Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
Speaker 2: all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com. Donald Trump being asked here about Palestinian the
Speaker 3: right of return in his plan to own Gaza, he says, no,
Speaker 3: that's not going to happen. Actually, let's take a listen.
Speaker 4: Beautiful communities for the one point nine million people, will
Speaker 4: build beautiful communities. Safe community could.
Speaker 1: Be five, six, could be two.
Speaker 4: But we'll build safe communities a little bit away from
Speaker 4: where they are, where all of this danger is. In
Speaker 4: the meantime, I would own this, think of it as
Speaker 4: a real estate development for the future. It would be
Speaker 4: a beautiful piece of land with no money's turned. No,
Speaker 4: they wouldn't because they're going to have much better housing,
Speaker 4: much better In other words, I'm talking about building a
Speaker 4: permanent place for them, because if they have to return now,
Speaker 4: it'll be years before you could have it's not habitable,
Speaker 4: it will be years before it could happen. I'm talking
Speaker 4: about starting to build, and I think I could make
Speaker 4: a deal with Jordan. I think I could make a
Speaker 4: deal with Egypt. You know, we give them billions and
Speaker 4: billions of dollars.
Speaker 3: So yeah, that's where we're currently at right now. Is
Speaker 3: not only is the quote unquote right of return and
Speaker 3: all of that being thrown out the window, but they're
Speaker 3: all just willingly going to go to God, to Egypt
Speaker 3: and to Jordan.
Speaker 1: The King of Jordan actually is here in Washington today.
Speaker 3: Well that's right with Donald Trump around eleven thirty in
Speaker 3: the morning. I'm curious to see what happens from that
Speaker 3: right now on the White House schedule. Actually, there's no
Speaker 3: joint statement between the two, which I'm very interested in
Speaker 3: because usual, like with BEB if you remember, there was
Speaker 3: a press conference, since it's usually a declaration of a
Speaker 3: statement a policy. We agreed on these two things. There
Speaker 3: will be currently there is no ability for the press
Speaker 3: to be able to ask any questions. I know this
Speaker 3: is getting technical, but what that means is that you
Speaker 3: remember there's those sessions. He'll be in the Oval Office
Speaker 3: with the King of Jordan and then the press will
Speaker 3: come in and shout questions. Right now, on the White
Speaker 3: House schedule that I'm looking at, both of those are closed,
Speaker 3: which means that they will not be making a declaration.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking at the request of the King of Jordan.
Speaker 3: But this just I can't even wrap my head around
Speaker 3: where this bullet came from. Because the crazy thing is
Speaker 3: that these statements are coming from the President of the
Speaker 3: United States. So it's not only a declaration of we're
Speaker 3: going to own Gaza and we're going to like split
Speaker 3: it up into a great international zone where no US
Speaker 3: troops will be there. These Raelis will watch it, but
Speaker 3: they're not going to have sovereignty because we're going to
Speaker 3: own it and we're going to rent it and then
Speaker 3: we'll rebuild it. And in the meantime, people will go
Speaker 3: to Jordan into Egypt, where both of those countries said
Speaker 3: they would rather go to war than to do that.
Speaker 3: And what exactly is why did we decide to underwrite
Speaker 3: for the destruction of this place and now we have
Speaker 3: to pay for it and administer It's.
Speaker 1: The most insane thing.
Speaker 3: The only thing I can hang my hat on is
Speaker 3: that poll we showed yesterday, which is only thirteen percent
Speaker 3: of Americans. We're like, yeah, that's a good idea. Actually,
Speaker 3: by the way, I want to meet those people who
Speaker 3: are you who is out there, because if you stack
Speaker 3: it together with everything that is happening right now, it
Speaker 3: is clear that we are talking about one of the
Speaker 3: most ambitious nation building projects in American history. To have
Speaker 3: to rebuild a place burned to the ground by supposedly
Speaker 3: our foreign foreign ally, we have to facilitate the ethnic
Speaker 3: cleansing of this territory, use US policy to force other
Speaker 3: countries to take that population, and then.
Speaker 1: We have to pay for it.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't remember this being a significant part
Speaker 3: of the campaign, or you know, put aside the anti
Speaker 3: war stuff. Just think about at a basic level, this
Speaker 3: whole idea of make America great again. When we're talking
Speaker 3: here about a unilateral nation building program for a foreign nation,
Speaker 3: for a foreign population, it's like, on every level it
Speaker 3: is absolute madness.
Speaker 2: And on probably the most sensitive some of the most
Speaker 2: sensitive land on the entire planet.
Speaker 3: I genuinely I don't know where this shit comes from.
Speaker 3: What concerns me the most is, like you said, the
Speaker 3: apologia that we largely see from MAGA meeting and others
Speaker 3: who are just like because they've saw this in Afghanistan,
Speaker 3: you know, everybody just turned all of a sudden when
Speaker 3: we withdrew from Afghanistan's like, oh, well, we should have
Speaker 3: held on to Bogrum and all of this. And then
Speaker 3: you asked Trump and you're like, well, we actually should
Speaker 3: have kept troops there the whole time, Like I didn't.
Speaker 5: Actually you never mint it.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, And the other thing is like the position that, oh,
Speaker 2: this is the open opening negotiating position.
Speaker 1: Or are you negotiating with also for what purpose?
Speaker 5: So what is the end negotiating position?
Speaker 2: Like even if you buy that, which I don't particularly
Speaker 2: buy that, especially at this point. You know, he said it,
Speaker 2: very intentionally said it. He's been asked now multiple times,
Speaker 2: keeps reiterating it, making it clear that this is what
Speaker 2: we're going to do, and Palestinians world people will be
Speaker 2: allowed to go there, but Palestinians will never be allowed
Speaker 2: to return. We're going to keep it, not temporarily permanently.
Speaker 2: It's just like, I don't know what makes you think
Speaker 2: that this is some casual first bid proposal. And also
Speaker 2: even if you think that, like, where do you think
Speaker 2: that this is ultimately going. It's absolutely one of the
Speaker 2: most destructive, immoral, and dumbest ideas I have ever heard
Speaker 2: in my entire life.
Speaker 5: No part of it makes sense.
Speaker 2: And to go back to the King of Jordan being here,
Speaker 2: Trump has threatened them with Tariff's number one, which I
Speaker 2: don't think would really do. I mean, it would cause
Speaker 2: them pain, but I don't think it would move them
Speaker 2: at all, because they both Egypt and Jordan see this
Speaker 2: very much as an existential issue for their.
Speaker 5: Own power and regime.
Speaker 2: And he has also threatened to cut off the aid,
Speaker 2: the very large dollar amounts of aid proportionally that we
Speaker 2: give to Egypt and Jordan, and seeming to not understand
Speaker 2: like the whole reason we give those countries that much aid.
Speaker 5: It's basically like a bribe for them to be nice
Speaker 5: to Israel. That is the purpose of that.
Speaker 3: Ye, well, yeah, it's part of the camp David Acorp, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: We're like, we give them both equal amounts.
Speaker 1: I actually don't think it's bad idea. You're like, hey,
Speaker 1: cut it out.
Speaker 3: And actually, if you look at the policy was very
Speaker 3: successful for many years. What we're effectively saying is that
Speaker 3: now we will move away from peace and the Sinai
Speaker 3: which did Look, you can make fun of it for
Speaker 3: all you want.
Speaker 1: It stopped.
Speaker 3: There were two wars in the nineteen sixty the nineteen
Speaker 3: seventies that US policy largely was able to just buy
Speaker 3: off the two sides say we're not going to do this.
Speaker 3: I would say that's decent. You know, fifty years of
Speaker 3: no fighting between those two nations, especially because that's an
Speaker 3: existential threat to the Middle East, and obviously with our
Speaker 3: current political system that would have drawn us in to
Speaker 3: the conflict. Now we're talking about leveraging and moving away
Speaker 3: from that Camp David process, specifically to facilitate the expulsion
Speaker 3: of all Gossans so that we can own it, occupy it,
Speaker 3: pay for its rebuilding to what end. That's why I
Speaker 3: reject this negotiating thing. Then negotiation only makes sense in
Speaker 3: terms of I'm going to stop the conflict. The only
Speaker 3: way to stop the conflict is to say, okay, Israel,
Speaker 3: come us we got to figure out a way that
Speaker 3: this is going to work, and now we have a
Speaker 3: lot of leverage actually on both sides. But the reason
Speaker 3: why I'm even more concerned is that all roads currently
Speaker 3: lead to some disastrous intervention. So Donald Trump has asked
Speaker 3: yesterday about the hostage deal, and we're going to talk
Speaker 3: a little bit about there's been a breakdown in the ceasefire.
Speaker 3: I think saying that we're going to facilitate the expulsion
Speaker 3: of Godzer probably doesn't help for the people who live there.
Speaker 3: But now he is saying that if we do not
Speaker 3: release all the hostages by Saturday at twelve two Hamas,
Speaker 3: I will cancel it. All bets are off and let
Speaker 3: hell break loose. Let's take a listener.
Speaker 6: Should have seaspied on me all, well, I would say this,
Speaker 6: and I'm going to let that because it's Israel's decision.
Speaker 6: But as far as I'm concerned, if all of the
Speaker 6: hostages as aren't returned by Saturday at twelve o'clock, I
Speaker 6: think it's an appropriate time I would say cancel it,
Speaker 6: and all bets are off and let hell break out.
Speaker 6: I'd say they ought to be returned by twelve o'clock
Speaker 6: on Saturday, and if they're not returned, all of them,
Speaker 6: not in drips and drafts, not two and one and
Speaker 6: three and four and two Saturday at twelve o'clock and
Speaker 6: after that, I would say, all hell is going to
Speaker 6: break out, and I don't think they're gonna do it.
Speaker 1: So what does that mean? You know?
Speaker 3: What hell can be unleashed that has not yet been unleashed?
Speaker 3: And actually I think I have an idea, which is
Speaker 3: Israel has not held back anything other than a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 3: Can we agree on that? So what's left America? Okay,
Speaker 3: so we're gonna bomb Gaza, great, great image to be
Speaker 3: able to see to what end? So that foreign hostages
Speaker 3: can get released, even if they're dual citizens. I don't
Speaker 3: remember us ever doing that before for what purpose?
Speaker 2: So those hostages are in the zone that all hell
Speaker 2: will be breaking loose in as well. You know, and
Speaker 2: we know that hostages have been killed through IDF operations already.
Speaker 3: According to the released hostages, not you know, from others.
Speaker 3: We're the ones who are saying that, so.
Speaker 2: Exactly, we're not like making this up. This is confirmed.
Speaker 2: So it's I don't even know what to say at
Speaker 2: this point. But number one as you were horning out, Sager, like,
Speaker 2: what motivation does Hamas have to stay in a deal
Speaker 2: when you openly have the pros of the United States
Speaker 2: saying are what we're going to do is complete ethnic lens,
Speaker 2: get every Palestinian out of the gaza, strip and personally
Speaker 2: own the territory. Like that kind of strips any kind
Speaker 2: of goodwill reason why you would continue in a deal
Speaker 2: with these people. And you know the other pieces. Of course,
Speaker 2: the way that the media frames this is AlOH Hamas
Speaker 2: is backing out of the deal, blah blah blah. But
Speaker 2: also Israel has never really technically abided by the terms
Speaker 2: of the ceasefire. They never have had a total cessation
Speaker 2: of violence. You know, Jeremy and our friends over at
Speaker 2: drop site have done an effective job of tracking a
Speaker 2: fact that they have continued to shoot and kill Palestinians
Speaker 2: even after the ceasefire. The you know, the Hamas also says,
Speaker 2: and you know, we don't have verification of this, but
Speaker 2: this is their side of the story that some of
Speaker 2: the aid provisions, requirements for humanitarian assistance that were part
Speaker 2: of the deal have also been violated as well. So
Speaker 2: they're saying Israel is in breach and we're not going
Speaker 2: to continue to go forward. But I do think that
Speaker 2: really the governing factor here is what incentive do you
Speaker 2: have to continue and to deal with these people? And
Speaker 2: they're openly broadcasting like number one BB is always openly broadcasted,
Speaker 2: basically like there is not going to be any Phase two.
Speaker 2: We're going to go back to bombing as soon as
Speaker 2: Phase one is over. And number two the United States
Speaker 2: of America, which really holds all the cards here, let's
Speaker 2: not pretend it's otherwise, is like, oh, we've come up
Speaker 2: with a final solution for this territory. And anyone who thinks,
Speaker 2: like if you actually think Palestinians are just going to
Speaker 2: leave the Gaza strip and not fight and not like
Speaker 2: laid down their lives as they have for decades now
Speaker 2: to try to preserve the homes that they have there
Speaker 2: and the land that they have there, Like, you have
Speaker 2: got to be the dumbest person on the planet if
Speaker 2: you actually think that is the case, And you don't
Speaker 2: have to be an expert in you know, Middle Eastern
Speaker 2: relations or the history of the Israel Palestine conflict to
Speaker 2: know that that is the dumbest thing you could possibly
Speaker 2: believe that people are just because Trump says, so it's
Speaker 2: going to be, oh, you're right, now, we'll give up
Speaker 2: our multi decade long resistance struggle to go and live
Speaker 2: in the desert in Egypt or Jordan or whatever.
Speaker 5: Utterly preposterous.
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's put B five up there on the screen,
Speaker 3: says Hamas says it will delay the release of more hostages,
Speaker 3: putting the Gaza ceasefire at risk. Now, what has happened
Speaker 3: is that we have B seven. Can we put that
Speaker 3: there on the screen in response that the IDF is
Speaker 3: saying that their quote unquote being on high alert complete
Speaker 3: violation of the ceasefire deal and a hostage deal. It
Speaker 3: just looks like it points to it looks like it
Speaker 3: would just lead to a resumption of the war. And
Speaker 3: you know, obviously that's something that the world and all
Speaker 3: has dealt with. But with the subtext of Trump here
Speaker 3: saying the United States is going to take over Gaza,
Speaker 3: you can just imagine this is exactly what happened back
Speaker 3: in two thousand and five. What took Iraq from a
Speaker 3: intra country sectary in conflict into a global magnet for
Speaker 3: jihad was by making it into a fight against the
Speaker 3: American evil empire by drawing every global jihadist from across
Speaker 3: the world to Syria and others. That's what turned it
Speaker 3: into this horrible civil war and war against our own soldiers.
Speaker 3: I foresee exactly the same thing happening here. There are, however,
Speaker 3: many people are alive, one point seven million.
Speaker 1: I think we could reasonably.
Speaker 3: Assume that hundreds of thousands will fight to stop from
Speaker 3: being expelled from the territory that they think is theirs.
Speaker 3: And you know what is the alternative that will happen
Speaker 3: for all of this? So it's none of this is
Speaker 3: good because, like I said, at the very least, even
Speaker 3: if there is no US occupation and it's just Israeli
Speaker 3: conquests of the territory and it's the United States sponsoring that,
Speaker 3: what will that lead to in the future. And even that,
Speaker 3: like I said, I don't think it's good, but I
Speaker 3: don't think there would be huge pushback here necessarily at home.
Speaker 3: But there is no way in any way that even ten,
Speaker 3: fifteen to twenty percent of this can occur without hundreds
Speaker 3: of billions of American dollars, not to mention security guarantees.
Speaker 3: I mean, we railed against the Gaza humanitarian peer. How
Speaker 3: much construction material in all and security is going to
Speaker 3: have to be run to facilitate some rebuilding. And you know,
Speaker 3: even if the Israelis take it over, it's not going
Speaker 3: to be easy. There's gonna be a massive insurgency across
Speaker 3: this entire place, which we have seen. I mean, you
Speaker 3: know it doesn't make the news anymore, but you have
Speaker 3: every day if you look when the war was going on,
Speaker 3: five idea of soldiers killed, eight, idea of soldiers killed,
Speaker 3: West Bank. There's stuff that's popping out. Yeah, we haven't
Speaker 3: even talked about that. So I don't know. This is
Speaker 3: a this is a nightmare situation. He is easily could
Speaker 3: be sleepwalking us into a foreign intervention and take all
Speaker 3: of that out and just talk about politics. This is
Speaker 3: the easiest way to sink your presidency. Do not want
Speaker 3: American soldiers to die for Gaza or for Israel.
Speaker 1: Nobody signed up for that.
Speaker 3: And this is some scheme where he thinks that by
Speaker 3: talking tough and all of that, that he can negotiate.
Speaker 3: And what he doesn't understand is we're dealing very much
Speaker 3: with the same type of revolutionary force that we had
Speaker 3: in the past, where if their only option is to
Speaker 3: continue to fight for the existential purpose of existence. On
Speaker 3: that line, why would they ever negotiate. They will fight
Speaker 3: to the last, And I mean, I guess we can
Speaker 3: oblige them their death if we want to, But.
Speaker 1: Why would we even want to. This is not land
Speaker 1: that's ours or that we even particularly want.
Speaker 3: Nobody signed up for this, and then you know, even
Speaker 3: after that, to what end?
Speaker 1: So nobody can answer that question. I don't know. I'm there.
Speaker 3: I've said, out of everything that has happened, this is
Speaker 3: the one I'm most worried about. It's the area where
Speaker 3: he has more uniladal authority than I mean, there's no
Speaker 3: court system that's going to stop you from going into Gaza.
Speaker 3: There is no Supreme court order of that's going to
Speaker 3: be happening there. If the President can tomorrow order US
Speaker 3: military jets start bombing, or American soldiers another start running security,
Speaker 3: or this pressure on Egypt and on Jordan for this expulsion.
Speaker 3: And you know, remember those three American service members who
Speaker 3: were killed by that Iranian drone that happened in Jordan.
Speaker 3: We have a lot of people who live in Jordan.
Speaker 3: Do you know how many Americans live in Egypt? I mean,
Speaker 3: it's got to be tens of thousands of US students.
Speaker 3: There's a green light on all those people as well.
Speaker 3: So I'm very worried about the situation. Let's get to ai.
Speaker 3: This is speaking of Elon Musk attempted coups. Well, we
Speaker 3: have another attempted coup here by Elon. Although I got
Speaker 3: to tell you on this one, I'm actually a pretty
Speaker 3: on board, not necessarily with Elon, but against Sam Altman
Speaker 3: and the evil empire of open Ai. So let's go
Speaker 3: and put this up there on the screen. It broke
Speaker 3: out yesterday a consortium of investors led by Elon is
Speaker 3: offering ninety seven point four billion to buy the nonprofit
Speaker 3: that controls open Ai. Okay, everybody stick with us, because
Speaker 3: this gets into complicated contract law and also law as
Speaker 3: it pertains to non government NGO's nonprofit nonprofit organization and
Speaker 3: the conversion of nonprofit to for profit. So what has
Speaker 3: happened is if we step back in the past, back
Speaker 3: in twenty fifteen, Elon and Sam Altman start open Ai
Speaker 3: as a nonprofit. Now, after the success of chat ChiPT,
Speaker 3: what happens open Ai, the nonprofit establishes a for profit
Speaker 3: sub entity of the nonprofit which does deals with Microsoft
Speaker 3: and becomes a for profit entity that is then governed
Speaker 3: by this nonprofit institution. Led to a bunch of drama
Speaker 3: in that you know coup where Sam Altman was ousted
Speaker 3: and then he was brought back in, and there are
Speaker 3: all these questions about what the hell was going on.
Speaker 3: What Elon and his group of investors are doing is saying,
Speaker 3: let us buy the nonprofit that oversees the for profit.
Speaker 3: The reason is because Sam Altman is currently trying to
Speaker 3: turn the company from a nonprofit that owns the sub
Speaker 3: entercy into a total for profit enterprise. I know this
Speaker 3: is extremely complicated and it's very obvious what happened here.
Speaker 1: It started out as.
Speaker 3: AI for the good of humanity and now it's how
Speaker 3: do we juice enterprise sales at Microsoft. So that's the
Speaker 3: subtext of everything. Put your feelings about Elon and all
Speaker 3: of that aside. The point that at least he makes
Speaker 3: here is, Hey, you solicited funds for the nonprofit and
Speaker 3: under false pretenses of it being an open hence in
Speaker 3: the name open AI open source platform that was supposed
Speaker 3: to be the good for everybody, and have turned it
Speaker 3: into a big technology company that's worth hundreds of billions
Speaker 3: of dollars. So this unsolicited offer is to the board
Speaker 3: to try and to forestall that conversion into this. Now,
Speaker 3: sam Altman has now replied in an interview. He is
Speaker 3: currently in France at the AI summit where JD Vance,
Speaker 3: Sundhar Pachai and all these other leaders people like Neuring
Speaker 3: Gramodi and others are currently in attendance, and he responded
Speaker 3: in that interview. So guys, let's go ahead and take
Speaker 3: a listen to what sam Oman had to say.
Speaker 7: The headlines right now, Elon Musk making a bit apparently
Speaker 7: for Open ai. Your response, you're turning him down for
Speaker 7: ninety seven billion.
Speaker 8: I mean, look, open aiy is not for sale. The
Speaker 8: open airmission is not for sale. Elon tries all sorts
Speaker 8: of things for a long time. This is the late
Speaker 8: you know, this week's episode.
Speaker 7: You take it seriously. It's all, what do you think
Speaker 7: he's trying to drive out with this?
Speaker 8: I think he's probably just trying to slow us down.
Speaker 8: He obviously is a competitor. It's you know, he's working
Speaker 8: hard and he's raised a lot of money for XAI
Speaker 8: and they're trying to compete with us. From a technological perspective,
Speaker 8: from you know, getting the product into the market. And
Speaker 8: I wish he would just compete by building a better product.
Speaker 8: But I think there's been a lot of tactics, you know,
Speaker 8: many many lawsuits, all sorts of other crazy stuff now
Speaker 8: this and we'll try to just put our head down
Speaker 8: and keep working.
Speaker 7: Does it make it more difficult to move from that
Speaker 7: nonprofit model to that profit model?
Speaker 5: Oven Ai?
Speaker 8: We're not moving to a for profit model. We're I mean,
Speaker 8: we're not sure we're going to do it all. But
Speaker 8: no matter what, the nonprofit will continue to be extremely important.
Speaker 8: It will drive the mission, it will continue to exist.
Speaker 7: Do you think Musk's approach then, is from a position
Speaker 7: of insecurity about x Ai?
Speaker 8: Probably his whole life is from a position of insecurity.
Speaker 8: I feel for the guy. You feel for him? I do,
Speaker 8: Actually I don't think he's like a happy person. I
Speaker 8: do feel for him.
Speaker 7: Okay, do you worry that he has this proximity to
Speaker 7: the president and then you can influence the decision making
Speaker 7: of the US presidency and policies around this this agenda
Speaker 7: on Ali non particular?
Speaker 8: Maybe I should, but not particularly. I mean, I try
Speaker 8: to just wake up and think about like how we're
Speaker 8: going to make our technology better.
Speaker 3: So shots across the bow says he's an unhappy, insecure person,
Speaker 3: but just look at you know, the sliminess of him, like,
Speaker 3: oh well it'll not technically we're moving. It's like, no, dude,
Speaker 3: that's exactly what you were doing. You obviously directly violated
Speaker 3: the original spirit of the company.
Speaker 1: But this stuff matters because.
Speaker 3: You know what we've talked about, this is the beginning of
Speaker 3: the t compdministration. It's arguable that this will be the
Speaker 3: legacy of the next four years for AI Deep Seek.
Speaker 3: We obviously saw the impact on our stock markets here
Speaker 3: at home, but what the future of this technology and
Speaker 3: how it's governed. And this just shows you how much
Speaker 3: of it's like basically a plaything of ten different people
Speaker 3: who get to decide the fate of this entirety. That's right,
Speaker 3: the entire sector of our economy.
Speaker 5: That's exactly right.
Speaker 2: And my understanding was like part of Elon putting in
Speaker 2: this bid is it then puts a valuation on the
Speaker 2: nonprofit piece and then may make it more expensive and
Speaker 2: more difficult for them to be able to convert over.
Speaker 2: That was my very rudimentary understanding of the business move
Speaker 2: that was going on here ultimately. And also I mean
Speaker 2: it's just like typical Elon kind of like trollish behavior.
Speaker 2: But you know, Sam Altman was really hardest hit in
Speaker 2: the whole deep Seek development because a bunch of the
Speaker 2: assumptions that he has really made about the way that
Speaker 2: AI will progress were really dealt a blow with deep
Speaker 2: Seak being able to you know, come on online be
Speaker 2: at least as as technically proficient as chat chpt is
Speaker 2: with much less funding. I mean, whatever the real funding
Speaker 2: number is. You know, we have the technical papers to
Speaker 2: see that they did innovate, and they are doing things
Speaker 2: in a more efficient manner, even to the extent of
Speaker 2: like when you put in a query to chat gpt
Speaker 2: versus when you put in a query to deep seek.
Speaker 2: Deep seek uses a massively lower amount of energy than
Speaker 2: chat GPT does. So they genuinely innovated there. And Sam
Speaker 2: was betting on two things. Number one that after an
Speaker 2: initial foray into making this all open source, they flipped
Speaker 2: and decided that the future really was in you know,
Speaker 2: closed models with partnerships from big tech giants like Microsoft.
Speaker 2: Deep Seak kind of blows some of that up being
Speaker 2: an open source model itself. And then the other thing
Speaker 2: he bet is that the development would proceed by you know,
Speaker 2: which company had the most billions of dollars to throw
Speaker 2: at effectively, like building bigger and bigger data centers, and
Speaker 2: deep secretly sort of blows up both of those things.
Speaker 2: So he's in a kind of a difficult position right
Speaker 2: now and sort of grasping and all of those sorts
Speaker 2: of things. Elon senses that. Elon also, you'll recall after
Speaker 2: Trump had Sam Altman at the White House announced his
Speaker 2: big five in ORed billion dollar stargate like boondoggle effectively,
Speaker 2: at this point Elon immediately chimes in to shit all
Speaker 2: over the whole thing, which was extraordinary because I mean,
Speaker 2: normally Trump would never brook something like that, and he
Speaker 2: just took it, and he got asked about and he
Speaker 2: was like, well, Elon hates the guy, and you know,
Speaker 2: I harbor my own hatreds too, or something like that.
Speaker 5: It's a very trumpy in.
Speaker 1: Response, particularly likes one of those individuals.
Speaker 2: He said, Hey, he has a hatred for one of them,
Speaker 2: I think is what he said. But I mean, in
Speaker 2: a certain sense, like the language was very Trumpian in
Speaker 2: another sense, it was very unusual because Trump typically when
Speaker 2: someone is outshining him, getting too big for their breeches, overstepping,
Speaker 2: undercutting him, like, he would not tolerate that. You just
Speaker 2: asked Deve Bannon, who was out of the first administration,
Speaker 2: like that. And so there's something different here going on
Speaker 2: with Elon. I don't know if it's just the power
Speaker 2: of like Elon's mythology of being this great inventor genius
Speaker 2: that sort of captured Trump and that he's fallen into.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's just like they have this
Speaker 2: very mutually beneficial relationship right now where Elon sort of
Speaker 2: serves in a sense as a bit of a heat
Speaker 2: shield for Trump, and you know, brings to bear obviously
Speaker 2: Twitter and the power of that megaphone, brings to bear
Speaker 2: his nearly limitless wealth that he can use to threaten
Speaker 2: primary challenges against anyone who would challenge the Trump agenda.
Speaker 2: I'm you know, it could just be this like mutually
Speaker 2: beneficial relationship. I'm not really sure, but it has been
Speaker 2: that part has been very out of character for Trump
Speaker 2: in terms of the way he norms operates with these personalities.
Speaker 5: But yeah, the real point here is that all.
Speaker 2: Of these people, Elon, Sam and all the rest of
Speaker 2: the you know dozen people who are at the forefront
Speaker 2: of AI development here and really calling the shots, et cetera,
Speaker 2: like they want to automate your jobs out of existence.
Speaker 2: They think that, you know, the future for humanity is
Speaker 2: like transhumanism and you know humans plus as Steve Bannon
Speaker 2: put it, they have all of these almost religious notions
Speaker 2: of what AI is going to do in the way
Speaker 2: that it's going to save humanity, and it makes them
Speaker 2: very dangerous people, not only because the technology is very dangerous,
Speaker 2: but also because anytime you have someone who casts themselves
Speaker 2: in that role as like the sole savior of humanity
Speaker 2: and they really believe that, and I mean Elon definitely
Speaker 2: believes this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Sam and
Speaker 2: some of these other guys believe that as well and
Speaker 2: have cast themselves in this hero and savior of humanity role.
Speaker 2: It starts to justify all sorts of things that are
Speaker 2: really not justifiable. And also, we didn't vote for any
Speaker 2: of these people to be our saviors and to re
Speaker 2: engineer the social contract or automate all of our jobs
Speaker 2: out of existence, or even try to do such a thing.
Speaker 2: They have a pointed themselves in these roles and it
Speaker 2: is extraordinarily dangerous the games that they're playing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's actually put can we please put C six
Speaker 3: up on the screen just to show that none of
Speaker 3: this is slowing down. It's a graph here from the
Speaker 3: Wall Street Journal the tech giants doubling down on their
Speaker 3: massive AI spending so currently the increase in the last quarter,
Speaker 3: actually there was a huge increase in the capital spend
Speaker 3: despite all of us talk around deep seek. And I
Speaker 3: think the reason why is because it gets to the
Speaker 3: question about cutting edge of technology and training new models
Speaker 3: versus being able to execute things at a much cheaper way.
Speaker 3: And I mean this gets to some bigger questions too
Speaker 3: about how the deep Seak thing was even able to
Speaker 3: be happened.
Speaker 1: They asked to may.
Speaker 3: Probably cost over a billion dollars to train the model
Speaker 3: before supposedly costs six million, But it does still justify,
Speaker 3: at least in the minds of Meta, of Google, of Microsoft,
Speaker 3: and an Amazon of just like ungodly amounts of money
Speaker 3: that is being spent right now on AI. And the
Speaker 3: reason why is because all of them think that if
Speaker 3: you spend like in the case of Google, we're talking
Speaker 3: about fifty two point five billion in a single year
Speaker 3: that is just.
Speaker 1: Spent on AI development.
Speaker 3: All of them say, well, let's say you burn several
Speaker 3: hundred billion, but you create you know, the breakthrough AGI. Well,
Speaker 3: the enterprise value of that is trillion. So even then
Speaker 3: the capital expenditure, even though it's a ton of money
Speaker 3: in absolute terms, in a fraction.
Speaker 1: Of what the value of what it would mean to
Speaker 1: be the.
Speaker 3: First to the actual breakthrough of the technology. And it's
Speaker 3: it's terrifying because what they all seem to be saying
Speaker 3: behind the scenes is we're much closer than anybody seems
Speaker 3: to think. Now, there's maybe an element here of some
Speaker 3: alarmism and all of that, but we can see the
Speaker 3: rapid development and the ability to use these programs for
Speaker 3: a series of white collar tasks like that alone is
Speaker 3: already that's.
Speaker 1: A big step change. I mean, I use it all
Speaker 1: the time.
Speaker 3: I probably use it every single day for a variety
Speaker 3: of research tasks and others. It's it's just better in
Speaker 3: terms of you know, if I like compare the production
Speaker 3: value of BID versus TESLA. It's like, it sounds stupid,
Speaker 3: but previously you have to Google bid production value, then
Speaker 3: Google test. Then you have to manually do it together.
Speaker 3: If you use can it a wall, use archive or whatever,
Speaker 3: and just like in two seconds, I literally get the answer.
Speaker 3: That's just an example for something that I do. I
Speaker 3: can't even imagine if I still had some spreadsheet jockey job.
Speaker 3: Like half these guys in finding described are the greatest
Speaker 3: things that's ever happened for them. They can compute and
Speaker 3: have models built in seconds that probably manually would have
Speaker 3: taken forever. So you can easily see how it's going
Speaker 3: to change right now, and so I have no idea
Speaker 3: how we'll.
Speaker 2: Even looking for There also could be I mean to
Speaker 2: go back to that chart that we just put up
Speaker 2: on the screen. It's also possible that this is contributing
Speaker 2: to a massive stock market bubble, because yeah, well not
Speaker 2: only that, but I mean, all of these companies, their
Speaker 2: evaluation is really dependent on the idea that they're at
Speaker 2: the forefront of AI development and that that is going
Speaker 2: to be this just like profoundly valuable development. And you know,
Speaker 2: there's questions about that, especially after deep Deep Seek, there's
Speaker 2: questions about that. I was just looking it up on
Speaker 2: Financial Times, not on JATGPT, but Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia,
Speaker 2: and Tesla. They accounted for half of the S and
Speaker 2: P five hundreds games last year through October. So you know,
Speaker 2: the stock market lives and dies by what happens with
Speaker 2: these handful of tech giants, and there's a lot of
Speaker 2: assumptions about AI that go into those valuations that makes
Speaker 2: it quite quite vulnerable. The other thing that I think
Speaker 2: is worth really keeping an eye on as we watch
Speaker 2: what Elon's doing in the federal government is we know
Speaker 2: they've already unleashed AI on the Department of Education, and
Speaker 2: I think one of the goals is to use the
Speaker 2: federal workforce as kind of guinea pigs in this direction
Speaker 2: of automating a lot of jobs and automating the workforce.
Speaker 2: And you know, maybe you don't have a lot of
Speaker 2: like personal sympathy for quote unquote federal government bureaucrats, although
Speaker 2: I would say that you should, because many of them
Speaker 2: do very important jobs and forego higher salaries that they
Speaker 2: could be getting in the private sector in order to
Speaker 2: perform those valuable functions. But even if you don't that way,
Speaker 2: I assume absolutely absolutely so. In any case, even if
Speaker 2: you don't share that empathy and sympathy and admiration for
Speaker 2: the civil servants working for the federal government. You know,
Speaker 2: what they unleash there is not going to stay there.
Speaker 2: So if they are able to use AI to automate
Speaker 2: a massive part of the federal workforce and use our
Speaker 2: public goods and public civil service infrastructure as effectively a
Speaker 2: science experiment to see how many human beings they can
Speaker 2: get rid of, you don't think that's going to have
Speaker 2: spillover effect. So you don't think that that's like, you know,
Speaker 2: a model for how they're going to roll things out
Speaker 2: across the country and how companies are going to look
Speaker 2: to that and use those learnings in order to automate
Speaker 2: their own workforces. I mean, these are real things that
Speaker 2: are on the table, and I think that's certainly part
Speaker 2: of the plan here with what Elon wants to do
Speaker 2: with the federal government as well, to try to innovate
Speaker 2: in that job loss department.
Speaker 3: Let's move now to Chinese EV maker BYD which has
Speaker 3: just made a huge announcement that could potentially change the
Speaker 3: EV industry.
Speaker 1: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: News came out of China just yesterday BYD will now
Speaker 3: offer quote God's eye self driving system on all of
Speaker 3: its models. So BYD obviously is the largest electric vehicle
Speaker 3: maker in China and in how has a quote unquote
Speaker 3: advanced self driving system. Now, every video I've watched says
Speaker 3: it's roughly equal to the Tesla full self driving. It
Speaker 3: has some important differences that the L three nerds will
Speaker 3: dig into, but let's just say it's better than what's
Speaker 3: on your Toyota, your Honda CRV assisted autopilot.
Speaker 1: So we leave it at that.
Speaker 3: But the extraordinary part of it is not the role
Speaker 3: fact that it's rolling out, but the fact that it
Speaker 3: is now installing it on every single model that they sell,
Speaker 3: including the Seagull budget hatchback, which it currently retails inside
Speaker 3: of China for nine thousand, six hundred dollars.
Speaker 1: Yes, you heard me correctly. This is a.
Speaker 3: Huge deal because it challenges the Tesla market share abroad.
Speaker 3: So in the United States, obviously you cannot buy by
Speaker 3: You can't buy any of these Chinese evs. But China,
Speaker 3: which we're about to get to, is a net exporter
Speaker 3: actually of cars. Their electric vehicles are highly desirable for
Speaker 3: many people across the world. In Europe and elsewhere, and
Speaker 3: a lot of areas, especially with cheaper cost of living.
Speaker 3: They have genuine innovation in a lot of their electric
Speaker 3: car industry. They have a battery supply chain which is
Speaker 3: heavily relied on by Tesla and other US automakers. So
Speaker 3: they are I would put them almost fifteen twenty years
Speaker 3: ahead of us. They also they don't have no EPA
Speaker 3: telling them what they can and can't do. They're like,
Speaker 3: if you can extend the range, if you need regulation,
Speaker 3: the government is there to help you because it's an
Speaker 3: instrument of national power and it's extraordinary. You were talking
Speaker 3: in the intro how Americans currently have a real boomer
Speaker 3: mindset around Chinese cars. I love electric vehicles. I'll be
Speaker 3: totally transparent. If these weren't from China, I would buy
Speaker 3: one in a heartbeat. They are better than any cars
Speaker 3: that we sell here in America.
Speaker 5: No, if they if we didn't have like just a
Speaker 5: block on.
Speaker 1: These tesh I would buy you. Yeah, this question, many
Speaker 1: other country would buy.
Speaker 5: Our domestic ev industry would be.
Speaker 1: Dead over.
Speaker 3: There's only a few select people who are telling Americans
Speaker 3: and others how good these cars are. And one of
Speaker 3: these guys who I follow is a Forest He does
Speaker 3: Forest Auto reviews. I love the way that he does reviews.
Speaker 3: But he's able to get his hands on a lot
Speaker 3: of different Chinese evs. I watch like every video that
Speaker 3: this guy does, So we thought we would put together
Speaker 3: a mashup of some of the cars the Chinese EV's
Speaker 3: reviews that he's done in the past. The very last
Speaker 3: one that will show you is the actual Seagull from
Speaker 3: BYD that we were talking about. But this is a
Speaker 3: range of luxury ev down to the most budget model,
Speaker 3: So you got to see here what we are missing
Speaker 3: out on.
Speaker 1: What is up, guys.
Speaker 9: Right behind me is a car from China, which is
Speaker 9: a big deal because there's currently no Chinese manufacturers in America,
Speaker 9: which is kind of a shame because this car is
Speaker 9: really cool. So obviously you can use your key, or
Speaker 9: you can leave your key at home and use NFC.
Speaker 9: This car is a plug in hybrid and on just
Speaker 9: the battery it can do about sixty miles, which is
Speaker 9: more than any plug in hybrid in America, and on
Speaker 9: a full charge and a full take of gas, it
Speaker 9: can do well over six fifty miles. If I push
Speaker 9: the button on the side of my seat that'll fold
Speaker 9: down my armrest. My sister heated, ventilated and massaging. I
Speaker 9: have an area right down here for my phone, have
Speaker 9: built in sunscreen shades. If I push this button, my
Speaker 9: cup holder comes out and I can do this. I'm
Speaker 9: six feet tall for reference, you can be seven feet
Speaker 9: tall and still lounge back here.
Speaker 1: But what if I want to watch a movie?
Speaker 9: A TV can't fold up into the small space, but
Speaker 9: a projector can. Yeah, this is pretty sweet. You also
Speaker 9: get a built in fridge.
Speaker 3: Behind me.
Speaker 9: Is what eighty four hundred dollars can get you in China.
Speaker 9: This is the Wooling Bingo. It's a tiny four door
Speaker 9: ev It starts at eighty four hundred dollars, but even
Speaker 9: fully loaded, it's only twelve thousand dollars if you get
Speaker 9: full led lights, these tiny cute wheels, and it can
Speaker 9: do two hundred and fifty on a pool charge. You
Speaker 9: also get a lot of space in the trunk.
Speaker 3: You guys see what I'm talking about. I mean, look,
Speaker 3: let's be honest. These cars are sick. There's other ones
Speaker 3: not even BYD I can't pronounce them, but the self
Speaker 3: driving tech the lounge, and they retail for like sixty
Speaker 3: thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: There are several there are several.
Speaker 3: Like Japanese similarities, not evs per se, but Lexus and
Speaker 3: Toyota models that are only available in Japan. But they're
Speaker 3: not sending their best over here. But I wanted people
Speaker 3: to understand this because the rest of the globe has
Speaker 3: access to BYD and they like it. And this is
Speaker 3: one of the most extraordinary differences. Now because Tesla obviously
Speaker 3: is probably the most successful auto startup of all time
Speaker 3: in the United States, it is currently the crown jewel
Speaker 3: of the American EV industry, obviously Elon and all of
Speaker 3: that removed. It's one of the top sellers of cars
Speaker 3: almost every state in the United States. I believe the
Speaker 3: Tesla Model three or the Model Y was one of
Speaker 3: the top sellers in the state of California. We've done
Speaker 3: a lot of bets through the IRA Industrial Policy on this, saying, oh,
Speaker 3: we're going to try and compete, but the truth is
Speaker 3: it's like we are getting our asses kicked at a
Speaker 3: very structural level. You can see here clearly how even
Speaker 3: just four years ago that the United States and China
Speaker 3: were roughly tied in terms of the.
Speaker 1: Car exports to the rest of the world.
Speaker 3: Well, in the last four years they've gone stratospheric and
Speaker 3: now they have more cars exported to the rest of
Speaker 3: the world than Japan, Mexico, Germany, South Korea, and the
Speaker 3: United States. So there has been a massive shift in
Speaker 3: the way that the Chinese car exports have become a
Speaker 3: central part of their ability to trade with the rest
Speaker 3: of the world. And this goes to the central heart
Speaker 3: of the problem between the US economy and the Chinese economy.
Speaker 1: They build shit, and they do it well.
Speaker 3: Their government policy is all organized around finding people like
Speaker 3: the bid CEO and being like, what do you need.
Speaker 1: You need a supply chain, We'll build it for you.
Speaker 3: Oh, you need expedited approval and market share and all
Speaker 3: of this industrial capacity done and five ten years ago,
Speaker 3: or actually even twenty years ago, a lot of people
Speaker 3: didn't believe. Charlie munger Our, a famous investor. He said
Speaker 3: that the bid CEO is one of the smartest people
Speaker 3: who we ever met in his entire life, and that
Speaker 3: if he could have bet more on the company, that
Speaker 3: he would have. I listened to the last interview that
Speaker 3: he ever gave with acquired. Highly recommend it if you can,
Speaker 3: but just to give people an example of how they
Speaker 3: back their critical entrepreneurs who make stuff in the physical world,
Speaker 3: and the payoff on their technology is that by getting
Speaker 3: ten fifteen years ahead of US, they are now exponentially
Speaker 3: in just four years topping the United States even Japan
Speaker 3: in terms of the number of net exports. Without export control,
Speaker 3: it's over. It's over in terms of electric vehicles. Now,
Speaker 3: maybe we can catch up. You know, you've got to
Speaker 3: bias ten fifteen years. But we don't control the European Union,
Speaker 3: you know, we don't control the export law of a
Speaker 3: huge number of US allies. And what are the most
Speaker 3: what is the most revealed preference of all time across
Speaker 3: the world. Consumers want what good products at cheap prices,
Speaker 3: and if you give them the option, they're going to
Speaker 3: buy it. So this is an existential problem that we
Speaker 3: have and their ability to compete to offer full self
Speaker 3: driving for free on a ten thousand dollars car in
Speaker 3: the US, we buy a Tesla, you want full self driving,
Speaker 3: either pay have to one hundred dollars a month or
Speaker 3: eight thousand bucks up front, eight thousand bucks for the software,
Speaker 3: which is roughly what twenty percent less than the price
Speaker 3: of the car in China. So that's what we're dealing
Speaker 3: with here.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 3: Obviously it's a tiny little hatchback, but still, I mean,
Speaker 3: what's a Toyota camera go for these days?
Speaker 1: Twenty probably thirty thousand dollars. I'm guessing here, I'll look
Speaker 1: it up while you react.
Speaker 2: Well, I was going to say, you know, a part
Speaker 2: of why they have so many exports of their vehicles
Speaker 2: is there's been a huge shift which has been incentivized
Speaker 2: by the federal by the government in China towards electric
Speaker 2: vehicles and plug in hybrids. So half of the new
Speaker 2: vehicles bought in China now are either evs or their
Speaker 2: plug in hybrids. So now they have all of these
Speaker 2: traditional gas powered vehicles that don't really Chinese consumers no
Speaker 2: longer really want. And so that's a lot of what
Speaker 2: is being offloaded into Europe and other places around the world,
Speaker 2: and has been very popular in the Middle East, very
Speaker 2: popular in like Latin America because they're so like cost efficient.
Speaker 2: But I think the piece about the differences between the
Speaker 2: economies is really important because they did fifteen years ago
Speaker 2: they identified that a particular Chinese premiere who identified evs
Speaker 2: as one of their highest priorities, and they invested a
Speaker 2: lot of money into it and they you know, also,
Speaker 2: this actually does touch on the USAID discussion as well,
Speaker 2: because China's Mountain Roade initiative, part of their effort of
Speaker 2: projecting soft power and building goodwill around the world, was
Speaker 2: about establishing these supply chains, specifically for EV batteries, and
Speaker 2: they have done a tremendous job in locking up a
Speaker 2: lot of those mineral resources. USAID, as Senator Chris who
Speaker 2: was a Chris Murphy, I think that kind of let
Speaker 2: the cat on the bag about.
Speaker 5: What USAID is actually about.
Speaker 2: Like one of the things that he name checked was
Speaker 2: securing rare earth minerals around the world, and he's right
Speaker 2: about that. I mean, that is part of the goal
Speaker 2: of USAID. So you know, for example, the HIV program
Speaker 2: that pet far that has been in place since the
Speaker 2: George W.
Speaker 5: Bush administration.
Speaker 2: One of the countries where it has been incredibly important
Speaker 2: and been a genuine lifeline for people is Zambia. Well,
Speaker 2: Zambia had a huge problem with HIV and AIDS. It's
Speaker 2: in a much better place now because of the investments
Speaker 2: that we made there. But also Zambia happens to have
Speaker 2: a lot of minds of things like cobalt, and we
Speaker 2: have invested a lot of money and been able to
Speaker 2: have those partnerships in Zambia of securing those rare earth materials,
Speaker 2: as Chris Murphy said, in part because of the more
Speaker 2: sort of like you know, humanitarian investments that we made
Speaker 2: in the country. So when we talk about just to
Speaker 2: give this is like a real world example of when
Speaker 2: we say soft power projection. I know that can sound
Speaker 2: very abstract. That's the sort of thing that we're talking about.
Speaker 2: And that's what China has really accomplished with their Belt
Speaker 2: and Rote initiative very very effectively.
Speaker 5: But because they.
Speaker 2: Have been so much more intentional about their industrial policy
Speaker 2: and really got you know, while we were still in
Speaker 2: full on neoliberal mode and industrial policy was like and
Speaker 2: tariffs were like a dirty word, they were planning for
Speaker 2: what the industries of the future would be and where
Speaker 2: they wanted to lead. And now with BYD we see
Speaker 2: the way that that has really paid off for them.
Speaker 1: Shocking.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, eight to nine percent of new
Speaker 3: car sales in the European Union as of early twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four, according to Claude, are made in China eight
Speaker 3: to nine percent. This is after a thirty nine percent
Speaker 3: increase from just the year twenty two twenty three, So
Speaker 3: in a four year period, they are gobbling up European
Speaker 3: car market share. And like I said, I mean their
Speaker 3: ability to compete in the supply chain. Compare those BYD
Speaker 3: vehicles to a Rivian look no offense.
Speaker 1: I think Rivians look cool.
Speaker 3: They cost like eighty thousand dollars and they go like
Speaker 3: two hundred miles and if you get into looked really,
Speaker 3: I think, though I like the look.
Speaker 2: Of you, you have more of an affinity for these,
Speaker 2: Like futurists, I do.
Speaker 1: I'm not a fan.
Speaker 2: I'm the cyber truck. I think it's the I like both.
Speaker 3: I like futuristic stuff. I really love retro stuff. So
Speaker 3: stuff like a Ford Bronco Yeah old.
Speaker 5: Yeah, those are qu that I'm down with.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I mean Rivian fine a it's a hot
Speaker 3: selling car. People really like them, but they're paying eighty
Speaker 3: thousand bucks for it. Okay, in China, if you pay
Speaker 3: eighty thousand dollars for ev it's gonna be like that
Speaker 3: Projector car. It's gonna have two recliners in the backseat
Speaker 3: and a nice little tray where you can.
Speaker 5: Eat hotfrigerator with built in chopsticks.
Speaker 3: If you want a car like that here in America,
Speaker 3: you're gonna pay two hundred grand, and you probably still
Speaker 3: won't even be able to You still won't even get
Speaker 3: half of the features that are inside of it. That's
Speaker 3: the stakes of what we're talking about. So I'm worried.
Speaker 3: I don't see any indication that we're going to get
Speaker 3: our act together. One thing the Chinese do, which I
Speaker 3: think is amazing, is they have these gas generator evs,
Speaker 3: which is just a plug in hybrid or kind of
Speaker 3: equivalent where.
Speaker 1: They have an eight hundred mile range.
Speaker 3: Where you have a gas generator on top of an
Speaker 3: EV battery that has a three hundred miles I mean,
Speaker 3: that would be incredibly useful. It basically makes it so
Speaker 3: that you can have hybrid systems where you can fill
Speaker 3: gas and a supercharger network.
Speaker 1: Stuff like that doesn't even exist here. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: are plug in. What's the best plug in hybrid in America?
Speaker 3: I'm trying to think probably a Toyota Rav four if
Speaker 3: I had to gas. In terms of affordability, I don't
Speaker 3: think that thing goes more than like forty miles on
Speaker 3: a range. So just think about the difference that we
Speaker 3: have in terms of what accent and we pay more
Speaker 3: than their cars.
Speaker 1: Yeah, not to mention insurance and all this other bullshit.
Speaker 2: Well, and I mean Trump has made it quite clear
Speaker 2: that any sort of EV support you know, that was
Speaker 2: previous provided under the Biden administration, he wants to roll back.
Speaker 2: I know they've specifically stripped the funding from the program
Speaker 2: to build out the charger network, which obviously makes it
Speaker 2: much more feasible for regular people to be able to
Speaker 2: have evs, and you know, also helps to provide a
Speaker 2: market for domestic EV producers. So it's the opposite of
Speaker 2: a priority from the Trump administration. So I don't see
Speaker 2: any indication why we would catch up at that day.
Speaker 3: Honestly, maybe it's the right thing to do, because like
Speaker 3: why should we even compete at this point. It's like,
Speaker 3: let's just buy gas vehicles and like that's all we're
Speaker 3: really good at. We pump a lot of gas because
Speaker 3: they have so clearly cleaned the They has so clearly
Speaker 3: gotten ahead on this that without direct investment now we
Speaker 3: wouldn't even be able to.
Speaker 1: Compete for a decade.
Speaker 3: I still just can't get over that chart of the
Speaker 3: four year period of their ability to an export. It's insane.
Speaker 3: So look, you know I've said it before. People think
Speaker 3: I hate China or it's like, no, I respect them.
Speaker 3: That's in terms of my criticism of a marriag. It's
Speaker 3: that we have we don't even come close in so
Speaker 3: many areas of their ability to think strategically, to think
Speaker 3: long term, to develop an industry if they want to.
Speaker 3: You know, even the deep Seek idea is what is,
Speaker 3: let's do the same.
Speaker 1: Thing for cheaper.
Speaker 3: You know, you can't help respect a lot of competition,
Speaker 3: even if it makes you look foolish.
Speaker 2: I mean, I also think it was so and maybe
Speaker 2: this is a sort of overemphasize part of the Deep
Speaker 2: Seek story, but the fact that the Chinese government was like,
Speaker 2: we don't want our smart, best and brightest going into
Speaker 2: the financial sector. We don't want them to just be
Speaker 2: like financial speculators. Oh and by the way, they're like,
Speaker 2: we're not crypto, we're not doing that shit.
Speaker 5: Well, we're not doing that shit.
Speaker 1: That's the Indians too. They also hate.
Speaker 2: They're smart because I mean, because yeah, we're funneling like
Speaker 2: some of our brightest talent into these just like brazen
Speaker 2: Ponzi schemes and crypto and financial engineering on Wall Street
Speaker 2: is like the war refriend version of that. We're like,
Speaker 2: you know, they were like, we're not really interested in
Speaker 2: doing that. We're going to cut the salaries for well
Speaker 2: financial type jobs and you know, push our best and
Speaker 2: brightest graduates into research and technology, whether it's AI or
Speaker 2: whether it's eed, battery development, et cetera. And that also
Speaker 2: is an important component of this, is like you know,
Speaker 2: where do your where do your best minds, your best
Speaker 2: technical minds, where do they go? And in the US
Speaker 2: oftentimes it's Hey McKinsey, it's.
Speaker 5: Wall Street, it's Goldman. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, you know who's going to fix these problems, Saga
Speaker 2: President Stephen A.
Speaker 5: Smith. You can do worse. You can definitely told.
Speaker 1: You he's against weed. I'm pro Stephen.
Speaker 3: Is he really his stay off the wied It's one
Speaker 3: of the most famous clips. I don't even know about, sir, Yeah,
Speaker 3: I guess you should have. Yeah, well, thank you, Stephen.
Speaker 5: In any case, being.
Speaker 1: Against the dangers of the neurotoxin cannabis.
Speaker 2: Sensing a dearth of talent on the Democratic side, Stephen A.
Speaker 5: Smith is floating.
Speaker 2: The idea maybe he'll take a run at the presidency
Speaker 2: the next time around. Let's take a listen to what
Speaker 2: he's had to say.
Speaker 10: I'm trying to help.
Speaker 11: I don't want you to see you get your ass
Speaker 11: kicked in another election.
Speaker 1: I don't want to see you losing the mid terms.
Speaker 11: I don't want to see you lose four years from
Speaker 11: now in advance with JD. Vance or Marco Rubio or
Speaker 11: somebody being the next president of the United States just
Speaker 11: because they're opposite you. I want the best candidate for
Speaker 11: the country to win. That cannot happen. That can't happen
Speaker 11: if you have no voice.
Speaker 10: And what I was just trying to make a profound point,
Speaker 10: and that is that I think the Democratic Party in
Speaker 10: the city, in the state that they find themselves in,
Speaker 10: I think somebody like me.
Speaker 1: Could actually win.
Speaker 10: I certainly think that I could beat any of those
Speaker 10: candidates that you put on the screen. I can tell
Speaker 10: you that right now. I certainly think if I was
Speaker 10: running up against somebody like you, I would win that
Speaker 10: race too. So when you think about the candidates that
Speaker 10: you possibly go to, you, why don't you run for
Speaker 10: some sort of office?
Speaker 1: I think you'd be great.
Speaker 10: You'd have my vote, please answer huge fan peace of love.
Speaker 10: First of all, the only because I would ever be
Speaker 10: interested in is the presidency of the United States.
Speaker 11: That's it.
Speaker 10: I wouldn't be interested in being a governor, a mayor,
Speaker 10: a senator, damn sure, not a congressman. I don't want
Speaker 10: to be one of four hundred and thirty five. I
Speaker 10: don't think I would be a very good campaigner because
Speaker 10: I ain't the greatest in the world that as shaking
Speaker 10: hands and kissing babies. But I know i'd make decisions
Speaker 10: and I wouldn't hesitate. We gonna do business in the
Speaker 10: United States. Businesses ain't gonna be scared to open their
Speaker 10: doors and only let two or three people in out
Speaker 10: of time because somebody gonna get ribbed. Oh hell no,
Speaker 10: not under my watch.
Speaker 2: So I have consumed a lot of Stephen A. Smith
Speaker 2: over the past number of years because Kyle loves this guy. Yes,
Speaker 2: even though his politics are very centristy. Leftists are sharing
Speaker 2: a tweet that he put out years ago where it
Speaker 2: was like, listen to Bernie Sanders and he's exactly right
Speaker 2: about everything. To be like, oh maybe maybe, but I mean,
Speaker 2: we know his politics are very like nor me always
Speaker 2: hewing to the center. He's real buddy buddy with Sean
Speaker 2: Hannity loves this, you know, loves him, loves the like
Speaker 2: the whole mantra of bipartisan sort of norms, et cetera.
Speaker 2: But he is at least charismatic. He is at least charismatic.
Speaker 2: He's at least unafraid of like he's not afraid of controversy.
Speaker 2: He's not afraid of, you know, actually saying what he
Speaker 2: thinks and stating it in.
Speaker 5: A clear and unequivocal manner.
Speaker 2: And I think in terms of putting aside my own
Speaker 2: like political ideological project, I think so much of the discussion,
Speaker 2: especially after this loss, about like, oh, how does this
Speaker 2: issue pull and that issue pull? And maybe they should have,
Speaker 2: you know, set a little bit more about this. They're
Speaker 2: setup a little bit more about that based on the polling,
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera. I really think one of the
Speaker 2: core issues for Democrats is just a lack of someone
Speaker 2: who is compelling, who will say something brash, defend it,
Speaker 2: be unafraid, not be you know, a shrinking violet and
Speaker 2: running from every controversy, who could certainly go on any
Speaker 2: podcast Stephen A. Smith could and make his case and
Speaker 2: be comfortable and be likable and all those sorts of things. Like,
Speaker 2: if Democrats want to win again, they do need to
Speaker 2: look for a character who is like Stephen A. Smith,
Speaker 2: and just in terms of winning again, not in terms
Speaker 2: of what I want to see ideologically happen, just in
Speaker 2: terms of winning. That is very much the direction that
Speaker 2: they need to pursue, more so than any of the
Speaker 2: like poll tested adjusting themselves on this issue or that issue.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it gets to a vibe question. I think that's
Speaker 3: objectively true. It's like willingness to fight. Remember what was
Speaker 3: the top word that people that people associated with the
Speaker 3: first weeks of the Trump administration. Energetic, Right, that's a
Speaker 3: real part of it. I mean people have made fun before,
Speaker 3: but I've talked about how so much of the Kennedy
Speaker 3: presidency was just described by vigor Viga, as they used
Speaker 3: to say at the time, as people were just amazed
Speaker 3: after he had the sixty year old President Eisenhower, who
Speaker 3: was like golfing all the time, as this like forty
Speaker 3: year old young guy turned out to be on meth
Speaker 3: who is currently you know, he's just everywhere, he's always
Speaker 3: appeared young and vibrant, you know, in front of the camera,
Speaker 3: and that's really appealing to a lot of people. And
Speaker 3: that gets to the vibe of Donald Trump. I mean,
Speaker 3: there is something genuinely astounding about Trump in a certain
Speaker 3: way where you have a nearly eighty year old man
Speaker 3: who sleeps four hours a night, impervious to the shittiest
Speaker 3: diet that would put most people on in the hospital.
Speaker 3: And it's like, in a certain way he is indestructible.
Speaker 3: Something that you read a lot about in every presidential
Speaker 3: biography is some version of they were just built different.
Speaker 3: And I think what Stephen A. Smith has similarly with
Speaker 3: Trump and others, is what does this guy obviously love.
Speaker 3: He's got plenty of money, all of us, so he
Speaker 3: likes attention, He enjoys he knows the game, and so
Speaker 3: that there's inside all these politicians to give up all
Speaker 3: your time with your family and all the bullshit that
Speaker 3: comes with this, you need a black hole that is
Speaker 3: unfilled and that never ends except where you only feel
Speaker 3: alive in the moments when you're in the midst of
Speaker 3: a controversy.
Speaker 5: I just go it.
Speaker 3: Apparently there's something going on with Serena Williams. Please don't
Speaker 3: even try and explain to me, but that's the top
Speaker 3: headlines excumination, so that he would divorce Serena Williams over
Speaker 3: appearing in the Kendrick Lamar halftime show, and it's everywhere,
Speaker 3: and you and I both know he feeds off of that.
Speaker 3: Trump is very similar, yeah for that, and so yeah,
Speaker 3: I think obviously he's built a huge career.
Speaker 1: He's a household name.
Speaker 3: You know, I previously floated people like The Rock and others.
Speaker 3: This is why, because this is part of the Trump strategy.
Speaker 3: I still think McConaughey should have run for governor of Texas.
Speaker 3: I think you would win, I really do. But you know,
Speaker 3: these guys they also see what it will cost. Eventually,
Speaker 3: he says he's not interested in anything but president, so
Speaker 3: maybe he should run.
Speaker 5: You know, yeah, we do.
Speaker 2: Okay, he knows he understands the attention economy and he's
Speaker 2: not afraid of it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and that is puts him leagues ahead of the.
Speaker 2: You know, of so many of the Democratic contenders that
Speaker 2: you could talk about. He has, you know, made a
Speaker 2: few interesting political comments over the years. Let's take a
Speaker 2: listen to I know one of these things is. Most recently,
Speaker 2: he came out and criticized Trump on Gozen Palestine.
Speaker 5: Which was that to me was a signal.
Speaker 2: Because most people who aren't political, who haven't like it's
Speaker 2: a very uncomfortable topic for people because they feel like
Speaker 2: and they've been made to feel, oh, I don't understand.
Speaker 2: All the guys must be really complicated.
Speaker 5: I'm just going to stay out of it.
Speaker 2: And they have a sense that it is such a
Speaker 2: hot button issue with trip wires all over the place
Speaker 2: that no matter what you say, someone is going to
Speaker 2: absolutely hate you for it.
Speaker 5: And that is one hundred percent the case.
Speaker 2: But you know, he's unafraid of just going ahead and
Speaker 2: jumping in and saying what he thinks on the issue.
Speaker 2: So I think we have that, and I think we
Speaker 2: also have a clip for him talking about trans writes.
Speaker 5: Let's take a listen to both those.
Speaker 10: It hits me because and I've often said this to
Speaker 10: a lot of people. I've said this to black folks.
Speaker 10: I've said this to folks whether you're heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transit,
Speaker 10: I don't care, you know what I've said Oftentimes, when
Speaker 10: you're talking about civil rights and civil liberties for every
Speaker 10: human being out here that is a fight worth fighting for.
Speaker 10: I will fight on behalving the LGBTQ plus community any
Speaker 10: day of the week, just as much as I fight
Speaker 10: for the black community, just as much as I fight
Speaker 10: for the heterosexual community. I don't care right is right
Speaker 10: when it comes.
Speaker 1: To your civil liberties.
Speaker 10: You realize the real estate property that exist like that,
Speaker 10: that's what you're gonna say, That's what you're gonna open
Speaker 10: your mouth and allude to. It ain't about money, It's
Speaker 10: about something more than that. They can bring up religion,
Speaker 10: They can bring up a lot of things. When Trump's
Speaker 10: first administration was in place, what did they do? Move
Speaker 10: to US embassy to Jerusalem? They said, this is where
Speaker 10: it's at. They took sides in a lot of people's eyes.
Speaker 10: You really really think that the folk in the Gaza strip,
Speaker 10: the Palestinians are going to support that kind of movement,
Speaker 10: that they're going to want to be displaced. Egypt and
Speaker 10: Jordan already said absolutely not. The anticipation is that the
Speaker 10: entire average world will say absolutely not.
Speaker 1: What are we doing.
Speaker 10: I'm not trying to get into this issue to talk
Speaker 10: about something I really really don't know about. I'm really
Speaker 10: addressing this because of the displacement, the potential displacement of
Speaker 10: over a million people. That's why I'm bringing.
Speaker 1: This up so interesting.
Speaker 3: Yeah, not afraid that's been Obviously I disagree with the
Speaker 3: guy on the trans thing, but that is probably the
Speaker 3: best way you can get yourself to you know, galaxy
Speaker 3: brain about why it's good to have trans women or
Speaker 3: whatever in women's sports.
Speaker 2: But I do think the messaging there, his instinct for
Speaker 2: it of just being like, this is civil rights, just
Speaker 2: like all fight for black rights.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 2: It's it's that civil rights framing is actually something that
Speaker 2: people agree with, even if you put aside like the
Speaker 2: specific question of people of what league people should play.
Speaker 5: It in terms of sports.
Speaker 2: But he has an instinct for how to frame this
Speaker 2: as just like basic civil rights that would be appealing
Speaker 2: to a lot of nors.
Speaker 1: I could see it work.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's probably the best way that you could get there.
Speaker 3: But I mean, if anything, I think Trump is doing
Speaker 3: these people a favor.
Speaker 1: And now you don't have debated anymore.
Speaker 3: But if you get yourself on the Gaza thing, I
Speaker 3: was like, huh, that's an interesting way how you would
Speaker 3: explain it to a normal, to anormy to somebody who
Speaker 3: has zero you know, who has h hasn't really given
Speaker 3: it much of a thought. But I genuinely I don't
Speaker 3: even think it gets to the substance of it. It's
Speaker 3: just about that approach, the need for attention and others,
Speaker 3: and that's that's what Trump ultimately was, you know, incredibly
Speaker 3: successful at. And Stephen NG Smith, I think from as
Speaker 3: I understand it, because again I don't watch a lot
Speaker 3: of sports, and I especially don't watch sports commentary, but
Speaker 3: from what I understand of what he is so good at,
Speaker 3: it's specifically inviting controversy and like out of nothing, you know,
Speaker 3: in terms of giving the hot take not only for
Speaker 3: the sake of it, but to invite the controversy with
Speaker 3: his fellow panelists or whatever. And obviously he's been incredibly
Speaker 3: tremendously successful. I think he's one of the major draws
Speaker 3: right at ESPN. It's like the only thing that's still
Speaker 3: keeping them afloat. Obviously has pushed a lot of people out.
Speaker 3: But being divisive, as we learn under Trump, is not
Speaker 3: necessarily a bad thing.
Speaker 2: It's also funny, like there's another thing with us, like
Speaker 2: he's just entertaining.
Speaker 3: He was great on Hillary too, if you remember he
Speaker 3: was going it was some time in the election. I
Speaker 3: forget exactly what he was, but just going after Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 3: which which I enjoyed.
Speaker 5: So clearly he's got.
Speaker 3: His eye on the h he's got his eye on
Speaker 3: where things are right now, and may yeah, maybe maybe
Speaker 3: you could be successful.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I would like to see it. I like to see shifts. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: At the very least, it would be fun. I would
Speaker 3: enjoy it. Hi, everyone, Sorry, there's some scheduling issues that
Speaker 3: we ran into with Sorow. We're gonna have him on
Speaker 3: the show on Thursday, so just make sure we're getting
Speaker 3: the show out on time.
Speaker 1: We love you.
Speaker 3: A great counterpoints show for everybody tomorrow and we'll see
Speaker 3: later The Speak
Speaker 6: Speak