts coming
Speaker 2: its way, and there is some evidence that companies are
Speaker 2: allowing access to it because they want to be close
Speaker 2: to the Trump administration and send the right signal. So
Speaker 2: Bloomberg broke news today that the South African government is
Speaker 2: working around their rules on black ownership in order to
Speaker 2: allow starlinkin and that is being done on the eve
Speaker 2: of the visit the President Ramaposa is going to make
Speaker 2: to the White House. Do you recognize that as a
Speaker 2: conflict of interest.
Speaker 3: Now, of course not. First of all, you should be
Speaker 3: questioning why is there why are the racist laws in
Speaker 3: South Africa. That's the first plot problem. That's what you
Speaker 3: should be attacking. It's improper for the race, the laws
Speaker 3: in South Africa. The whole idea with what Nelson Mandela,
Speaker 3: who is a great man, proposed, was that all races
Speaker 3: should be on an equal footing in South Africa. That's
Speaker 3: the right thing to do, not to replace one set
Speaker 3: of racist laws with another set of racist laws, which
Speaker 3: is utterly wrong and improper. So that's that's the deal,
Speaker 3: that all races should be tweat equally and there should
Speaker 3: be no preference given to one or the other, whereas
Speaker 3: there are now one hundred and forty laws in South
Speaker 3: Africa that give that basically give strong preference to to
Speaker 3: if you if you're black South African and not otherwise.
Speaker 3: And so now I'm in the subsurd situation where I
Speaker 3: was born in South Africa but cannot get a license
Speaker 3: to operate in starlink because I'm not black.
Speaker 2: Well, it looks like it looks looks like that, right,
Speaker 2: it looks like that's about to change.
Speaker 3: I just asked you a question. Please answer. Does that
Speaker 3: seem right to you?
Speaker 2: Well? Those rules were designed to bring those rules were
Speaker 2: designed to bring about an era of more economic equality
Speaker 2: in South Africa, and it looks like the government has
Speaker 2: found a way around those rules for you.
Speaker 3: Ask your question.
Speaker 2: This is this is your interview. Everyone wants to hear
Speaker 2: from you.
Speaker 4: Yes or no, not.
Speaker 2: For me to answer. I have got a question for
Speaker 2: you about about your government works and the amount of savings.
Speaker 4: Do you like raceless loves?
Speaker 2: This is not for me to answer. Come on, now,
Speaker 2: you wouldn't be trying to dodge.
Speaker 3: A question to answer question?
Speaker 4: Answer you answer?
Speaker 2: I say, I think if you I'm sure you can
Speaker 2: have that conversation directly with the South African government if
Speaker 2: you want to, I want to ask you about the
Speaker 2: total I want to ask you about the total around.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you about the total amount that
Speaker 2: you're planning to save through Doge's work. Before the election,
Speaker 2: you said it was going to be at least two trillion.
Speaker 2: The number currently on doze dot gov is one hundred
Speaker 2: and seventy billion dollars. That's a big change. What happened
Speaker 2: to the two.
Speaker 3: Trillion or do you expect it to happen immediately?
Speaker 2: Well? Is it going to happen because those is supposed
Speaker 2: to run till next July.
Speaker 3: I mean, your question is absurd in this fundamental premise.
Speaker 3: Are you assuming that on day you know, within a
Speaker 3: few months this instant two trillion saved?
Speaker 2: No, I'm not sure. I'm just asking you is that
Speaker 2: still your aim?
Speaker 3: Then?
Speaker 2: Is it still your aim to get.
Speaker 4: Amount of time?
Speaker 3: Have we not made good progress given the amount of time?
Speaker 2: That's exactly what I'm asking, So is it still your
Speaker 2: aim to go from one hundred and seventy billion to
Speaker 2: two trillion?
Speaker 3: The ability of those to operate is this function of
Speaker 3: whether the government and this include the Congress is willing
Speaker 3: to take our advice. We're not the dictators of the government.
Speaker 3: We are the advisors, and so we can advise. And
Speaker 3: the progress who made thus far think is incredible. Those
Speaker 3: team has done incredible work, but the magnitude of the
Speaker 3: savings is proportionate to the support we get from Congress
Speaker 3: and from the executive branch of the government in general.
Speaker 4: So we're not the dictators.
Speaker 3: We are the advisors. But thus far, for advisors with
Speaker 3: the Doorge team, to their credit, has made incredible progress.
Speaker 2: You've talked about four billion dollars a day being saved,
Speaker 2: but that that won't get which is an and I
Speaker 2: think everyone can agree that combating waste and inefficiency in
Speaker 2: government is a very good thing. But if you add
Speaker 2: that up, it's not going to get to two trillion
Speaker 2: over the lifetime of dog.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: The four billion, the four billion a day, if dose
Speaker 2: is going to run till next July, is not going
Speaker 2: to get you to trilli and dollars. But you still
Speaker 2: say it's your aim, so we'll take that as read.
Speaker 3: There's there's, there's there's what doge I mean? I fail
Speaker 3: You're somewhat trapped in the NPC dialogue tree of a
Speaker 3: traditional journalist. So it's difficult when when I'm conversing with
Speaker 3: someone who's trapped in the valor te of a conventional journalist,
Speaker 3: because it's like talking to a computer. So, uh, DOGE
Speaker 3: is an advisory group? We are doing the best we
Speaker 3: can as an advisory group. The progress made thus far
Speaker 3: as an advisory group is excellent. I don't think any
Speaker 3: advisory group has done better in the history of advisory
Speaker 3: groups of the government. Now we were We do not
Speaker 3: make the laws, nor do we control the judiciary, nor
Speaker 3: do we control the executive branch. We are simply advisors
Speaker 3: in that context, we're doing very well. Beyond that, we
Speaker 3: can not we can't take action beyond that because we
Speaker 3: are not some sort of imperial dictator of the government.
Speaker 3: There are three branches of government that that art some
Speaker 3: degree opposed to that level of cost savings. Unless let's
Speaker 3: let's let's not criticize whether there's four trillion. Instead look
Speaker 3: at the fact that our sixty billion has been saved
Speaker 3: and more we save two.
Speaker 2: And as I said, I think everyone can agree that
Speaker 2: cutting waste and indeed fraud in any government and being
Speaker 2: responsible with taxpayer money is a very good thing. So yes,
Speaker 2: I can see, I can see that you're proud of
Speaker 2: that work. I do want to ask you about USAID
Speaker 2: and the comments that Bill Gates made the other day,
Speaker 2: which and I know that you called him. I know
Speaker 2: you've said that already.
Speaker 3: I learned it also, And I'm just who does Bill
Speaker 3: Gates think he is to make comments about the welfare
Speaker 3: of children, given that he is beforequented Jeffreystein.
Speaker 2: Okay, well he's he's he said he regrets those and
Speaker 2: he's spent. He spent. He spent a lot. He spent
Speaker 2: a lot of his own money on on philanthropy around
Speaker 2: the world over the years. My question to you is
Speaker 2: have you looked at the data to check if he
Speaker 2: might be right that the cuts to U S A
Speaker 2: I D might cost millions of lives.
Speaker 3: Yes, I'd like him to proshure us any any evidence
Speaker 3: whatsoever that that is true.
Speaker 4: It's false.
Speaker 3: The what we're found with US A D cuts and
Speaker 3: by the way, they have an urban cut. The parts
Speaker 3: of the U S A D that we found to
Speaker 3: be even slightly useful, we're transferred to the State Department.
Speaker 3: So they've not been deleted, they've really been transferred to
Speaker 3: the State Department, but many many times over with US
Speaker 3: A D and other organizations when we've when they said, oh,
Speaker 3: well this is going to help you know, children, or
Speaker 3: it's going to help some uh disease eradication or something
Speaker 3: like that. And then when we ask for any evidence whatsoever,
Speaker 3: I say, well, please connect us with this group of
Speaker 3: children so we can talk to them and understand more
Speaker 3: about their issue. We get nothing. We don't they don't
Speaker 3: even try to prevent a show. We should come up
Speaker 3: with a with a show often meaning like it's sort
Speaker 3: of like, well, can we at least see a few kids,
Speaker 3: like where are they if they're in trouble, we'd like
Speaker 3: to talk to them and talk to their caregivers.
Speaker 4: And then we get something as a.
Speaker 3: Response because it's what we find is an enormous amount
Speaker 3: of fraud and graft.
Speaker 2: Okay, let me put this example.
Speaker 3: Very little actually gets to the kids, if anything at all.
Speaker 2: Okay, let me put this example to you because you
Speaker 2: grew up in South Africa, so you will know the
Speaker 2: impact of HIV AIDS well. And this is why I
Speaker 2: asked about the data the US led on international efforts
Speaker 2: to combat HIV AIDS treatment prevention, and there's an initiative
Speaker 2: called pepfile which is credited with saving twenty six million
Speaker 2: lives in the last twenty years. It was part of
Speaker 2: the foreign aid freeze. Then there was a limited waiver.
Speaker 2: Its services are disrupted, and unaid says if permanly discontinued,
Speaker 2: there will be another four million AIDS related deaths by
Speaker 2: twenty twenty nine. So if you look at that example,
Speaker 2: which is backed up by data. In twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: six hundred and thirty thousand people died of AIDS related illnesses,
Speaker 2: then perhaps Bill Gates's figures are not wrong. Millions of
Speaker 2: lives could be lost.
Speaker 3: First of all, the program, the AIDS Medication program, is continuing,
Speaker 3: so your fun model premise is wrong.
Speaker 4: It is continuing. Now do you have another example, not.
Speaker 2: In its entire not in its the program there's a
Speaker 2: limited waiver, and UNAIDS have said that not all of
Speaker 2: the services that were previously funded by USA IDEA continuing.
Speaker 2: So why that's why I put that example to you?
Speaker 3: Okay, well, which ones aren't being funded?
Speaker 2: I'll fix it right now for okay. Well, actually they're
Speaker 2: all on the unaid's website, so you'll be able to
Speaker 2: see them, but mostly they are to deal with Mostly
Speaker 2: they are to do with prevention. And for example, the
Speaker 2: rollout of a drug called lenna kappavir, which was hailed
Speaker 2: as one of the biggest breakthroughs against AIDS for many years,
Speaker 2: which came out last year. So if you are perhaps,
Speaker 2: I'm sure UNAIDS would be delighted if you're able to
Speaker 2: look at that again.
Speaker 3: Yes, well, well, if in fact this is true, which
Speaker 3: I doubt it is, then we'll fix it.
Speaker 2: Okay, fine, So finally, political, your political influence. I wondered
Speaker 2: whether you have decided yet how much you're going to
Speaker 2: spend on the the upcoming midterms. Is it you spent
Speaker 2: a lot more money on the last US election than
Speaker 2: you envisaged when you were speaking here three years ago.
Speaker 2: Are you going to continue to spend at that kind
Speaker 2: of level on future elections?
Speaker 3: I think in terms of political spending, I'm going to
Speaker 3: do a lot less in the future.
Speaker 2: And why is that?
Speaker 3: I think I've done enough?
Speaker 2: Is it because of blowback?
Speaker 3: Well, if I see a reason to do political spending
Speaker 3: in the future, I will do it.
Speaker 4: I did not currently see reason.
Speaker 2: What about political influence beyond the US, how often do
Speaker 2: you speak to President Putin.
Speaker 3: I don't speak to President Putin.
Speaker 2: You've never spoken to President Putin.
Speaker 4: I was on a video caller with him once about
Speaker 4: five years AG. That's the only that's the speak president
Speaker 4: President Putin. Oh, you must I get it. You believe
Speaker 4: the legacy.
Speaker 2: Actually, i've heard you. I've heard you speak about it.
Speaker 2: For example, in your West Point speech, you said, oh,
Speaker 2: I challenged President Putin to uh to was it an
Speaker 2: arm wrestle? And I know the Wall Street Journal has
Speaker 2: reported your reported conversations. If you're if you're saying they
Speaker 2: haven't happened other than once, I'll take that as read.
Speaker 3: Is there a worse publication on the face of the
Speaker 3: earth than the Wall Street Journal? I wouldn't use that
Speaker 3: to ligne up my cage for paragraphics that that that
Speaker 3: newspaper is the worst newspaper in the world. And there's
Speaker 3: and you know, if there's one newspaper that should be
Speaker 3: pro capitalist, it's the one with Wall Street in the name.
Speaker 4: But it isn't. So I have the very lowest opinion
Speaker 4: of the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 3: Absolute answers, And you clearly have believed the tripe that
Speaker 3: you've written, that you've read in those papers I read.
Speaker 2: I read very widely, and I'm putting these questions to
Speaker 2: you so that you have an opportunity to respond to them,
Speaker 2: which you are and for which we're all grateful to hear.
Speaker 2: Your response is, okay, we are. We are out of time.
Speaker 3: So you mentioned challenging. I did so on on the
Speaker 3: X platform. I challenged Vladi Imprutin over the I didn't
Speaker 3: talk to him. That was a post on the X platform.
Speaker 2: That's why. That's why I asked you, and you've and
Speaker 2: you've clarified and explained, thank you. That's that's why I
Speaker 2: was asking whether you have had reported conversations and and
Speaker 2: you've said you have another than a video.
Speaker 4: Okay, legacy mediaize.
Speaker 2: Okay, listen. I actually thought I might give Grock the
Speaker 2: last word, because when I asked Rock what your hardest
Speaker 2: challenge is, it said the strain of managing multiple high
Speaker 2: stake ventures and made financial, regulatory and public relations crises.
Speaker 2: And I wondered whether you recognize that characterization and whether
Speaker 2: you do think that this is a pivot or year
Speaker 2: in your life.
Speaker 3: Well, every year has been somewhat pivotal, and this one's
Speaker 3: no different. So I mean in terms of interesting things
Speaker 3: that hopefully our coverers this year the getting Starship to
Speaker 3: be fully reusable so that we catch both the booster
Speaker 3: and the ship, which will be the first fully reusable
Speaker 3: orbital rocket ever in history, which is would be a
Speaker 3: profound breakthrough as the essential breakthrough necessarily to make life
Speaker 3: multiplanetary and ultimately become a space faring civilization. We've got
Speaker 3: neuralink which is now helped five patients restore capability using
Speaker 3: the telefty implants where they're able to control the computer
Speaker 3: simply by thinking. We'll be doing our first patient to
Speaker 3: restore blank true source site with our blind site implant,
Speaker 3: which is the end of this year early next. In fact,
Speaker 3: that that first patient might be in the U a E.
Speaker 3: Since we have a relationship with you and the Cleveland
Speaker 3: clinic clinic there. The I think what's running on the
Speaker 3: AI front, we are close to what you might call
Speaker 3: a g I or or digital superintelligence, and I think
Speaker 3: we'll see we are seeing an explosion in digital super
Speaker 3: intelligence here.
Speaker 4: And then we've got at Tesla, the what we'll.
Speaker 3: Be launching unsupervised autonomy basically self driving cars with no
Speaker 3: one in them in Austin next month. So it's it's
Speaker 3: a big year for sure. Many other things on the
Speaker 3: in the in the works too. I'm a technologist first
Speaker 3: and foremost.
Speaker 2: Elon Musk, thank you very much for joining us here
Speaker 2: at CUT the Economic Forum. Thank you M