Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: Now, we welcome our TV and radio audiences for a
Speaker 2: conversation with one of the most respected traders on Wall Street.
Speaker 2: Paul Tudor Jones made his name calling the Black Monday
Speaker 2: market crash in nineteen eighty seven, shortingstocks during the largest
Speaker 2: single day percentage drop in US history. Jones became a
Speaker 2: gold bowl in the aftermath of the GFC and bought
Speaker 2: bitcoin as the money printer went burr during COVID. He
Speaker 2: also founded the Robin Hood Foundation in nineteen eighty eight
Speaker 2: and has helped since then to raise nearly three billion
Speaker 2: dollars to get New Yorkers permanently out of poverty. Paul
Speaker 2: Tutor Jones, a coach, chairman and chief investment officer of
Speaker 2: Tutor Investment, joins us now on set.
Speaker 3: Paul's great to have you here. It's great to be here.
Speaker 3: Thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 2: I want to talk, first of all, before we get
Speaker 2: into the markets, economics, and AI, about your philanthropic efforts
Speaker 2: and specifically a partnership that Robinhood has with Blue Blomberg
Speaker 2: in a contest called pick a Ticker.
Speaker 3: You have a ten thousand.
Speaker 2: Dollars bet essentially one long, one short. How did this
Speaker 2: contest go and who was the winner?
Speaker 3: Well, we did it right.
Speaker 4: It actually starts right before our investor conference that we
Speaker 4: hold every fall. This year we had forty participants. We
Speaker 4: raised about four hundred thousand dollars that went, three quarters
Speaker 4: of which went to Robinhood. It was fantastic. The winner
Speaker 4: was Bill Ackman, a Pershing Square. He was long Fannie
Speaker 4: May and see number two was a guy named Mark
Speaker 4: Gallott who actually used to work for me. In three
Speaker 4: was Stan Druckmiller. No surprise, he's going to always be placing.
Speaker 3: They came in.
Speaker 4: I think if you took the top three or four
Speaker 4: and you had made their bet, you would have made
Speaker 4: seven times your money in six months.
Speaker 3: So it's a great competition.
Speaker 4: I really hope this year we can expand it so
Speaker 4: it'll be a much bigger group. It's ten thousand dollars,
Speaker 4: it's a six month competition, one long, one short, and
Speaker 4: uh yeah, it's it's a lot of fun.
Speaker 2: Actually, shout out also to Anna Nikolsky, you got up
Speaker 2: there on the board with.
Speaker 4: Who's our only female entront I hope we get a
Speaker 4: lot more ladies that'll participate this time, so.
Speaker 2: They have another chance coming up this fall, and I thought,
Speaker 2: since we have you here, you could help us give
Speaker 2: us a tip.
Speaker 3: What's the what's the one.
Speaker 2: Long you would hit for the next contest.
Speaker 4: I would say probably probably the yield curve. It just
Speaker 4: depends on where I think it'll be higher at that
Speaker 4: point in time. Mine would be very esoteric, so let
Speaker 4: me think, uh, well, it would definitely I would definitely
Speaker 4: be betting on substantially lower front end rates. We'll have a
Speaker 4: we'll have a new FED chair within six months at
Speaker 4: that point in time, and I think Trump's gonna pick
Speaker 4: someone who's gonna be uber dubbish.
Speaker 1: Well, let's talk a little bit more about the yield curve.
Speaker 1: Matt and I were actually emailing it like four in
Speaker 1: the morning about the yield curve because it's broken a
Speaker 1: lot of hearts that's steepener bed, and the way you
Speaker 1: lay it out, short end rates coming down, you have
Speaker 1: concerns about the deficit potentially boosting the long end. It
Speaker 1: seems like a no brainer, but it feels like it
Speaker 1: just hasn't worked.
Speaker 3: So what's different this time.
Speaker 4: Well, it's working, it's just you know, it's vall adjusted
Speaker 4: it's just a slow moving train.
Speaker 3: But I think in the long run it has to work.
Speaker 4: We are fiscally constrained and we're going to have budget
Speaker 4: deficits of six percent plus.
Speaker 3: As far as the I can see.
Speaker 4: So one of the major offsets if I was the
Speaker 4: president would be to lower my interest rate cost appointing
Speaker 4: a FED chair who is as dubvish as could possibly be.
Speaker 4: That's kind of the playbook when you're one hundred percent
Speaker 4: debt to GDP and you're fiscally constrained.
Speaker 3: You can see it happening in Japan right now.
Speaker 4: He's way is reluctant to raise rates more than beyond
Speaker 4: fifty basis points, even though they have inflation pick a
Speaker 4: number somewhere between two and three percent. I think they
Speaker 4: fudge the numbers down all the time. You've got wage
Speaker 4: growth at three and a half percent there, So that's
Speaker 4: you know, Historically, the way that you get out of
Speaker 4: a debt trap is you run the lowest real rates possible,
Speaker 4: you lower your interest burdens, and I'm sure that's what
Speaker 4: we'll see beginning when the next FED chair comes.
Speaker 1: Well, we definitely want to talk about who the next
Speaker 1: FED shair might be. And who you would like to see.
Speaker 3: But let's talk first a little bit.
Speaker 1: More about the deficit, because it feels like, you take
Speaker 1: a look at the bond market over the past few weeks,
Speaker 1: the past few months, you can see those fears being expressed,
Speaker 1: but concerns about a higher deficit. It feels like one
Speaker 1: of those evergreen issues out there. So give us first
Speaker 1: your feel how you're feeling about the deficit, production projections
Speaker 1: that we've been getting, and also how you might invest
Speaker 1: around that.
Speaker 4: Well, the Big Beautiful Bill is really interesting. It's it's
Speaker 4: first of all, well, it's a genius in branding. The
Speaker 4: name of it's a genius in branding.
Speaker 3: But I think what.
Speaker 4: You've got to do is you you have to go
Speaker 4: to first principles. What would the actual budget look like
Speaker 4: if we were trying to balance the budget, If we
Speaker 4: were actually trying to balance the budget, what is the
Speaker 4: counterfactual to the Big Beautiful Bill.
Speaker 3: So if you actually had.
Speaker 4: To balance the budget, it probably would be the Big
Speaker 4: Beastly Bill.
Speaker 3: And at some point down the road, who knows when
Speaker 3: that's going to be.
Speaker 4: Maybe it's next year, maybe it's the next administration, Maybe
Speaker 4: it's ten years down the road. At some point, probably
Speaker 4: the bomb markets are going to call bs on governments
Speaker 4: around the world playing chicken with them, right. So to
Speaker 4: give you an idea if you were to balance the
Speaker 4: budget today, let's assume the first thing I would do
Speaker 4: if I was president, I was trying out to point
Speaker 4: the most douvish central banker I could to lower interest costs.
Speaker 3: So let's assume that I could.
Speaker 4: Make a pack with my UH, with my Chairman of
Speaker 4: the Fed. But I'm going to go through an austerity package.
Speaker 4: I'm going to balance it, but I need you to
Speaker 4: really drop rates to let's say two and a half percent.
Speaker 4: So if you drop rates to two and a half
Speaker 4: percent and you get a fifty basis point reduction or
Speaker 4: let's say even one hundred basis point reduction in ten
Speaker 4: ure rates, that saves you one hundred and seventy five billion.
Speaker 3: The starting gap is nine.
Speaker 4: Hundred billion, so that saves you one hundred and seventy
Speaker 4: five Now I'm down to seven hundred and twenty five
Speaker 4: billion that I've got to find through tax hikes and
Speaker 4: spending cuts. So let's assume that we're going to do
Speaker 4: this fairly. We're gonna do fifty percent tax hikes in
Speaker 4: the rich because they've benefited the most in the last
Speaker 4: thirty forty years.
Speaker 3: Fifty pp and cuts.
Speaker 4: What does that look like On the spending cut size side,
Speaker 4: I would just do, just to make it simple, let's
Speaker 4: just call it a blanket six percent reduction in everything,
Speaker 4: social Security, medicaid, defense, spending, you name it. I'm just
Speaker 4: going to cut everything six percent across the board. That's
Speaker 4: what it would take to get you three hundred and
Speaker 4: sixty billion half.
Speaker 3: Of that sentence to do with Congress, right, I'm.
Speaker 4: Just saying there'll be a point where the markets are
Speaker 4: going to demand it. I don't know when it'll be.
Speaker 4: Maybe it'll be in my lifetime. Who knows when it'll be.
Speaker 3: By the way, how do you invest around that?
Speaker 2: Because you famously made a lot of money shortening the
Speaker 2: end in Japanese assets into the last decade, which was
Speaker 2: another situation where you saw a country just boost its
Speaker 2: fiscal debt and deathicis.
Speaker 4: I will get to that, but let me just finish
Speaker 4: the tax hike side. So to get three hundred and
Speaker 4: sixty three and tax hikes, you're gonna have to raise
Speaker 4: the top income rate to forty nine. You're gonna have
Speaker 4: to have a one percent wealth tax annually, and you're
Speaker 4: gonna have to raise the capitol games right.
Speaker 3: To forty huh.
Speaker 4: So if we're just gonna if all we're gonna do
Speaker 4: is stabilize debt to GDP, that's the big beastly bill
Speaker 4: that's somewhere down the road.
Speaker 3: And again who knows what it's gonna be.
Speaker 4: Remember you have Italy, France, and Japan who on the
Speaker 4: current projections, will be in worse fiscal shape than we are,
Speaker 4: and they seem to be doing okay. And that's why
Speaker 4: we keep that's why we keep the we keep going
Speaker 4: with the cafe in wrestling, the suspended reality where we
Speaker 4: like to watch the show, but we know it's not real.
Speaker 4: So we know that these six percent budget deficits are
Speaker 4: not sustainable in the long run. But it's okay because
Speaker 4: it's okay now, it's okay the short run, and it
Speaker 4: feels good and it's not.
Speaker 3: It's actually really easy.
Speaker 4: Remember in the first Trump administration, he normalized four percent
Speaker 4: budget deficits, that's what we had pre COVID, and now
Speaker 4: in this administration he's normalizing six percent budget deficits. So
Speaker 4: and I'm not judging I'm just calling balls and strikes.
Speaker 3: That's where we are.
Speaker 4: So with that in mind, knowing that we have a
Speaker 4: whole pricing structure that's created on something that's not sustainable,
Speaker 4: it's really really hard to invest for the long run
Speaker 4: because the day that it'll probably be the bond market first,
Speaker 4: or maybe it's the dollar, who knows, the day that
Speaker 4: we're called a carpet on that and the day that
Speaker 4: you actually went through that exercise that I just described,
Speaker 4: and you know that multiples on stocks will not be
Speaker 4: where they are right now.
Speaker 2: Right, But are you short the dollar? I mean you
Speaker 2: mention you're into yields.
Speaker 4: I would say that the easiest long term trades are
Speaker 4: you know, the yield curve's going to steepen probably to
Speaker 4: historic wise. You know, we're going to cut short term
Speaker 4: rates dramatically in the next year, and you know the
Speaker 4: dollar will probably be lower because of that, a lot
Speaker 4: lower because of that.
Speaker 2: How much lower off ten percent from our high right now?
Speaker 4: Yes, I would say that that's I think that's a
Speaker 4: year from today and that's probably a realistic assumption.
Speaker 1: I want to go to one point that you made
Speaker 1: in that blueprint that you laid out, and that comes
Speaker 1: to appointing the most stubbish fed chair possible. Jerome Pal's
Speaker 1: turn ends in May twenty twenty six. We've heard from
Speaker 1: the President recently that he's going to announce some contenders
Speaker 1: sometime soon. Bloomberg News has reported in the past twenty
Speaker 1: four hours that Scott Besson has emerged as a pick.
Speaker 1: Kevin worsh is under consideration. I mean, if you had
Speaker 1: your pick, who do you think is best suited.
Speaker 3: For the chair?
Speaker 4: Those are two great names. Those are two fabulous names. Again,
Speaker 4: if I was president, if I just think about President Trump,
Speaker 4: he's just a he's a growth guy, right, He's a
Speaker 4: He's a loyalty and growth guy. You're gonna be my pick.
Speaker 4: If you're loyal to me, you're gonna be my pick.
Speaker 4: If you're you're a growth guy. And I'd pick a
Speaker 4: growth guy. And probably Scott would be more uh in
Speaker 4: line with that than Kevin Wood. They will have had
Speaker 4: a really close working relationship at that point. I also think, again,
Speaker 4: the playbook's pretty clear, uh historically and right now, we're
Speaker 4: we are fiscally constrained, We're in a debt trap.
Speaker 3: You're gonna have to.
Speaker 4: Run negative real rates to get out of it.
Speaker 3: That's what we did in the fifties.
Speaker 4: We had if you'll remember, we had a variety of
Speaker 4: prices fixed by the treasury, why we had five and
Speaker 4: six percent inflation for a period of time. We're gonna
Speaker 4: have negative real rates, and that's why you have to
Speaker 4: think about what is facing our policy makers in this
Speaker 4: debt trap as you constructure portfolio. So what would an
Speaker 4: ideal portfolio be and something like that, Well, what has
Speaker 4: worked so far, What has worked so far has been
Speaker 4: some combination of.
Speaker 3: Stocks which won't do great, which.
Speaker 4: Would do terribly if we ever actually had if they
Speaker 4: called us out and the bottom market actually gave us
Speaker 4: an accident that then spilled over. But it would be
Speaker 4: some combination of probably gold vall adjusted bitcoin gold stocks,
Speaker 4: that's probably your best portfolio to fight inflation vol adjusted
Speaker 4: because the vall of bitcoins obviously five times out goal.
Speaker 4: So you're gonna you're gonna do it in different ways.
Speaker 2: You said at one point you would allocate one or
Speaker 2: two percent of your portfolio to bitcoin.
Speaker 3: Is it still yeah?
Speaker 4: I mean I think you just particularly now that the
Speaker 4: that the roadmap is clear, then I mean the the again,
Speaker 4: if I'm a policymaker, I'm gonna run really low real rates,
Speaker 4: I'm gonna have inflation running hot. Uh, and I'm gonna
Speaker 4: tax the American consumer to get out of my debt trap.
Speaker 4: And that's exactly what Japan, who's the most fiscally constrained
Speaker 4: in the world, doing, And it works until until the
Speaker 4: population throws you out because you're let inflation get too hot.
Speaker 3: So maybe you're in a world with three three.
Speaker 4: And a half percent inflation and two and a half
Speaker 4: percent overnight rate and you're kind of trying to run
Speaker 4: hot and grow your way out of it.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Well, let's talk a little bit more about equities. You know,
Speaker 1: you mentioned in that scenario that you laid out equities
Speaker 1: obviously would do terrible. But where we stand right now,
Speaker 1: I mean, we're back to six thousand ish on the
Speaker 1: S and P five hundred, We're slightly positive for the year.
Speaker 1: It feels like after the big performance that we saw
Speaker 1: in May, though, that people are not sure where to
Speaker 1: go from here. So, assuming we continue along this path
Speaker 1: where inflation is under control, it seems like the labor
Speaker 1: market is under control, and trade negotiations continue to progress.
Speaker 1: I mean, what's your base case on equities.
Speaker 3: Well again, so.
Speaker 4: A year ago, I never thought the bond market would
Speaker 4: tolerate the big beautiful bill. I just didn't think it would.
Speaker 4: I thought, wow, I thought there'd be a revolt. I
Speaker 4: thought bomb vigilantes actually has.
Speaker 3: Some stuff, but they'd come back out. But they clearly
Speaker 3: haven't surfaced.
Speaker 4: And as we haven't seen inflation, and and well there's
Speaker 4: there's a couple of things going on. One we know
Speaker 4: twelve months from now rates are going to drop recipitously
Speaker 4: with a new FED share If you I mean, was
Speaker 4: it last week when Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: Saw after was it I forget? Was it adp I
Speaker 3: drop rates?
Speaker 4: One Hunter Basis points yes, So we know where his
Speaker 4: head is. We know who he's going to point well.
Speaker 2: And just now the Vice President jd Vance said this
Speaker 2: is monetary malpractice in a tweet reply to our Joe Weisenthal.
Speaker 2: So they really want the FED to cut rates.
Speaker 4: So that also is a tailwind for the bond market,
Speaker 4: right because you know, short rates right now aren't going
Speaker 4: to be there a year from today, So that's.
Speaker 3: A tail wind.
Speaker 4: And again, I think the biggest threat to the stock
Speaker 4: market has been the has been our fiscal profligacy, something
Speaker 4: like the Big Beautiful Bill, because that was always going
Speaker 4: to be a threat to the safety and security the
Speaker 4: bond market, whether investors would tolerate what's going on. And
Speaker 4: right now it seems like, both globally and domestically that
Speaker 4: the world's okay with Cafe kicking the can down the road.
Speaker 3: We're going to suspend reality. It's okay. So in that
Speaker 3: scenario again, if.
Speaker 4: I have to make a decision on stocks and I
Speaker 4: think that rates are going to be three percent twelve months, yeah,
Speaker 4: I'm probably long.
Speaker 2: By the way, you keep mentioning KFE and we're all
Speaker 2: kind of watching this knowing it's fake, but don't really
Speaker 2: care right now? Is that because we're not invested Because
Speaker 2: Brad Gershner has this idea and Ted Cruz was on
Speaker 2: Bloomberg talking about it yesterday.
Speaker 3: I think it's invest.
Speaker 2: America where you give every child born one thousand dollars
Speaker 2: and then allow parents or relatives to invest five thousand
Speaker 2: a year. Then by the time they're eighteen of the
Speaker 2: stock market continues to appreciate they have a serious nut,
Speaker 2: but they're also they've got skin in the game.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it's see here, I'm here.
Speaker 4: I'm I'm I'm the I'm the budget I'm the budget.
Speaker 3: Hawk.
Speaker 4: And yeah, i'm the budget in the in the in
Speaker 4: the in the cranky guy. But that's the best four
Speaker 4: billion dollars that would ever spend in history, because the
Speaker 4: idea of making kids stakeholders from an early age and
Speaker 4: capitalism is so important, Oh my gosh, and then allowing
Speaker 4: employers or relatives or whatever to build that account so
Speaker 4: that at an early age they understand the idea of entrepreneurialship,
Speaker 4: of free markets, of of self individual excitement, about understanding
Speaker 4: how productivity actually works, how we build things through our
Speaker 4: own shared initiatives.
Speaker 3: I think it's just spectacular idea.
Speaker 4: It's the best four billion this government could ever spend.
Speaker 1: So there's a good way to add to the deficit,
Speaker 1: and there's a bad way. That would be the best
Speaker 1: four billion. I'm very conscious of the clock. We only
Speaker 1: have about eight minutes luck with you, so let's talk
Speaker 1: a little.
Speaker 3: Bit about AI.
Speaker 1: You've expressed concerns about AI in the past, and may
Speaker 1: I believe you said that. I mean, it could be
Speaker 1: pretty disastrous if you think about, if you really put
Speaker 1: your thinking cap on. But I'm curious from the investment perspective,
Speaker 1: when you wear your investor hat, how do you view it?
Speaker 3: Then?
Speaker 1: I mean, there's plenty of things to gets concerned about.
Speaker 1: But we were having a great conversation with Cliff Astiness
Speaker 1: of AQR last week. He's had a real change of
Speaker 1: heart when it comes to AI. He's embraced it. Are
Speaker 1: you embracing it?
Speaker 4: Well, for sure, I'm embracing it. We tested two models
Speaker 4: last week. Internally, we have a variety of quantinems a tutor.
Speaker 4: We tested two models, commercially available models. Where AI has
Speaker 4: gone in the last four months. In the last four
Speaker 4: months is so incredible. These models will the do democratize
Speaker 4: quant modeling for the markets Like I can just say
Speaker 4: I've I've been an investment in quant modeling for the
Speaker 4: last thirty years. Internally, externally, variety of ways, and what
Speaker 4: these new models.
Speaker 3: Do is.
Speaker 4: What you know, there's a huge barrier to entry if
Speaker 4: you think about quant modeling, which is I need to
Speaker 4: have dozens. If you look at the big ones, the
Speaker 4: really whether it's two Sigma or Jumper Human, they have
Speaker 4: one hundred thousands of employees.
Speaker 2: That's the edge, That's that's Cliff's edge, right with these
Speaker 2: new models.
Speaker 4: Wowie, it's it's incredible what these new models do. And
Speaker 4: the reason that I bring that up, of course, you
Speaker 4: have to embrace it. In our business, there's larger issues
Speaker 4: regarding to Yeah, I think if you don't mind, I
Speaker 4: can't tell you because I don't really trade individual stocks
Speaker 4: that much. I'm actually using the models from a quant standpoint,
Speaker 4: so I can't tell you which companies to buy.
Speaker 3: It's pretty clear.
Speaker 4: That this is obviously the most disruptive technology in the
Speaker 4: history of mankind. If I can just give you that,
Speaker 4: here's the way I think of AI. You're too young
Speaker 4: for this.
Speaker 3: But there was a great Twilight Zone Okay, great.
Speaker 4: Twilight Zone episode where Aliens came down to Earth and
Speaker 4: they had this and they hand this book.
Speaker 3: It says to serve Man, and everyone goes.
Speaker 4: Hooray, they're gonna They're gonna save humanity, see Humanitarian God.
Speaker 3: And it turns out to be a cookbook.
Speaker 1: I was ready to push back, but it's a beautiful kid.
Speaker 3: Book I have seen.
Speaker 4: So anyway, we just had a Robin Hood AI poverty
Speaker 4: summit on Monday, which I was at.
Speaker 3: Oh my lord, the things that AI are going to
Speaker 3: do for education.
Speaker 4: There is no excuse for a low income.
Speaker 3: Kid not to have the greatest education.
Speaker 4: If his parents are caregiver is taking care of them,
Speaker 4: My gosh, they're going to have an individual tutor to
Speaker 4: walk them through everything. So it's really spectacular. The downside
Speaker 4: of AI is that we've been served. Right when I
Speaker 4: say we've been served, you had in February Elon Musk.
Speaker 4: You can think what you think of and with regard
Speaker 4: to his moral compass, but he's the Thomas Jefferson Thomas
Speaker 4: Edison of our time said AI has the twenty percent
Speaker 4: possibility of wiping out humanity. There's the safety side that
Speaker 4: should send off alarm bells throughout the world, particularly in
Speaker 4: this country, particularly with this administration. And then just last
Speaker 4: week you had Dario Entropic amadai am I pronouncing that correctly.
Speaker 2: Anthropic is good enough.
Speaker 4: So anyway, he said that in one to five years
Speaker 4: we could have ten to twenty percent employment because of
Speaker 4: the displacement of white collar jobs by AI.
Speaker 3: So now we have unemployment, unemployment in this country in
Speaker 3: one to five years.
Speaker 4: So now you have this massive stability issue. You've got
Speaker 4: a safety issue in a stability issue, and within the
Speaker 4: big beautiful bill is a moratorium, a moratorium on AI regulation.
Speaker 3: So no guardrails. Oh my gosh. That is when you've
Speaker 3: just been certain and no one would see.
Speaker 4: The interesting is no one in the AI community pushes
Speaker 4: back on this right because they anyone that understands it
Speaker 4: and sees how it's progressing. These models are increasing one
Speaker 4: to five percent in their efficiency every four months. Understand,
Speaker 4: these are real possibilities.
Speaker 2: So Paul, how do we get to guardrails Because in
Speaker 2: the case of the debt bomb, right as Gary Shilling
Speaker 2: would call it, you've got bond vigilantes to push back.
Speaker 2: In the case of the AI bomb, which we fear,
Speaker 2: there's no government that's gonna regulate this because they'll lose
Speaker 2: out to another government.
Speaker 4: So I've come to this realization in the last two
Speaker 4: years that actually, I think libertarianism is as much.
Speaker 3: Of a threat to our society as.
Speaker 4: Socialism the other it's the other end of it, right,
Speaker 4: And you've really got this libertarian bit that's taken hold
Speaker 4: of this administration so many of the biggest backers.
Speaker 3: But oh my gosh, our country's.
Speaker 4: Built on I mean, we're built on a system of
Speaker 4: law and regulations. My private property rights, laws against the
Speaker 4: soul robbery, etc. So what we have to figure out
Speaker 4: in a thoughtful way, which is why you have to
Speaker 4: sit down and begin a discussion, how do we have
Speaker 4: AI for good?
Speaker 3: How do we prevent the AI for bad?
Speaker 4: Both on a safety standpoint and a security standpoint. One
Speaker 4: thing that we really need to do is again, what
Speaker 4: is the government's responsibility? What are company's responsibility? We're gonna
Speaker 4: have this productivity boom, right, capitalism is so spectacular at
Speaker 4: maximizing productivity, but it's.
Speaker 3: Actually really bad, really bad.
Speaker 4: In the tales in the tails, I'll say, it's really
Speaker 4: bad about distributing income in a society a socially beneficial fashion.
Speaker 4: The best example can be if we look at say
Speaker 4: since nineteen the mid eighties, If you look and see
Speaker 4: how the productivity gains in the United States have been distributed,
Speaker 4: it's about fifteen percent to the bottom ninety and eighty
Speaker 4: five percent of the top ten.
Speaker 3: And so what happens when you.
Speaker 4: Do that, well, you get the incredible divisiveness that we
Speaker 4: have right now.
Speaker 3: We have a.
Speaker 4: Crisis of trust in this country. No one knows who
Speaker 4: to trust. Hell, we had a faction of the Republican
Speaker 4: Party storm the capital in twenty twenty because.
Speaker 3: They lost an election.
Speaker 4: So we're at a really socially fragile time because of
Speaker 4: wealth disparity, and now we have AI that unless we
Speaker 4: think about think about how we distribute those productivity gains
Speaker 4: in a way. So is it Dario mentioned we're going
Speaker 4: to have a token, and every time a model's Bill
Speaker 4: Gates said we're gonna suggest it, I think six or
Speaker 4: seven years ago, maybe be tax robotics.
Speaker 3: There has to be a we need.
Speaker 4: To sit down and thoughtfully think through how we distribute
Speaker 4: becoming productivity gains so that people are happy and not unhappy.
Speaker 2: Paul, it's been a real pleasure having you. I appreciate
Speaker 2: you coming in. I hope we can get you back
Speaker 2: sometime soon. Paul Tutor Jones there coach, chairman and chief
Speaker 2: investment officer of Tutor Investment, also the founder of the
Speaker 2: Robin Hood Foundation.