Debt Spiral or NEW Golden Age? Super Bowl Insider Trading, Booming Token Budgets, Ferrari's New EV

All right, everybody. Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. The All in podcast with me again, the core four, the original core 10 David Sacks, David Friedberg, Shamakh Polyhopatia, I'm Jason Calakannis, and we have a very full docket today. All right, topic one, gentlemen, AI acceleration. It was a big week for AI. New study published on Monday, February 9th in the HBR Harvard Business Review, suggesting that AI tools intensify work, but do not reduce it. Two UC Berkeley researchers spent eight months embedded at a 200-person tech company. So this is one company's experience. What they found employees who use AI, worked at a faster pace, took a broader scope of tasks, and extended work into more hours of the day. Workers reported feeling more productive, but they also felt a little more stress and burn out. Sacks your your how-take here, your quick take on this study. Obviously, it's just that one company, but it does track, I think, some of my experiences. All right, well, a few points here. Number one, as you may recall, on the prediction show for this year, my most contrarian belief is that AI would increase demand for knowledge workers, not put them out of business. And I think you see in this UC Berkeley study the reason why that might be the case is because the employees who use these tools, like you said, they worked faster, they took on a broader scope of tasks, they actually ended up working more hours in the day, so they did more work, not less, and even more effort rather than less, not because they were required to, but just because they were more motivated. And I think they were more motivated because their work was getting upleveled, right? They're able to offload more medial tasks to AI, and it made their work more purposeful, meaningful. So I think we're moving from what some people, I think, maybe Jensen is called task-based jobs to purpose-based jobs. And I think a key skill of employees is going to be the ability to structure work for themselves and their AI agents. And the employees who can do that are going to be far more productive than those who can't. That kind of brings me to point number two, which is that I think there's a tremendous opportunity this year for employees who are early adopters of these tools, or so-called AI natives, to demonstrate their value to their employers. They're going to be able to get a lot more done, they're going to appear to have superpowers, they're going to be the people in meetings who can take an assignment that would have taken days before and get it done in two hours, whether it's a presentation or a spreadsheet. People are going to be shocked and how quickly they can get these things done because they're going to be facile at working with AI. So I think there's a big opportunity there, and there was an article that went viral this week by Matt Schumer called something big is happening where he talked about this career opportunity that's going to be available to kind of AI early adopters. And I think that brings me to my third point, which is I think that you're going to see massive enterprise adoption of AI, not just chatbots, but agents this year. But I think it's going to be driven by the bottom up. It's going to be driven by these early adopter employees coming in to their workplaces, bringing in these kind of consumerized AI tools, start using them at work, as opposed to top-down initiatives. I think there's a lot of top-down company transformation initiatives that are happening in large enterprises, where the CEO has tasked a team with figuring out how to use AI, how to transform their business with AI. Those initiatives are going to take months. They're going to be studying what tools they should use are going to be doing RFPs. And I think it's ultimately going to be very slow. And while those things are trudging along, I think there's going to be these early adopter employees who just make the transformation of FATA-complete, but again, bringing these tools into their workplaces in the bottom up. So I think in the same way that you saw consumerized SaaS tools spread from the bottom up in enterprises. I think you're going to see consumerized AI tools spread from the bottom up in enterprises. And I think it'll ultimately be one of the big themes this year. Couldn't concur or agree more. Nick Thurough of that tweet I did. I did a tweet and it got two million views. Basically, I said, "Listen, if you got laid off by Amazon or Microsoft over the last two years, just wear an open claw and automate your previous job, show you how to use these tools. Go back to your boss and say, "Hey, I want to come back and automate everything." Or go to startups. Every startup I know is hiring for this position, which is somebody who knows how to build and manage agents. There is no job wreck for this yet or a title. We should come up with what this person does, but it used to be called prompt engineer. It's no longer just prompt engineering. It's managing and educating and offloading work to an agent and then making sure they're actually doing it. And right now, it feels like the people in my organization have four of them who are focused on this out of 20. I would say that their leverage is between 10 and 20, X, the other 16. So now I'm going down the slope of employees from most technical to least and trying to get each one of them to adopt and create an agent for them. It's probably takes six months. But when we do, I think our leverage versus a competing firm is going to be 10X. As an example in the podcasting space, SACs, we now have it going through podcasts, looking for the best moments, or you can just give it a moment. And it will clip the clip for you and put it in the Google drive. So imagine we are all in, I don't know, our little group chat and you said, oh, from the last episode, can you get me a clip of minute three to minute six and then it's just on your iPhone. It's just in the group chat. Boom. Nobody has to go find it. It just clips it. That's the kind of work it's doing. And then we have it looking at our YouTube stats. We have it looking at our Instagram or TikTok stats. And then trying to tell us which clips are going the most for our which ones have the most comments and then giving our strategies to how to make them go more viral. It's really weird because it's coming up with really great suggestions and taking eliminating all the reporting work that knowledge workers do. Shema, you have a take on this. I know you've deployed the software factory, which is I think you don't align with obviously this revolution happening in real time. Last couple of weeks have been pretty big with Claude Opus 4.6 coming out. Chatchy PT, Codex coming out. A lot of advances and obviously the open claw revolution that I've now done seven podcasts on in a row. What are your thoughts, Shema? I think there are two open questions that I find really interesting right now. The first question is I tweeted that this morning, but is on-prem the new cloud, which is weird to think that that could even be possible. But we've spent since 2008 migrating everything to cloud because there were these economies of scale. And it created better margin and lower op-x and lower cap-x because you could essentially share infrastructure with other companies. And that's how AWS and GCP have built such gargantuan businesses. The counterpoint to that though is that in the AI revolution, companies, I suspect, will be fighting for their lives. And I think it's very much unclear whether it makes sense for a company to allow the natural leakage of their edge and their confidential and proprietary information out into the wild versus the control that they would get if they ran on-prem. That's a really important question. What do I mean by all that? Once you use these tools, it is very difficult for a company to be able to control how their data is used subsequently thereafter. Meaning, if I gave you Jason a PDF of some really important strategy document or a PowerPoint deck or a really critical model and you're interrogating it with one of these models, if you're just using chat GPT, the mainline instance of it, you're leaking all of that prompt and response metadata back to chat GPT, back to Gemini, back to Claw. And there's nothing a company can do about that. If you're using a set of agents to act on all that information, all those agent traces are going back to these model builders. That may or may not be a problem for some, but I suspect it is a deep problem for others and they just haven't uncovered it yet. When they realize that that is a problem, the enterprise will have to decide, do I just give up and keep running all of this stuff in the cloud in a shared experience, or do I bear the incremental cost of running this stuff in a more coordinated manner that I control on-prem? And that would be a crazy shift just to completely go back to where we were 20 and 30 years ago. That's a non-so obvious thing that may happen. So that's number one. And then number two, I also tweeted this, there was this really interesting ruling around what happens inside these cloud environments, which was a judge saying there is no attorney client privilege and confirming that once you start to use those tools, all of that stuff is complete public domain material. If you put these two things together, it creates a very interesting set of questions for enterprises. You will need AI to survive. But if you use the tools as they exist today at a public endpoint, you will give up all control, all security, all confidentiality that you today have, and the ability to follow through and control what your employees do with it. The only solution is to have the pendulum swing all the way back and have private provision networks, which increases cost. But then if you save a bunch of money because of AI, maybe it all balances out. That is the big question that I'm wrestling with right now. Good insights there. And I have some thoughts on the on-prem because I'm actually doing it right now. Freeberg your thoughts. thoughts on this moment in time when we have people saying it's happening faster and it's become recursive. recursive obviously fancy word for those in the audience who haven't heard it before. Just these models and these agents can go out and improve their own work. So after they do some work or a job for you, you can have another agent say, hey, here's how to do it better or go learn these new skills. Go use this skill last 30 days to go find the last seven days or 30 days of best practices with this tool and make yourself better and do that every night at 1 a.m. What do you thoughts, Friedberg, on the moment in time we are in right now? Well, I think the thinking historically was that it was going to be about recursive model development where we were going to continuously improve the actual model and we were waiting for a context window where you could feed the model back to itself, so you're effectively retraining the model continuously and it may be the case that the output is with recursive and that turns out is having the effect that everyone was waiting for. So it's kind of a surprise. I saw a lot of computer scientists that have worked in AI for some time. I think be a little bit surprised about this moment that we're in that we're seeing such incredible strides in model performance just by making the output recursive. So let's see how far it goes. Are you still obsessed with OpenClaw? I am. We have now seen that every week 5 to 10% of the work we're doing inside of our venture firm is being moved over to OpenClaw. We call them replicants. You can dig a mess personas. So we now have three or four of these. We give them a notion account, a Slack account, and we give them a Google Docs account that have their own email. And I think all of this technology was here all along. It was really, or maybe for the last six months, let's say, really good models out there. But no company would give the keys to the kingdom to allow these agents to actually act on your behalf. Why? Because they don't want to be responsible if it ships your Bitcoin keys or your passwords to somebody else. So in order to use these, you have to trust them. And if you trust them and then you are monitoring them, the results are unbelievable. We have also, to your point, Jamal, fired up Mac studios, we have Kimmy on them. We are moving all of the work onto these. And then they'll use Kimmy for most of their easy jobs, which is free. Then they will use Clawed 4.6 Opus to orchestrate things. We also now that we have four of them, Friedberg. We've created OpenClaw Ultron, which is one meta-replicant that is managing the other four. And it checks their work. It talks to them all day long about what they're doing and then summarizes it. And we're building skills into each one of these. So one of the skills is like doing deep research. One of the skills is being able to go into our sales database, which is in pipe drive. The gains we're getting, I was able to go through everything my Athena assistant was doing. And I was able to take about, in a Chimathi, you have an Athena system too, I was able to take maybe 30% of the Athena assistant's work and give it to the replicant. That let the Athena assistant work on higher level stuff. I would say on the average investment team, individual, we now have probably 20% of their work being done by agents in real time. And the best part about it is they don't forget to do work. They don't make mistakes. So once you put this in, you don't need to have checklists. They just do it perfectly every single time. Crazy. And they work. Crazy. It's nuts, Chimathi. So now I'm building and I've been talking to Benny off a lot because he's got Slackbot, Claude's got Co-Work. But none of them have the keys to the kingdom. So what I'm doing is, I'm upgrading to the enterprise version of Slack Chimathi. You're, I think probably your number two investment in your career. What an amazing investment that was. Number four. Number four. Okay, listen. Keep grinding. Top five investment for you. I'm upgrading to the highest level. And I'm ingesting every single Slack message. And then I'm upgrading and giving the API key for every single email in our organization to Ultron. They will know everything going on in the organization. It is mind blowing how fast this is going. And then finally, just a plug. I'm investing in 10 startups in open claw space, 125k each. You come to the accelerator. If you're doing work on this open claw at launch.co email me what you're doing because we want to invest in at least a 10 or 20 of these companies right now. This is the 100% focus on our firm. It is insane. When do you guys think enterprises have a huge freak out around all of this and say, wow, we're leaking all of our most important information out into the wild. That sucks to your point. The industry is person trying to get ahead. All of a sudden is using an open endpoint to like make a deck better. And somehow all of that stuff is out in the wild. They find out people are going to have a freak out moment here soon. I think there's a big opportunity to take something like open claw and make it enterprise grade and secure and all that kind of stuff. One of my partners at Kraft actually created a new tool called lobster tank, which is a version of open claw that's got some enterprise security wrapped around. This is what I mean. On-prem is back. It's going to happen. It's cost savings plus do I want to give all of the secrets in our organization every piece of intellectual property to Sam Altman who's got to make a billion dollars a year to keep up with his spend, right? He's going to build every application. Let's not make it about Sam. Do I, if I'm guide go, want to have all of my actuaries using all of our proprietary private and confidential data on risk pricing in an open instance of an LLM? The answer is no. That's obvious. Yeah. So now the question is how do you adapt to that? How do you actually generate tokens in that kind of a situation? How do you reason in that kind of a situation? That is a very expensive technical problem. It's not necessarily complicated, but it is technical. That will bloat the op-ex because you're going back to a place that you had said didn't make sense anymore. It felt very antiquated if you ever heard a company was on-prem. But AI may be the reason where you can't afford to be not on-prem. Yeah. And it's going to be on your desktop too because one of the solutions to this is just giving each employee a really powerful desktop that is capable of running a local large language model, which right now takes a Mac studio with 512 gig or a daisy-chaining, two of them. And I think that's the people are doing. Remember these Vax terminals? I think that you could actually see a resurgence of that idea. So you have a centralized computer and you have a bunch of dumb terminals. And you have a CLI. And so you can interact with it that way. But again, it keeps everything inside the-- But you could also fire up your own instance and the cloud and just run it. Two of them. You don't say that skill. For example, 80/90 is a top 20 customer bedrock. It's too expensive. Already as it is because of all this overhead. Because of their margin. Because of all the nonsense that's inside of AWS that you have to pay for in order to just get access to bare metal. So then you go to CoreWeep. Okay, fine. But what does CoreWeep tell you? They're an excellent business. A, it's all training. B, you have this situation where too much of what you have has to be guaranteed into the future because for them it makes no sense to surprise it on spot. And if you buy on spot, you just get these surges you can't deal with it. So there is no solution today that makes any sense. It's absolutely correct, you're about to put some numbers behind it briefly. We, with our agents, hit $300 a day per agent using the Cloud API instantly. And that was like doing maybe 10 or 20%. That's 100,000 a year per agent. We're getting to a place where we have to basically now say what is the token budget that we're willing to give our best devs. And then if you aggregate it across all people, you can clearly see a trend where you're like, well, hold on a second. Now they need to be at least 2X is productive as another employee. That is actively happening inside my business because otherwise I'll run out of money. Yeah, this is a very interesting trend that you're not going to hear anybody else talk about. But when do tokens outpace the salary of the employee because you're about to hit it, I'm about to hit it. I think superstar developers are already there. Yeah. I think the rank and file is probably 10, 20% max. More than likely they're spending a few thousand. The average non technical employees, probably in the hundreds to low thousands. But to your point, the trend is what matters. Yeah. We have some gigantic leap forward in generating output tokens at one tenth of cost of what they are today, which I suspect we will have. So bear with everybody for a while because I think Nvidia and Grock and Google and AMD, they're all incentivized to massively ramp up the energy density and massively push down the token cost. That's going to happen. But it doesn't change the trend and it doesn't change the incentives on confidentiality. Let's talk about prediction markets, gentlemen. They hit critical mass this past weekend at the Super Bowl, more than a billion bet on CalShe, 700 million on polymarket, almost $2 billion in wagering. The media has been obsessing a bit about market manipulation inside of trading and all these issues that are totally valid to discuss around prediction markets, which are something new in the world, at least at this scale. Two specific examples from the halftime show. A day old anonymous polymarket account correctly predicted 17 out of 20 halftime show bets, including the special appearances by Lady Gaga, Ricky Martin. profit at 17K, a tiny amount. And then another account created less than 24 hours before the game, correctly bet on bad buddy, set list. Wall Street Journal this morning with an article titled "Israeli soldiers accused of using polymarket to bet on strikes." Israel arrested several people, including Army Reservus for allegedly using classified information to play spets on Israeli military operations. Quote, the account in question raked in more than 150,000 in winnings before going dormit for six months. It resumed trading last month betting on when Israel would strike Iran. Polymarket data shows the name of the account. Rico Swave, 666. Rico Swave, the name of the account Rico Swave 666. I think that's also the alias that you were using in Vegas for a little while there at your hotel. Rico Swave 666. The platforms are regulated, of course, by the CFTC. But, you know, questions here about society getting used to this new platform. Here's Calche's CEO talking about this on CMBC. Let's say there's a cameraman happens to be in the stadium during the rehearsals. You could argue that would be like somebody at a hotel who sees a rehearsal of a CEO given a presentation prior. Those guys would have normally probably had to sign NDAs by the company because they would be worried about these issues. But in the context of this, they probably wouldn't. It's either one of two cases. Either this information can be public and that's okay. Or it's information that cannot be public beforehand and that's communicated to the staff. Right? The cameraman or the dancer. The reason you don't know what song is going to be played first is either that's not public and not everybody knows beforehand. It's a little bit of a surprise super bowl. Yeah, but it's not non-material. It's not immaterial information that can't be shared. You're making it that by putting it on this betting platform, but they have no obligation to say we're not going to tell anybody our opening lineup because there might be money made on this other place that's now betting on this. That's not the responsibility. It's not on them. Preberg, your thoughts just broadly on what I consider society getting used to these new platforms and what they represent in the marketplace of ideas. I think the question is, is it really insider trading? If you and I were making a side bet and I knew something about you and I had some edge or some advantage and I made a bet with you, is that fair? Should the government have a role in regulating that? This kind of goes back to security's regulation that everything needs to be registered and then there's this concept of insider information. There's a real challenge and a real question on keeping the open platform of opportunity for trading on anything while also trying to mitigate the risk of what people call insider information in these trades. There's a good chart that we have in our group chat that shows the distribution of accounts. There's a few accounts that have a huge amount of money and make almost all the profits and then a lot of accounts that have very little amount of money and they get burned through very quickly. They actually don't have an edge. The accounts that have a lot of money, they generally only trade in things where they have an edge where they make markets, they actually have an arbitrage or yeah, the tarps and they eat up all of the capital. If you're a marketplace like this, you probably also want to be thoughtful about the fact that over time you could burn and churn through all of your customers, all of the users on the platform. If they're constantly going to be making trades where they simply don't have an edge and all the capital, all the liquidity is coming from the accounts that do have an edge and effectively trade off of insider information. So just be that these things end up eating themselves up. I don't know. Shabbat, man, we had in trade. I'm sure you remember that and I don't know if that was in the early 2000s. This idea has been out there but it has clicked right now for some reason. What are your thoughts, broadly speaking, on the value of these platforms to society? Let's define some terms first. So embedding, there are two kinds of people. There are the sharks who know what's actually going to happen with a better edge and then there are the squares, which is everybody else and they are grist for the mill. And in a traditional market, like a sports betting market, there have been edge cases where you try to throw a game or throw a fight or shave points and the sharps are involved in that. But it's increasingly harder and harder to do because the sports leagues analytically are studying these things so closely to make sure that that never happens. But what you get are people with a smarter sense of what's going to happen and people with less of a smart sense of what's going to happen. The thing with prediction markets is it's not just that. There will be those things but then there are going to be these fundamental markets that are purely about inside information. And the question is what can a regulatory body or a society do about that? And I think the answer is not much and the reason is is that if you try to regulate this, it looks like a securities market. And I think the problem there is that these things are too fluid and too dynamic and too ephemeral for them to be legislated like a security. And so why are these things happening? It's because there's too many of these prediction markets that can be manipulated this way. Somebody knows something that somebody else doesn't know and there's no way to arbitrate that. This used to exist in the securities market too. And this is where now I'm going to get a lot of people really upset with me. In 2000, we introduced the law called reg FD. And what was the point of reg FD? It was basically that if you're a CFO, you cannot talk to an individual's talk manager and tell him something that you then don't tell everybody else. Essentially inside information. That used to be not illegal. I won't say that it was legal. I would just say that used to be not illegal. You call your buddy. He says, Hey, how you doing? He goes, man, quarter was a blockbuster. You would go and buy the stock. And starting in the 2000s, it became illegal. And there used to be these networks of information arbitrage that took advantage of this. Now, this is an example of Warren Buffett's returns pre and post reg FD. Now what do you see? His returns were double the market returns. When this kind of information sharing was legal and the minute that it became illegal and you had to basically act on the same edges everybody else, his returns went to the market return. He generated zero alpha. In fact, he probably on the margins lost a little bit. So this is the single best investor in the world. This is what happens when you have information symmetry. So it's just meant to explain that markets thrive when there's asymmetry. Billions and billions of dollars will be made in asymmetry. The prediction markets today, unless they are regulated out of existence or shut down, will look like the stock market free reg FD. And there's nothing we can do except choose not to bet it. Because otherwise what you're going to have are a ton of sharps taking advantage of a ton of squares. And I think that's the end state. Jim, why is it good or bad for society that these exist? You have a take on that. There are a certain percentage of these prediction markets that are about the well functioning of society. And the use of inside information gets to the truth faster. And I think that has value, especially if it uncovers corruption or misdeeds. And so if people make money along the way, and that's the incentive that it takes for folks to work around what would otherwise be whistleblower laws or something else to get to the truth and get it out there faster, that probably benefits society. Now there's a bunch of other things where some people will just set up a market that they know about and that they can control that other people aren't unaware. That's not good. But unfortunately, there's no way to discern when a prediction market gets created, whether it's eight or B. And so you have to decide whether it's more important that you can understand these current events faster with more accuracy or not. And I think that's where this decision has to come to. And that's what politicians need to decide. And society needs to decide. All right. We're really excited that we're doing another event. Yes, a new event from your friends that all in, the best these are hosting a new conference, a retreat, a summit in a wine country, May 31st June 3rd. It's called liquidity. This is for capital allocators and LPs and GPs. Chimap, maybe you could talk a little bit about the vision we have here for the event. There are a handful of conferences that happen every year where money is made. I'll give you a couple of examples. All the top market traders have been invited to this thing called Irosone every year where you go in front of a large audience, present your best long or short idea. And you can be a debt trader, a credit trader, you can be an equity trader. I've done it several times. Acquit is done it. David Einhorn has done it. Cliff Robbins has done it. These are incredible places and you pay like $10,000 to take it. And if you take those portfolios, they tend to do really well. Separately, there are conferences that investment banks organize that are off the record, not publicly accessible, where they ask their biggest traders to come to a room and they'll give them each a few minutes to present their best long and short ideas of public stuff. Then there are these equivalent conferences that investment banks do for private companies where the best fast growing private companies show up and the CEOs get on stage and they give presentations. All of these things have been closed. I would like to blow that wide open. So what will we do? We will convene the best investors in public markets, the best hedge fund managers, the best private market investors, the best growth investors, the best credit investors, and the largest cohort of LPs representing trillions of dollars of capital and the CEOs of the fast growing and most important companies in technology. And what we will do over the course of a few days is we'll have some presentations, we'll have best ideas, we'll build relationships. There may be some investments that may happen as a result of that. We're going to shut down all of the outfill. We're going to shut down the French laundry, we're going to shut down all of it and it'll be ours for a two day playground where we will build relationships, allocate capital and maybe make some money as a result. So you need to apply. We will make some allocations to some folks that may not otherwise get in. We'll make some allocations to emerging managers who may need to raise capital and scale up but can show us good returns. And over time we'll find a way to increase a lot of this and make it more and more publicly accessible. We are going to essentially take all of these things that I've been a part of that have been closed rooms and we're going to put them together and open it up. Well said, well said, it's going to be a wonderful event. Freeberg, anything you're excited about in terms of the event. No, I love the outfill, we're going to the outfill. So I'm looking forward to that. It's going to be great. I'm in a beautiful location and I think there's going to be ample time for meetings, networking. Jake, if you're an investor, you can go to the website to all in.com/events and you can submit your application. We can't have everybody there. And this is not like a general admission type event. It is specifically for this group of people, capital allocators, so apply at the website all in.com/events. It's going to be wonderful. And Shemoff is putting his focus on it. I can tell you because I brought him my first five ideas and he was like, no, no, no, yes, but better. Yes. Yes. So he is engaged. And he's going to make it super tight and tight. Judgy, right. I'm being judging. Good. I like it. I like it. You know, all great events, all great art is has some perspective behind it and we're excited to have your sharp perspective behind this one. liquidity may 31st to June 3rd. All in.com/events. Okay. Let's move on to our next topic. The new CBO report is out. Freeberg. You said we are in a debt, debt spiral. The congressional budget offer released. Long term budget forecast on Wednesday, February 11th. Here are the numbers. 2026 deficit is 1.9 trillion. That's nearly 6% of GDP. Much higher than the 3% GDP target. We heard from Scott Besson on this podcast Social Security. I talked about that before. Freeberg. Trust runs out in 2032. One year earlier than previously expected. That's obviously going to trigger all kinds of discussions around austerity measures that folks will not like. The debt will now grow from 31 trillion today to 56 trillion in 2036. So it is not stopping folks. We are looking at an average of 2.5 trillion per year from 2026 to 2036. Also, currently we're at 120% debt to GDP. House committee on budget expects it to be 135%. So slightly up in 2036 for comparison. Japan is 237 Singapore 176 Venezuela 164. The Greeks 154 UK 94 20 years ago. Our debt to GDP was but 60%. Here's a direct quote from the report. The fiscal trajectory is not sustainable. Okay. Dr. Dome. Bum, bum, bum. What do you think freeberg? This is your story. Your chance to shine. Well, there's no outlook to 3% deficit to GDP. There he is. And if you look at the assumptions, one of the key assumptions is that the short-term interest rate, which is largely how a lot of the debt is getting refinanced, is modeled to be around 3.1%. But if rates climb closer to 5%, as I mentioned in the past, just using the current debt levels, it adds another $650 billion a year of interest expense, which takes interest expense almost up to 2 trillion a year, just paying the interest on the past debt. And because we're running a deficit, that new interest expense increases the debt every year. So the debt goes up and up and up, just by adding interest on past debt. And so this becomes the death spiral that we've kind of highlighted many times. So there's nothing in this report that I think changes the outlook. It's pretty scary. I'll say that the trigger point that I'm getting more and more concerned about, if the Democrats win the midterms, and you end up with a Democrat in the White House in 2028, I think that there's a bigger problem at foot, which is all of the state and local obligations. We've talked about social security. Looks like it's going to run out of money in a few years here. And so they're going to need to print a lot more money to fund social security obligations. It's very unlikely they're going to make a massive cut to social security, because no one will get elected if they did that. And there's a similar problem at the state and local level, which is that there's pension obligations. We've talked about this extensively. California has nearly a trillion dollars of unfunded pension obligations to its public retirees or public employees that are going to retire. If you end up with a Democrat-controlled House and a Democrat president in 2028, you'll very likely see a federalization of that obligation, meaning that the federal government will step in to bail out or support those state and local governments, because otherwise there's going to be a real kind of economic crisis of foot. So when you add that liability coming to hit this CBO report, which doesn't include any of that in the next five to 10 years, I think that could be not just the straw that it breaks the camel's back, but the concrete that breaks the camel's back. And that's the thing I'm most worried about. There is a deep connection between what's going on with the socialist movements at a city level and now increasingly the state level and what we should expect to happen with the US dollar and how it relates to federal spending and federal deficits and federal debt. And these are going to be dragging each other into a bad place in the next couple of years, one way or the other. So that's kind of what I'm more worried about at this point. It seems if it's very hard to cut spending or get Congress to approve budget cuts that we need to save ourselves from this debt, debt spiral. Imagine how much worse it's going to be in the next couple of years if we have to bail out or federalize state and local debt and state and local pension obligations. It's going to be really nasty. So that's the thing I worry about the most in my doctorate. Yeah. And I think that's one of the things that no one talks about the federal level and everyone ignores it because they assume it's a state and local problem. As we've talked about and I'll bring it up again and I'll ask my colleague who works in the administration to think about this idea that if we can find a way to declare bankruptcy, to restructure the fiscal obligations or the pension obligations that sit at the state and local level, we may have a way out. But short of that, that's going to pile on to this federal problem. Sack your thoughts on the CBO report and this debt spiral, debt, debt spiral. So we all agree about the problem of federal spending and the deficit and the debt and we're all concerned about that. With respect to the CBO study, however, I'll just note that one of the key assumptions here is that CBO projects that real GDP will only grow by 2.2% this year in 2026. That's a very low assumption given that we grew by over 4% in Q3 last year and the preliminary number for Q4 was over 5%. I think all of our predictions for GDP growth this year when we did our predictions episode was 5% plus. So 2.2% is a pretty low number and then they predict that it's going to slow to 1.8% after 2026. So again, these are very meager, anemic growth assumptions. If you believe that all of this CAPX that's being invested in AI infrastructure is going to have a payoff, then growth rates could be a lot higher and that ultimately I think is the way to get out of the debt spiral is we need strong growth. Without that, we're not going to get out of this problem. So look, I think that if you believe in growth, then the situation is not quite as dire. What would I do? Well, I mean, if I could wave a magic wand, the two key charts you want to look at are federal net outlays is a percent of GDP. This is from Fred, right? and then you want to look at federal receipts, which is tax receipts as a percent of GDP. And you just don't want those lines to be more than call it 3% apart. I think that's what Secretary Besson said is try to reduce federal deficits to 3% of GDP. Historically, tax receipts have bounced around 17%. And the federal net outlays have bounced around 20%. So if you get back to that, we'd be in pretty good shape. And we were before COVID, our federal net outlays, between spending as a percentage GDP, was around 20%. But then with COVID it bounced all the way up to 30% in 2020 because of both the function of all the stimulus But then also the fact that the economy shrank because of COVID and we've never quite gotten back to that magic 20% number Right now it's trending around 23% so we're doing a lot better than we did under COVID But it's still just a few percent higher. I mean if it was up to me I would just freeze federal spending until the economy grew to the point where Federal spending as a percentage GDP is 20% and then you could let federal spending continue to grow As the economy grows and when I'm just talking about cuts here when I'm talking about shrinking the size of the government We're just talking about limiting the rate of growth Until the overall size of the economy can catch up with that but look as we know It's very hard to get Washington to go along with that because there is just a lot of Spending pressure in Washington one thing I will say though. I mean just to give some credit to the administration here is at the level of federal employment is at the lowest level since 1966 so During President Trump's second term here. We've gone from roughly three million federal employees to a little bit under 2.7 million so you know over 300,000 federal employees have been cut. I think that is a good start I mean you can't be a good start for you By the way, I think that's really important to just pause on just so people understand this isn't like some hurtful thing about firing people they lose their jobs But when people move from the government workforce into the private workforce they become productive They're making things that grow the economy and theoretically they should also make more money So this is positive from an economic point of view to move the workforce from public to private it also to my point Historically, I think it's very important to avoid the socialist spiral that if you have too many people employed by the government It becomes impossible to not employ people by the government and that becomes ultimately de facto socialism Chimath, your thoughts here Obviously great thing that We're shrinking the size of the government those people becoming more productive going into the private sector That's a big win. We all agree 10% great job in the first year. Hey, maybe 5% the next two or three years would be even better But the debt continues to be a problem. Are you worried? Do you think there's a solution here? What would you do if you were running the show? I think you have to take a broader historical context to this Does debt to GDP matter? It depends on many things, but mostly I would say it doesn't matter and It's very easy for people to get agitated about that now There are things that matter when you print too much money Which is the value of the dollar the value of exports the cost of imports and How to actually protect your earnings in your wealth? That's a different question This is a historical look back from about 300 years of debt to GDP of the largest functioning economies in the world now What do you see what you see is the trend? Where you you know if you smooth it out for wars which by the way has this weird effect of First escalating the debt to GDP, but then severely impacting it in a positive way the Napoleonic war the Fanko oppression war World War 2 These things all had positive effects On bringing debt to GDP once the war was over, but the general trend since 1700 to now is up and to the right and The key observation is that it moves in unison that these things are relative problems So if the entire world moves in unison like this there is an argument to be made Which is that you could end up at 300 250 200 percent of debt to GDP, but if everybody is there Nothing really changes that much The real question is if one country is able to decouple itself and its economic output is so meaningfully different than everybody else's So my first take on those whole debt to GDP thing is I think you have to look at it together as a group separately Is it important to contain the debt? Absolutely, but for these other reasons for earnings for inflation for all of those very practical reasons that impact your daily lived life and what do we know there? We know that President Trump was elected on a massive mandate To secure the border on one hand, but to look at waste fraud and abuse on the other And on that side what did he do? He drafted the most important and prolific private businessman in the history of the world to be as tip of the spear And what happened? They identified hundreds of billions of dollars But when it came down to it and Congress had to act to solidify these cuts Behaven't done much of anything Which is a way of saying that if the most conservative Congress in the history of the United States has not done much To solidify these cuts that were identified by the White House and Doge Then as freeberg said it'll only get worse if there's ever a democratic house and democratic control So what do we have to do? I think we have to just acknowledge that If debt to GDP continually moves in unison The music isn't up for a very long time That's just an observation. I'm not saying it's right or wrong It's just the observation But you got to find ways of hedging and owning real durable assets Because the underlying currency that is used in these economies Even on a relative basis will fluctuate wildly and just fall off of a cliff Which will mean that it will erode the value that you have created for yourself and your family That I think is the most important takeaway from all of this which is We probably see things like Gold Do much much better over time because people will be afraid about the durability of their dollar denominated resources But it will also be true for all these other Denominated resources But I think that the GDP quite honestly if I have to be a betting man will trend into the 2 3 4 5 600 on a relative basis for all countries Because I just think the governments of these countries are addicted to spending And there is no reason to stop safe of Some other planetary species invading Planet Earth Black Swan event. Yes. Yeah. There's also a question of what Fed action will do to the capacity for excess deficit spending so if Kevin Warsh Really does want to tighten the feds balance sheet and the fed is Effectively the first in line buyer of treasuries meaning they are printing money to fund The government spending and they slow down or actively slow down and stop doing that Then there is a real um kind of question on what action will congress? I mean administration need to take because what will happen as you know if The fed stops buying treasuries treasuries yields will go up and if treasury yields go up That means the interest on the existing debt will start to go up And if that lasts for a period of time and you start going from three and a half To four to four and a half to five percent on the short end of the the yield curve Then it starts to become way too expensive To fund this level of deficit spending Because the interest expense will just start to climb and eat it all up So I think like the Kevin Warsh question is if he really is going to reduce the balance sheet What's that going to do to rates? What's that going to ultimately force congress Force administration to do with spending Jason. What do you think? Ah, you know we are in a consumer driven economy and the employment rate in this country is absolutely Fantastic so just three quick charts here, you know, this is The number of job openings. We still have even if we burned off In 2022 from 12 million to seven million jobs. We still have a ton of jobs available Then if you look at our unemployment rate It's still at historical lows for our lifetime if you were born in 1970 This is as good as it gets 4.456 is what it's been it's taking up modestly But still lowest over our lifetimes and then finally the employment participation rate number of people in our society who are working and able to work It peaked at 68% or so during the Clinton years And this is still low 62% We still have people who could be participating So all of these problems will be solved if more people were to participate and take those jobs Why don't they take those jobs? Sometimes it's a geographic mismatch Sometimes It is a skills mismatch and but very often it is The jobs are not paying enough So if you want to give Trump his flowers By closing the border you've reduced the number of people taking the jobs off the books And then you have America the businesses are going to have to raise their minimum wage they're going to have to raise their offering wage Which then might get this 7% or so that are sitting on the sidelines to take their jobs Crazy prediction I wouldn't be surprised if we see Trump who is obviously a populist and I tweeted about this the other day Got almost a half million views or 400,000 views What if Trump decides he's going to raise the minimum wage not saying I endorse this or not But it's incredibly low at seven bucks an hour obviously in different cities and states. It's 15 to 20 But what if Trump said we're going to add a dollar to it or two dollars to it over Each year of the next three this would be incredibly popular and it would get some of those people off the sidelines It may be take these jobs. So just a crazy prediction there But I think it's a possibility and I think they're going to lose the midterms as it stands right now. It looks like I think that's the consensus opinion. And they haven't been able to do something with this affordability. Well, I think most Americans would say if you raised the minimum wage, that that would increase affordability. You can make the counterargument. It's going to just be inflationary. But I think both Americans are going to believe in that. So I wouldn't be surprised if you saw Trump take action there because he does take populist actions like this from time to time. You actually made the economy literature on what raised the minimum wage does. Yes, it can increase inflation and it can lower the, it can raise inflation and it can lower the profitability of businesses. Yeah. No. No, what it does is it makes it illegal to hire someone whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage. And so it is shown to create higher unemployment in those segments of the economy. It's like one of those core findings of economists. So yeah, it's true that some people will be a beneficiary of getting a higher minimum wage, but then there'll be other people who just lose their jobs. And it creates an incentive for those employers to shift more labor towards automation. So if you're already worried about those people losing their jobs to automation, that's a downside. So anyway, if the minimum wage were a panacea and it just increased everyone's living standards without having downslides, why wouldn't you make the minimum wage a hundred dollars an hour? You know, why would you, you know, everyone would just keep raising it infinitely. Obviously, it doesn't work because if you raise the minimum wage too much, which is to say more than the value of someone's labor, then they just get unemployed. Looking at what happened in the different cities or in Australia or other countries, they have a much higher minimum wage and they have much more happiness businesses and prices go up about 20% to 20%. So in Australia, if you go to a restaurant or if you go to a Scandinavian country, things might cost 10% to 20% more, but you have a happier population. And yes, it could lead to more automation. We got rid of cash years because it became too expensive in New York to pay 15 to 20 bucks for a cashier. Sure. But we have really low minimum, we have very low unemployment now. And the businesses can clearly afford to pay an extra buck an hour or two bucks an hour. So there's the theoretical academic argument, which you are correct on and I understand it fully well. And then there's the reality on the field, which is Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Australia, other places have a much higher minimum wage. They have higher happiness in the population. I don't actually think we'll have any impact because I think it's artificially low, but that's just one man's opinion. I think it would change the game here in America. And I think it would actually do something to your concern freeberg about socialism. I think that if people felt that there was a kind of a backstop against this low, low cost of labor, it might actually make people pretty stoked, you know, that they could get a higher paying early job. And it might take some of that edge off in the same way universal healthcare might do that. But again, just one man's opinion. I got to say on all this economic data, I think we're kind of missing the lead here, which is we are at the beginning of an economic boom. Again, we saw it in the GDP growth rates in Q3 and Q4 last year, over 4% Q3 over 5% Q4. We just had a January job report where the economy added 172,000 new private sector jobs as blew away the expectation, which was around 70,000. At the same time, the government shed 42,000 jobs. The net of this was to bring the unemployment rate down to 4.3%. So I remember a few months ago, Jake, you were ringing your hands about the fact that the unemployment rate had ticked up. Well, now it's back down. And you're seeing a lot of jobs being created in construction, especially non-residential construction, has to do with the data centers, the AI boom that's going on, 33,000 new construction jobs in January. You've seen in President Trump's second term, you've had 615,000 new private sector jobs being created. While again, what we talked about over 300,000 government jobs have been cut, which increases the productivity of the economy and it does what Secretary Besson says, which has reprivatized the economy. So I just think that the overall economic news is really good. Again, we have this AI boom going on. There's a new chart showing that the CAPEX for this year that's expected just from the four leading hyper scalers is $600 billion, just from four companies. That's roughly 2% tailwind to GDP growth right there. That is just the CAPEX. It doesn't include all the ROI that you might get from that infrastructure on the software side, on the application side, the productivity side. So we have a boom going on and I feel like everyone's kind of blackpilling about this. They're focusing on this CBO report that has realistically low growth rates. We're going to print 6% or they're doing scrolling about Epstein or what have you. And I just think when we look back on this period, it could end up being a little bit like the late 90s. Remember when we had, we look back on the late 90s, we're like, wow, we have like phenomenal economic growth. Gold age. Gold age. You can only be an agent. It's not that zero again. Right. But if you remember what politics were like at that time period, all I want to talk about was whether Bill Clinton got a blowjob from Lewinsky. So my point is just again, I'm not sure we're focused on the right things. I suspect we'll look back on this time period as the beginning of a new golden age. I agree. I think you're correct. And just in terms of the hand ringing comment, anytime a statistic is 10, 15%, I highlight it. I wouldn't use hand ring. I would just say we generally look at that. We went from 4.1%, which is where Trump inherited it, went up to 4.5. It's about a 10% increase in one year. If that trend were to continue, that would be notable. But to your point, it's gone down. And that is because the border, I believe the southern border is closed. And as you're pointing out, we've got a lot of good news in the economy so people are hiring. So, and so we are in really good economic shape. I would say it's hard to deny that. All the job creation has been enjoyed by Native born Americans as well. All the job loss has been on non-Native born Americans, which is pretty remarkable. So that I think is also going to accrue to the benefit of more Americans. By the way, just on the unemployment thing, there was a slight tick up in October because of the October 1 buyouts. Remember Doge created the buyout program? Yes. And September or October, when did they have it? It was October 1st was the deadline for that. And so we had a tick up and unemployment related to that. But remember, all of those were voluntary buyouts. They all chose the Doge option. That's what created the tick up and unemployment. But again, it was all, I think, a good and voluntary tick up. And now the unemployment rate has ticked down. So again, the job creation right now is strong. And to just put a finer point on it, the top two areas where illegal aliens are working in the United States. Most people don't know this. Construction. Number one. And so you have two and a half million people working in those two categories, which is why I said if you want to see more Americans take jobs and you want to see wages go up, if you went to those businesses and you find those businesses for hiring illegal aliens, which is the easiest thing in the world to do. You just show up at a construction site. You take pictures of everybody who is working illegally, which is what they used to do in the ICE agency. They would then do surveillance of construction sites. And then they would go and find the construction person and then they had to hire Americans or that construction company would get in serious trouble. There's been multi-million dollar fines done over the last 20 years, specifically on construction sites. And that would drive more people to raise the wages of construction workers, which would even lower unemployment more and increase labor participation. That's where the big win is. Go to construction sites. So you want ICE to randomly raid employers construction sites. I wouldn't use the term raid. I survey and just check out on papers. You want to survey. You want ICE showing up everywhere. Checking out papers. You want to pull these things. Number one, they're doing this already gentlemen. This is well within their purview. Look up the legal. They have been doing this for 30 years. This is actually the technique they used before raiding cities in a chaotic way. They went, they surveilled, which is their right to do. They have the right to do that. I didn't say raid. I said surveil. That is a peaceful, quiet thing to do. And then they find business owners. The business owners are the people who are causing this problem. If there was not a job available in construction for 20, 30, 40 bucks an hour off the books and not paying taxes, those immigrants who are crossing illegally would not be here. If they couldn't get a $30 an hour off the bookshop working at a hotel, whereas a dishwasher, they would not come. And the business needs to stop hiring them. So they'll need to be in a simple way. Yeah, keep surveil. So what is it? How do they, how do they, with a camera figure out if someone's illegal? What's the camera figuring out? Okay. So you guys, it's very simple. Oh, you have to read this first. No, no, no. And so then you'll know who's a citizen. No, no, no, no. I want to hear, I want to hear the survey. If you want to answer and have misinformed the three of you are and biased, I will tell you, you're almost informed to bias. This is what you have to survey. Someone to figure out their illegal. It's super simple. You go to the construction site. Everybody checks in there and morning. They have a truck. This has been done for decades, gentlemen. They take pictures of everybody. Then they go in at the end of the day, after surveilling for weeks, Chema, and they have done this already. This is all facts. They've had multiple cases where they go to the construction site. They take pictures. They take a video. Then they go to the business owner and say, show us these people's paystops. And the business owner goes, I don't have paystops for these people. And they say, okay, here's a video of them working. working for eight hours a day. Where's their pay stub? Show us their taxes. The businesses are paying people off the books. That is tax evasion. And then they got multi-million dollar fines. Here's a very important case. This is from back in 2017, the Justice Department and ICE went after a group which was hiring illegal aliens. This is the largest payment ever in an immigration case. 95 million recovered, 80 million criminal forfeiture, 15 million in civil payments. That represented according to our Justice Department in 2017, the largest ever levied immigration case we can solve almost all of the immigration issues with the exception of maybe criminal gangs. Just by doing basic surveillance, basic detective work asking these businesses to show the pay stubs of the people working for them. And ICE has been doing this. They've already been doing this. Your suggestion is to do this for every company in America. Okay, so again, you're being hyperbolic and you're not in the office. Which companies you choose. I said, I said this at the top. You pick the number one employer of illegal aliens. 2.5 million people working in construction. You start with the largest construction sites and then you work backwards. Then you start with the largest restaurant and hotel chains. If Steven Miller were doing this, you'd say he's not compassionate enough. You call him fascist. No, I have no incorrect. Once again, incorrect. I have stated publicly here on the pod and I have stated publicly on Twitter that this is actually what Steven Miller should do because this would go after the people who are causing the immigration problem. The people guess what? You think you're going to get it? Yeah, but you know what? Let me finish. Let me finish. The people causing this problem are the business owners. They are providing the incentive to come here. Steven Miller should stop doing the crazy raids and he should go and just you don't think it's the government benefits that are incentivizing people to come. I think that's like far down the list. 2, 3, 4, far down the list. Yes. Is the free health care and the free food and the free house statistics. I can give you just just according to this LA time survey, 75% of immigrants come here for better job opportunities. People coming to America illegally are coming here for economic reasons. They are not coming here to commit crimes. They are not coming here to get benefits. That is way down the list. That is a small percentage. How is this going to deport all the gang bangers, the rapists, the murderers, the ones who aren't working on a farm? They're not doing that. That's a total separate issue. They should go do that. That's a separate issue. They should go do those and go after everything. But that is what I was doing. They're trying to round up the known criminals for whom they get warrants and then they capture them and deport them. That's a separate problem. Yeah, those are two separate problems. I'm not talking about the problem of the gang bangers. You can do gang bangers. I'm talking about if you actually want to move big numbers. The gang bangers are a small number. The people working in construction. They're both equally important sex. We're in agreement. The thing we're not doing at scale is going after the businesses that are creating the incentive for the majority of people who come here. Ferrari has a new car coming out. It's going to be their first all electric vehicle very polarizing. Here's an illustration of the vehicle from car and driver. This is not the accurate one because it's going to be revealed in May. But this is what they think it's going to look like. A thousand plus horsepower four electric motors 0 to 60 and under 2.5 seconds. 330 mile range. It's the heaviest Ferrari ever. 5100 pounds compared to the iconic F40, which was but 3000 pounds. It's going to launch in May of 2026. But we got to see the interior and this is what everybody's buzzing about. It's gone viral on the interwebs. Former Apple design chief Johnny Ive on his team with this partner, Mark Newsom, who also designed the iconic Ford O21 C concept car. We're involved in this. What is that? It's this is like if you're a car nerd, this was like this incredibly innovative moment in design that never happened that Ford did. It looks very similar to an Apple product. Here's the key for the new Ford. It looks like an animated character in cars. It does. You have this beautiful square glass key like an iPhone. You put it in and the yellow Ferrari yellow drains out and goes into the shifter. That was one nuance that people thought was very beautiful. The screen looks very mac inspired except unlike Tesla, which is no buttons and removing buttons. They're adding buttons here and making the buttons very tactile. All the sports car enthusiasts love tactile memory-based buttons that you can just have fun with and flip and feel like a refiner pilot. Finally, the turning the car on is like starting up a jet. You have a launch button, you twist and press and it makes the whole car turn Ferrari orange or red. That's the inside sacks. You buy one? You like it? I saw everyone just sh*t all over this design and I thought it was a little bit unfair in the sense that I actually overall liked the interior. I thought it found a compromise between let's call it the all-glass cockpit of a Tesla versus a totally analog old Ferrari interior. Like you said, it had a combination of screens but then also buttons and they made a point of showing that the buttons were only nicely tactile but they also made pleasing sounds and that kind of stuff it seemed very heavy duty. I thought the interior actually was pretty good. Again, nice balance between kind of the interior of a race car, the simplicity of that iPad screen but also having enough sort of buttons that you develop muscle memory around where all the controls are. You don't have to go hunting for them through a menu. I thought the mis-year wasn't on the inside. I thought it was on the outside. I hate the look of the outside of this car. That by the way, just to be clear, that look is what people are projecting. It's not the final version. I think this is terrible. This to me looks like a Corvette, maybe or even like a Freon-Zam. I mean, it looks like a bottle three. I don't like the what's like the black part of the front or even the grill. The grill, it looks terrible and the things go on the sides and then the back almost looks like a hatchback or something. It's just, you know, a Ferrari should look swoopier. It should look curvy and there should be fewer different pieces to it. I don't know. It doesn't look right to me as a Ferrari but I thought the inside actually was fine. I like it. Yeah. Chimap, you buy her. What's the last time you actually drove yourself, Sacks? Have you actually used a steering wheel in the last decade? What's the last time that she uses steering wheel? Full self-driving has made me a driver again because I just set the full self-driving. Wow. And it's such a mean center. Yeah. Well, with with FSD. Yeah. Okay. So you're now driving around Texas. I like it. With FSD. Okay. Because they take forever. So not just like you like. You've always liked to drive Chimap. I think you're driving yourself these days or you I drive myself in a model-wide with FSD or I take away mode. One of the two. Yeah, away most in the valley now. Yeah. On the person. I've had a Ferrari. What I would tell you is that there's just something that's very unique. There's a Ferrari experience that's different from every other car. And I think that the new CEO, Benedat Dobinia, is a very talented executive. And I think that he's probably going to land something beautiful. The thing is that we are racing against time. And I've said this before. But FSD and autonomy is going to shift the number of people that even know what it means to drive. It will feel like when we look at somebody who really embraces thoroughbred racing. It's just going to happen in smaller and smaller places and less and less often. And that's not because these cars aren't beautiful. But it's because the risk will not make any sense for most people under most conditions. And I think that's the big thing that's going to change. Like the car culture in America was a profound part of the American culture. Yeah. Driving from A to B on vacation, the sense of freedom, the building of the interstate highway system, these were huge parts of what made America great. And the rails on which all this productivity sat on top of it. And now I think it's all going to change. So I don't know. I mean, I think the car will probably be beautiful. Like Ferraris are beautiful. There's a Ferrari dealership in Redwood City. And whenever I drive by it, I slow down and I look at them. Yum yum. They make beautiful cars. Peace of mind. And I think in places like China and India, they're always going to have a market. But I think in places like the United States, it's going to become so expensive to pay for the insurance. If you are driving yourself, that the idea that you would buy any car is going to feel tougher and tougher. Just because I think the math is going to be tough. But the experience inside of the Ferrari is second to none. So it probably is that there's going to be a bunch of high end cars like Ferrari, where you pay for the experience, you're in a position to pay for the car, you'll pay for the insurance, the luxury, all of it. And then the rest of us will be using FSD or Waymo. 100%. I we have two model wise and we have to get another car. And it's like, well, what else can we buy? We have no choice. See, they're buy one of the last X's. I'm so mad. The X, well, deprecating the X really bought. I have a real problem now, which is I have five kids. So - Yes. - The X is the only car that can manage seven people. So I need a new-- - There is a three row by the way, model Y, but it's a bit tight. - It's a bit tight. - It's not good. - It's a bit tight. - I wish Iran would have made the Minivan or the three row SUV. And who knows, maybe he does someday. - When I was in Abu Dhabi, I saw my dream car. It is this Lexus Minivan. And the doors are open. - Yes. - And it's like first class airline seats. - Yes. - And the front is completely blacked out. So you have total privacy. - This car. - Yes, this car. - Yes. - This is not-- - It's not for sale in the United States. - It's not available in America. - Not on the owner. - Why is this car or Minivan, whatever, not available in the United States? - I think it's the Lexus LM and then there's the Alpha. - Oh my God. - It's in Japan. - It's in my credit card. - It's incredible. - This is the car. - Procedure. - Procedure. - Procedure, you want to be driven. - It's two-cap. - It's there. - Let's go to full screen. - Look at this. - It's a divider between the two, the drivers in the front and then you have this-- - In front of us. - Those aren't the captors. - Show the captors. - There's the captors. - These are beautiful captors. They're gorgeous. - No, basically-- - They're like an executive van. - These are like Etihad first class airline seats. - It's unbelievable. Look at these. Look at these two seats. - Unbelievable. - Gorgeous. - And you have a full monitor in front of you, David. You press a button and the monitor rises and falls so you can talk to your driver. - I also like getting, or have CMBC on. I like getting in and out of SUVs or minivan. - So easy. - So easy. - The height is good for me. - So easy to get. And the Alfred is the other one. None of these are available in the US. These are the number one cars in China, Singapore, the Middle East, for-- - They're the best. - Show for driven cars. - They're incredible. - It's called what? And Alfred? - What's that? - Alfred is the Toyota version. And then Lexus is obviously the higher brand of Toyota. And they make, I think it's called the LS, is the name for these. Can I get them in the US? - All right, boys. I love you very much. That's another amazing episode. Oh, the all in podcast, 261 weeks and counted. - Wow. - It's the soundtrack. - Episode 261? - It's 261. - All right, back out, gentlemen. - Love you boys. - Love you. - Love you guys. - Love you. (upbeat music) - Well, let your winners ride. - Bring man David's side. (upbeat music) - And it said, we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with her. - Love you guys. - I'm queen of kin. - I'm going on a leash. - What? - What? - What? - What? - What? - What? - What? - What? - Besties are gone. - Besties are gone. - Go through the teeth. - That's my dog taking it away. - She's driving away. - She's in the sex. (laughing) - Oh man, my hamlet's have the gesture. We need to be at police station. - We should all just get a room and just have one big hug or two because they're all just, it's like this sexual tension that we just need to release the fountain. - What? - You're the B. - What? - You're the B. - You're the B. - B. - What? - We need to get my cheese aren't there. (upbeat music)