Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 3: Look, uncommitted got thirteen percent. That's not nothing. But in
Speaker 3: twenty twelve, where there was no big uncommitted campaign against
Speaker 3: that incumbent President Barack Obama, uncommitted got eleven percent. Now
Speaker 3: I'm not a big mathematician, but eleven percent and thirteen percent.
Speaker 4: I don't have the budget for a giant touchcreen TV
Speaker 4: to do pundit math on, but I do have a
Speaker 4: pen and paper, so let's do some pundent math. In
Speaker 4: twenty twenty four and the Democratic primary in Michigan, uncommitted
Speaker 4: received thirteen percent. This uncommitted vote being part of an
Speaker 4: effort to scare the Biden administration into discontinuing the us
Speaker 4: A support for the assault on Gaza, in which Israel
Speaker 4: has killed about thirty thousand people. Others have expect you lated,
Speaker 4: the number could be as high as two hundred thousand.
Speaker 4: In twenty twelve, the last election in which a Democrat,
Speaker 4: Obama was up for reelection, eleven percent voted uncommitted. Those
Speaker 4: numbers are pretty close, and actually, in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 4: about forty percent voted uncommitted in the Democratic primary, and
Speaker 4: as a matter of fact, nineteen ninety six, eighty six
Speaker 4: percent voted uncommitted in Michigan. Now I can understand why
Speaker 4: someone might look at the twenty twelve number and think, well,
Speaker 4: what happened in twenty twenty four isn't terribly unusual. I
Speaker 4: do not understand, however, how a data person at a
Speaker 4: national news agency could look at those numbers and think
Speaker 4: they're comparable, because they're not. Those numbers are for completely
Speaker 4: different reasons. They have nothing to do with each other.
Speaker 4: The twenty twelve number is as irrelevant as the two
Speaker 4: thousand and eight number and the ninety six number. I
Speaker 4: will explain now, Michigan might have been the first state
Speaker 4: in the uncommitted campaign, but since then, hundreds of thousands
Speaker 4: have voted uncommitted around the country. Routinely outperforming all the
Speaker 4: other Democratic candidates combined, and we're not done with primaries yet.
Speaker 4: Some people are unmoved by this. Some voters logged protest
Speaker 4: votes against President Biden on Super Tuesday, but in many places,
Speaker 4: proportionally it was a smaller share than in twenty twelve. Obama,
Speaker 4: you will recall one reelection, but the uncommitted vote in
Speaker 4: twenty twenty four does say something serious and unique and
Speaker 4: could absolutely help inform how the general election is going
Speaker 4: to go. Now, you might have heard people say something like, who,
Speaker 4: Michigan is a purple state. We are a state that
Speaker 4: frequently votes uncommitted. Yeah, it does kind of. In nineteen
Speaker 4: ninety six and the Democratic primary, one hundred and twenty
Speaker 4: three thousand people voted uncommitted in Michigan. In nineteen ninety six,
Speaker 4: Michigan switched to an open primary in addition to holding
Speaker 4: a caucus. However, the National Democratic Party didn't recognize open
Speaker 4: primaries for presidential elections, so all the candidates removed their
Speaker 4: names from the ballot. The options in the primary that
Speaker 4: year vote uncommitted or write in a name, and so
Speaker 4: uncommitted got eighty six percent and the U fourteen percent
Speaker 4: were right ends two thousand and eight in the Michigan
Speaker 4: Democratic primary. That's an interesting year because that year saw
Speaker 4: two hundred and thirty eight thousand people vote uncommitted, almost
Speaker 4: forty percent of the vote. That's because that year Michigan
Speaker 4: tried to challenge the DNC rules. See, Michigan wanted to
Speaker 4: have more influence, so they moved their primary earlier that
Speaker 4: year to January fifteenth, which was before Super Tuesday. But
Speaker 4: there were only four states allowed to vote before Super Tuesday,
Speaker 4: and Michigan was not one of them. So in response
Speaker 4: to this, pretty much everyone took their name off the ballot.
Speaker 4: So if you wanted to vote for Edwards or Obama
Speaker 4: or Biden, you would to vote uncommitted. So in those elections,
Speaker 4: the option to vote uncommitted was a way to vote
Speaker 4: for someone who for whatever reason wasn't on the ballot,
Speaker 4: but as a protest vote. There was a lot more
Speaker 4: to this, and this is actually an important topic that
Speaker 4: is generally under explored. The option to vote for none
Speaker 4: of the above is something I think everyone should have
Speaker 4: the right to do. This year, the entire country saw that.
Speaker 4: In the Republican primary in Nevada, Nikki Haley was defeated
Speaker 4: by none of these candidates. I don't think there is
Speaker 4: anything that could possibly represent the spirit of Nikki Haley's
Speaker 4: participation in the Republican primary this year better than this image.
Speaker 4: But none of these candidates is on all of Nevada's ballots,
Speaker 4: and none of these candidates has won in the past.
Speaker 4: In twenty fourteen, in the Democratic primary for governor Nevada,
Speaker 4: Democrats chose none of these candidates. There's actually been an
Speaker 4: effort to remove this option from the ballot because supposedly
Speaker 4: it disenfranchises voters through its spoiler effect, And generally speaking,
Speaker 4: I think the spoiler effect and labeling certain candidates as
Speaker 4: spoilers is a really toxic element in our political discourse. However,
Speaker 4: if we're being generous, it can be at least an
Speaker 4: accurate diagnosis if you are truly talking about someone whose
Speaker 4: voters might plausibly draw from someone else. So in the
Speaker 4: case of RFK, for example, I think a number of
Speaker 4: his supporters would vote for Trump, whereas someone voting for
Speaker 4: Cornell West is less likely to vote for Biden no
Speaker 4: matter what. But let's think about someone who votes for
Speaker 4: none of these candidates. If you are so dissatisfied with
Speaker 4: everyone on the ballot, that you put on clothes, you
Speaker 4: get in your car, you drive to your polling place,
Speaker 4: just to mark on your ballot that you hate your
Speaker 4: options and ostensibly don't care who wins. You're only showing
Speaker 4: up to register your dissatisfaction. If that person goes to
Speaker 4: vote and realizes they can't choose none of these candidates,
Speaker 4: their vote would probably go to a candidate who didn't
Speaker 4: have much of a chance to win anyway, And for sure,
Speaker 4: you're removing the ballot option that actually represented that person's desires,
Speaker 4: which is some way of expressing non consent. But on
Speaker 4: the occasion when none of these candidates does well or
Speaker 4: even wins, it certainly has a delegitimizing effect, which I
Speaker 4: assume is a reason people have tried to get this
Speaker 4: option removed from the ballot in Nevada, since this option
Speaker 4: has no actual concept, because what happens if none of
Speaker 4: these candidates wins, the election then defaults to the person
Speaker 4: who came in second. So in twenty fourteen, the thirty
Speaker 4: percent who voted none of these candidates were tossed aside
Speaker 4: and the election went to this guy. Where this would
Speaker 4: really become a threat is in the case where a
Speaker 4: vote of non consent had actual consequences. Now, there are
Speaker 4: places where a none of the above vote would trigger
Speaker 4: a new election. In Colombia, for example, if a blank
Speaker 4: vote receives a simple majority, not only does it trigger
Speaker 4: a new election, all the candidates on the ballot are
Speaker 4: precluded from participating in that new election. How do you
Speaker 4: think that would change to the political landscape in the
Speaker 4: US if we knew that we could go to the
Speaker 4: polls in November, vote blank, and then get a new
Speaker 4: election where neither Trump nor Biden were allowed to run.
Speaker 5: Leave a comment.
Speaker 4: Do you think in such a scenario, Blank would win?
Speaker 4: Because I can't even fathom such a hypothetical. If people
Speaker 4: thought that the candidates amounted to an etch a sketch,
Speaker 4: they could shake in November. But for right now, how
Speaker 4: you'd express your dissatisfaction is by voting third party alternative candidates,
Speaker 4: or by staying home, or in the states where you
Speaker 4: can voting uncommitted or none of the above. Would you
Speaker 4: consider voting uncommitted? Love it, respected, encourage it, help people
Speaker 4: do it. No, I can understand why people want to, but.
Speaker 1: I won't be Why not yeah, yeah.
Speaker 6: Honestly too.
Speaker 7: The I mean, the whole situation there is horrible.
Speaker 5: I'm just not informed enough to be able to commit
Speaker 5: or not commit.
Speaker 7: But what can you do with your vote that would
Speaker 7: actually make a difference the property? I get it, I
Speaker 7: would consider it.
Speaker 3: In the prim area.
Speaker 4: Eleven percent, twenty twelve, thirteen percent, and twenty twenty four,
Speaker 4: what's the difference. Way fewer people have voted uncommitted against
Speaker 4: Joe Biden is time then did against Barack Obama in
Speaker 4: twenty twelve, which means that this time around is also immaterial.
Speaker 4: It also means that the other uncommitted votes in other
Speaker 4: states are probably not worth paying attention to. This is incorrect. Dearborn,
Speaker 4: Michigan has a huge air population. In twenty twelve, their
Speaker 4: congressional district voted thirteen percent uncommitted. There is no effort
Speaker 4: to unite in an uncommitted vote, and so Dearborn's district
Speaker 4: voted uncommitted at the same rate every other place did,
Speaker 4: whereas in twenty twenty four they voted fifty seven percent uncommitted. Now,
Speaker 4: after all the death in Gaza and the knowledge that
Speaker 4: the US is doing things like authorizing the transfer of
Speaker 4: two point five billion dollars of warplanes and weapons day Israel,
Speaker 4: which includes eighteen hundred Mk eighty four two thousand pound bombs. Now,
Speaker 4: the use of a two thousand pound bomb can amount
Speaker 4: to a war crime because the blast radius is so big.
Speaker 6: For an example of the deadly reach this bomb has,
Speaker 6: here is Yankee Stadium, and here is where you would
Speaker 6: not want to be. Whereas aid to Gaza as of
Speaker 6: March seventh, was only one hundred and eighty million dollars.
Speaker 6: And so in twenty twenty four, uncommitted got one hundred
Speaker 6: and one thousand votes in Michigan or thirteen point two percent.
Speaker 6: Alternative ways you could compare twenty twenty four to twenty
Speaker 6: twelve one.
Speaker 4: Hundred and one thousand votes for uncommitted. Obama only got
Speaker 4: one hundred and seventy four thousand votes in twenty twelve.
Speaker 4: But I think the most useful comparison is this twenty
Speaker 4: years ago. In two thousand and four, Carry one Michigan
Speaker 4: by one hundred and sixty thousand. Twenty sixteen was famously close.
Speaker 4: Trump won by eleven thousand votes, and in twenty twenty
Speaker 4: Biden won by one hundred and fifty four thousand votes,
Speaker 4: so this number is pretty close to the margin of
Speaker 4: victory in an important state. It just so happens because
Speaker 4: of this uncommitted vote, people have the chance to use
Speaker 4: the Democratic primary for something other than participating in a
Speaker 4: predetermined outcome, which is to say that because the numbers
Speaker 4: are big enough, because there is a big enough campaign,
Speaker 4: you can register a vote of non consent and be
Speaker 4: heard in a way that you normally can't. And in
Speaker 4: twenty twenty four, it would seem this is the most
Speaker 4: effective way to use the Democratic primary to actually say something,
Speaker 4: and that will do it for me. My name is
Speaker 4: Spencer Snyder. If you found this video interesting, make sure
Speaker 4: you are subscribed to Breaking Points. You can also check
Speaker 4: out my YouTube channel where I talk about media and
Speaker 4: politics and things link in the description linking and sharing
Speaker 4: always helps. Thank you to Breaking Points. Thank you so
Speaker 4: much for watching, and I will see you in the
Speaker 4: next one.
Speaker 7: Is we Work two point zero upon us. My name
Speaker 7: is James Lee and you're watching beyond the Headlines on
Speaker 7: Breaking Points after his turbulent departure from We Work and
Speaker 7: amid new speculation of a possible reconciliation as his former
Speaker 7: company struggles in bankruptcy. Adam Newman has embarked on another venture, Flow,
Speaker 7: a still very secretive real estate startup, which is now
Speaker 7: valued at one billion dollars, bolstered by a significant three
Speaker 7: hundred and fifty million dollar investment from Mark Andreesen and
Speaker 7: his venture capital firm A sixteen Z.
Speaker 5: We own three thousand apartments that we're running. We have
Speaker 5: over one hundred and fifty employees. The business model that
Speaker 5: we have is a vertically integrated system. We own the buildings,
Speaker 5: we operate the buildings, We build a technology, we build
Speaker 5: a community, and we build the teams up running them.
Speaker 7: Vertical integration, technology, community, buzzword after buzzword. So to try
Speaker 7: and figure out what Flow actually is, I recently went
Speaker 7: undercover inside one of their apartment buildings, the guy.
Speaker 1: That found few business.
Speaker 7: Yes, do you see that?
Speaker 1: Do you really any toms here?
Speaker 7: That video is on my YouTube channel fifty one to
Speaker 7: forty nine with James Lee. Definitely check it out. But
Speaker 7: today to give us even more insider knowledge into Flow,
Speaker 7: we have with us, say front of the show, Ben Bergman.
Speaker 7: He is a senior correspondent and business insider, where he
Speaker 7: was the first reporter to set foot inside flows first
Speaker 7: apartment building, which is located in Fort Lauderdale called Society
Speaker 7: Las Olas.
Speaker 1: Welcome, Ben, Thanks good to be here.
Speaker 7: All right, I want to start first with the original
Speaker 7: A sixteen Z's three hundred and fifty million dollars funding
Speaker 7: announcement of flow, which I would say was imbued heavily
Speaker 7: with this rhetoric about solving America's housing crisis, the need
Speaker 7: for more human connection. But then the solution, it seems
Speaker 7: like now that they've presented, is just luxury condos. So
Speaker 7: I don't know, maybe it's just me that's missing the sauce,
Speaker 7: But can you help us square those two ideas? How
Speaker 7: do they connect?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean, this wouldn't be the first time that Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley over sold something or made it seem more grand
Speaker 1: than it really was. But yeah, when it was announced
Speaker 1: A sixteen Z Andres and Horowitz, one of the most prestigious,
Speaker 1: biggest venture firms out there, said you know, this is
Speaker 1: what we're going to do to solve America's housing crisis.
Speaker 1: And so a lot of people have been curious, what
Speaker 1: exactly are they going to do or is it like
Speaker 1: a rent to own model? Are they going to use crypto?
Speaker 1: How are they going to use tech, and when I
Speaker 1: actually visited the building, when I was the first reporter
Speaker 1: to visit in November, it actually was pretty low tech
Speaker 1: and not unlike a lot of other buildings that I've
Speaker 1: visited that aren't flow properties.
Speaker 7: Yeah, so they outlined four or Newman specifically has outlined
Speaker 7: what he calls the four pillars of flow. He's talking
Speaker 7: about a branded technology company, a real estate company. There's
Speaker 7: also potentially going to be a financial services component, and
Speaker 7: a mechanism that will quote unquote share some of the
Speaker 7: value or the venture's value with the value creator in
Speaker 7: this case it's the renter. I know they only have
Speaker 7: that one building so far that's been branded, But based
Speaker 7: on your behind the scenes axis, how many of these
Speaker 7: pillars have they been able to incorporate in the business
Speaker 7: model so far? And are they looking If not, are
Speaker 7: they looking to do more?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean it's still very much in the preliminary stages,
Speaker 1: and even the building I visited it is the farthest along,
Speaker 1: but it's not yet branded as a flow property. No
Speaker 1: one walking by or even living there would really know
Speaker 1: that it's associated with Adam Newman. So I'd say that
Speaker 1: these things are pretty conceptual unlike we work, Flow is
Speaker 1: moving very slowly, and that's by design we work. I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people associated with Flow feel like
Speaker 1: moved too quickly. They were pushed by SoftBank, if you
Speaker 1: accept that explanation to just expand so quickly. So Flow
Speaker 1: is trying to do it much slower.
Speaker 7: They So can you talk to me a little did you?
Speaker 7: Were you able to see any of the technology side
Speaker 7: of things. I know that there's this app that they're
Speaker 7: working on, which in your article you described it as
Speaker 7: a Flow executive described it as a lubricant of the building.
Speaker 7: I've stayed in apartments before, not even nice apartments, but
Speaker 7: they also have an app. So how is this that
Speaker 7: much different?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean I was able to view the app, or
Speaker 1: at least a prototype of it. And you know a
Speaker 1: lot of modern buildings, yes, you can pay rent and
Speaker 1: you can you know, request maintenance and other things, but
Speaker 1: this is different. For one thing, it's all seamless, it's
Speaker 1: much easier to use. It also allows you to connect
Speaker 1: with other residents. It could be something that you could
Speaker 1: use at all Flow properties. It allows you to do
Speaker 1: commerce to you know, promote your business, and to have
Speaker 1: playlists in the building. So yes, a lot of buildings
Speaker 1: use apps. But the idea is that this would be
Speaker 1: a lot better than that.
Speaker 5: Got it.
Speaker 7: And to go to the second pillar, the real estate
Speaker 7: component of it is this, is there something different to
Speaker 7: this business model than to say, traditional real estate investing?
Speaker 1: Well not really, and that's you know, part of the
Speaker 1: puzzlement around this, right because real estate is very asset heavy.
Speaker 1: You have to own the buildings. That's a business that's
Speaker 1: been around for a long time. It's certainly not a
Speaker 1: tech business. It's much lower margins. There's not like any secret,
Speaker 1: it's not scalable, so just like we work. I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of questions about how this would be
Speaker 1: a tech company given that you have to have the
Speaker 1: real estate.
Speaker 7: How quickly are they able or are they wanting to
Speaker 7: incorporate new properties because I know, based on my research,
Speaker 7: Adam Newman owns a number of different properties all over
Speaker 7: the country. So what's the pipeline looking like in terms
Speaker 7: of branding it as a flow property.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so he owns about five of these and you know,
Speaker 1: but certain ones of them are under contract, so they
Speaker 1: can't be run by flow yet, but I eventually they
Speaker 1: would be. But there's also other buildings where he can
Speaker 1: operate more quickly. So they've been vague about the timeline.
Speaker 1: This one I visited will be the first one this
Speaker 1: year to be actually unveiled as a flow property, but
Speaker 1: they haven't even said when they're doing that. They've said
Speaker 1: early twenty twenty four, and then after that maybe a
Speaker 1: couple more.
Speaker 7: And the finance services component of it, what is that
Speaker 7: looking like? Is that an incorporation of crypto or are
Speaker 7: there other things? You know, is there going to be
Speaker 7: some kind of model where the renter is somehow going
Speaker 7: to be more tied to the property than just the
Speaker 7: traditional you know, paying rent.
Speaker 1: There was talk of crypto when it was first announced,
Speaker 1: and Adam Newman did have some crypto ventures, but that
Speaker 1: doesn't seem to be the case as much now. I
Speaker 1: think the idea is that, you know, for most people,
Speaker 1: the biggest expense every month easily is what they spend
Speaker 1: on rent, So they are already controlling that and they
Speaker 1: can use that in many other ways to help, you know,
Speaker 1: you spend money in other ways, and also make it
Speaker 1: all sort of an app on your wallet. And also
Speaker 1: just like you get credit card or board points, you
Speaker 1: would get rewards for being loyal there, or to businesses
Speaker 1: they select, or there's also the example of you know,
Speaker 1: they know that you are really into dogs, so they
Speaker 1: could help you find dog walking services, or if you're
Speaker 1: a die walker, they could help you advertise that. So
Speaker 1: they really feel like that's underutilized in apartments right now.
Speaker 7: What is this community building?
Speaker 1: Ask?
Speaker 7: But were you able to talk to any of the
Speaker 7: residents at Society les Olus, what's been their experience, what
Speaker 7: are they looking forward to and is this really something
Speaker 7: that renters are looking for.
Speaker 1: I was able to talk to a couple of residents,
Speaker 1: and granted, the residents I've talked to were selected to
Speaker 1: me by flow, so said they were naturally predisposed to
Speaker 1: like it, but they did really love being there, and
Speaker 1: they found that this social commerce aspect, so to speak,
Speaker 1: was so lucrative for them that they would live there
Speaker 1: or at least have a place there, even if they
Speaker 1: weren't living there, because they said, you know, they've been
Speaker 1: able to meet a lot of customers and really help
Speaker 1: grow their business. And you know, I think that's certainly
Speaker 1: true for certain businesses, like I talked to one guy
Speaker 1: who was selling insurance and there you're trying to constantly
Speaker 1: meet people. If you're just you know, a professional, not
Speaker 1: trying to meet customers, it's not as clear how flow
Speaker 1: would help you. But this is something they're very into,
Speaker 1: and you know, I think actually makes more sense than
Speaker 1: we work. I've worked at we work for a long time,
Speaker 1: but I've never actually really met anyone else that we
Speaker 1: work aside from my immediate colleagues. But I think when
Speaker 1: you're spending all day and all night with people in
Speaker 1: a building, you're much more likely to interact with them.
Speaker 7: So it sounds like this building is all encompassing. Obviously
Speaker 7: you live there, but there's also an office component, you
Speaker 7: have working spaces, it's they definitely have recreational spaces, pools,
Speaker 7: lounges and things like that. So is the idea here
Speaker 7: that you just never have to leave?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean that That is what I was told several
Speaker 1: times by residents, is I never have to leave because yes,
Speaker 1: it is all there. You wouldn't need we work, right
Speaker 1: because there is like a nicer or as nice coworking
Speaker 1: space there. You would have all your friends there, you
Speaker 1: would have the amenities, and you would have so many
Speaker 1: things going on. I mean, they do help plan trips
Speaker 1: and other events. But the idea is that everything would
Speaker 1: be under the Flow umbrella.
Speaker 7: And then the ownership aspect. This idea that Adam Newman
Speaker 7: through out there letting the tenants build equity, is that
Speaker 7: something that's actually on the table at Flow or is
Speaker 7: this more of just rhetoric from the initial announcement to say, hey,
Speaker 7: we're going to solve the housing crisis.
Speaker 1: This was probably something that got the most attention, the
Speaker 1: most head scratching, because Adam Newman and also Mark and
Speaker 1: Dreasen did allude to this that you know, Mark and
Speaker 1: Dreasen said, well, I kind of marveling at how people
Speaker 1: will pay rent for ten years and never own anything,
Speaker 1: but that really seems to not be the case. Adam
Speaker 1: Newman's camp, you know, has been very rare of any
Speaker 1: connotations with rent to own, and what it would look
Speaker 1: like is much more like a loyalty program, like a
Speaker 1: frequent flyer program, so you would have loyalty to the building,
Speaker 1: but not any sort of actually getting equity in your apartment.
Speaker 7: Okay, so I don't know about you, but I'm not
Speaker 7: personally sure how Flow is going to do anything to
Speaker 7: solve the housing crisis. But I do want to touch
Speaker 7: on the business side of things. So they raised three
Speaker 7: hundred fifty million dollars initially from Andrews and Horowitz. What
Speaker 7: do you know, what is the current valuation right now?
Speaker 7: What's the long term goal? Specifically, is there an exit strategy?
Speaker 7: Is this going to go in the direction of we
Speaker 7: work or is this the next potentially Wall Street juggernaut
Speaker 7: in the real estate sector.
Speaker 1: Well, so, yeah, they raised three hundred and fifty million
Speaker 1: from Andreyes. Adam Newman also put in three hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty million. That was at a billion dollar valuation, and
Speaker 1: that's still the valuation. There has not been new funding,
Speaker 1: and I think they're trying to you know, I'm sure
Speaker 1: that Andreas and Adam Newman did not get into this
Speaker 1: to make a one billion dollar company. They would like
Speaker 1: a much more valuable company. But they they say, at
Speaker 1: least they are trying to build the business slowly, really
Speaker 1: pay attention to the details rather than what happened when
Speaker 1: we work, which is trying to make it, you know,
Speaker 1: a trillion dollar company or just something that grew so
Speaker 1: quickly that they kind of lost track of.
Speaker 7: Yeah, is this do you think this is something that
Speaker 7: they're eventually going to offload or is it going to IPO.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that's a that's a ways off
Speaker 1: I don't think that's that's really the thought now. I
Speaker 1: mean the thought is to build it into a huge
Speaker 1: brand and a huge business and then worry about that later,
Speaker 1: all right, got it?
Speaker 7: Yeah, So then eventually every city will have a Flow property.
Speaker 7: Everybody's gonna love it. It's going to be kind of
Speaker 7: a utopian little a slice of utopia, if you might,
Speaker 7: in every single city.
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly.
Speaker 7: All right, Well, so we'll have to see how that
Speaker 7: all shakes out. But Ben, I know you're on Business Insider,
Speaker 7: but anywhere else in particular you want to point viewers
Speaker 7: if they want to find more of your.
Speaker 1: Work, Yeah, you can just find me on Twitter at
Speaker 1: the Ben Bergman.
Speaker 7: I'm on Twitter X. I guess it is now awesome?
Speaker 7: All right, Well, Ben, thank you so much for coming
Speaker 7: on the show today. I really appreciate your time and
Speaker 7: your insights. Thanks so much, anytime if you like to
Speaker 7: learn a little bit more about Flow. I also did
Speaker 7: a deep dive documentary style investigation in which I even
Speaker 7: went undercover at Society Los Olas. The video is posted
Speaker 7: on my YouTube channel fifty one forty nine with James Lee.
Speaker 7: Head on over check that out, give me a follow.
Speaker 7: The link will be in the description below. As always,
Speaker 7: like to thank you for your time today and keep
Speaker 7: on tuning into breaking points.