Software Stocks Implode, Claude's Hit List, State of the Union Reactions, Trump's Tariff Pivot

All right, everybody. Welcome back to your favorite podcast, the all-in podcast today. We have a conspiracy corner episode for you. We're gonna go over the 9/11 inside job. We're going over Flat Earth, JFK assassination. It's gonna be all conspiracy all the time after our amazing Blockbuster episode during ski week. We're going all conspiracy our guests today. Alex Jones. How many views did it get? 9 views? I mean, it's tough when you have one out of four best easy. Doesn't Michael Tracy is on standby. Not true. I can carry an episode for at least 400,000 views. I mean, you might. I like your, hey, for people who don't know, Tremoff has his own YouTube channel. He's got his escape hatch. But when this train wreck burns to the ground, he started his own YouTube channel and hedging his bets, freeberg's working on his solo project. Everybody's doing solo project. The band's got a lot of solo project. The Beatles are experimenting. We had a little yoko on with Situation going on here. You know what the number one topic for this show was by the all-in-AI bot sex. What's up? The number one was Dario versus Hegset. The Department of War versus Anthropic was the number one topic selected by our AI bot. As a programming note for folks, that decision will be made end of the day Friday when this podcast comes out. So we will talk about it next week. But let's get to work. We've got a full docket. The clawed kill list has expanded and an AI fiction substack tanked your 401k on Monday. Let's get into it. Anthropics generational run continues. They're now three for three in Tanking different market sectors in February. Congratulations. This was like they took the the mantle from Brad Gersner, tanking the market. The Anthropic. It is February 3rd in traffic announces, hey, we got a legal plug in for Claude. Co-work Thompson Reuters, Lexus, Nexus, legal zoom all down at least 10% since February 3rd. Then on February 20th, Claude's security is announced in a limited research preview stocks tank again, crouch right cloud for octa all down then February 23rd. Anthropic announces Claude can modernize cobalt databases. If you don't know cobalt, that's the like oldest coding language in the world. That's where Sachs learned code when he was in college in the 70s. It's used for banking payroll government health care health care runs 95% of ATMs in the US and it powers Social Security payments 85% of all cobalt code runs on IBM machine. So IBM decided they would tank 13% on Monday. There was day since $2,031 billion in market cap losses. So let's stop here before I get into the fan fiction piece. What's your take here of what's happening in the market, Shamath? Is this simply people are looking for an excuse to trim their positions because things have been top ticking all time highs and people are just looking for an excuse. Or is this reality? Is this the go forward reality that AI is going to compress these kind of stocks because it solves a lot of problems. I'm going to give you two explanations. I don't know what percentage I would allocate across the two, but I think one is tactical and one is much more strategic, but I think both are happening. The tactical one is that we are at a moment in time where a lot of the smart money hedge funds are starting to massively degrose. And what that means is they're trimming a lot of positions and they're just taking on a lot less risk. Why I don't exactly know it could be motivated by the second thing that I'm going to talk about, but the point is in a degrosing cycle, you tend to be trimming risk and making your position sizes much smaller. So the longs become less long, the shorts become less short and you just shrink. And so there's just general downward pressure. That is a clear behavior right now. But I think the structural change is the more important one. And this is sort of what I talked about this morning in a normal functioning market. What we are always debating is when a set of cash flows go from becoming highly confident to less highly confident. It's a when conversation. So when we'll coca-cola cash flows be impacted when will Eli Lilly's cash flows be impacted when will metas cash flows be impacted. And the answer to the when gets translated by the public markets into three things, your price to earnings multiple where if you invert that number. What that is equivalent to is the yield on the money that you get. Okay. So if you're you know, 20 times PE that's a 5% yield. And the second is a revenue multiple and the third is what's called your weighted average cost of capital, which is to say if you look at the next 20 to 30 years of earnings. And you want to figure out what that is worth today. You have to discount all of these back and you have to assume a percentage of interest effectively that it takes to get there. The basic math of this is that when you have a high whack, it's called you're massively discounting these cash flows when you have a low whack. You're assuming that these things are very durable. Okay. So what is happening. We used to debate when this is no longer a when moment. The market is very much in an if mode. Cash flows durable at all. Could they fall off a cliff in year three. Is there some AI model that's going to come around the corner and obliterate this business without me knowing it. And because they've shifted into this if mindset. Your risk becomes totally different. You have this event risk that you don't know how to price. And whenever the market shifts into that mode, what you see are that the holders of those equities want a massive margin of safety. What does that mean. They have to take PE's way down. If you used to trade at 40, you should trade at 20. If you used to trade at 20, you should trade at 10. They take revenue multiples down. You used to trade at 10 times revenue. Now you're going to trade at three times. You take the whack way up. Used to be a 6% discounted weighted average cost of capital. You know what? I'm taking you to 12 or 13. That's the market's way of saying, I'm now debating if these things will even exist. And so I need to give myself a huge buffer to own this stuff. That's what's happening right now. It has a lot of ripple effects that we can talk about. Freebrook and I have talked about this a lot. The most obvious impact is how these tech companies recruit and retain talent because the biggest thing that it starts to eat into are the cash flows of the business, which really directly tied to stock based comp and all this other stuff. But let me just stop there. So we are we have moved away from a when to now and if. And I think that that is a very smart question to be asking. The answer may be from any of these companies that they will survive, but we don't know how long and until that becomes clearer, you have to give yourself room to be wrong. You said when then if did you mean if no, no, no, we've always debated when when will these cash flows disappeared now it's like, well they even exist. Got it. Okay, so the second part of the story, Friedberg and SACs is that a sub stack post fan fiction taking place in the fictional 2028 global intelligence crisis went mega viral 28 million views on X was posted Sunday night. It made the market tank on Monday in this fictional sub stack post the author said there's going to be essentially a death spiral that happens because of AI. How does that work? Well, first companies embrace AI. Everything goes right. They're able to cut staff their margins go up similar to how Amazon has. You know, trimmed their white collar staff then they're so successful at this that they lose their customer base because consumers don't have discretion funding to spend then the creates a death spiral with a company's keep deploying AI to try to hit the margins cutting staff in the entire. Economy collapses doctor doom level stuff unemployment at 10% SMP goes down from 38% highs after this piece came out which speculated that agents would get rid of all the 3% interchange fees and move everybody to settle transactions on stable coins. All the financial stocks got hit on Monday amics down 8% capital one down 8% massacred 6% piece of 4% yada yada. Finally, this piece got a lot of pushback. There was a silly piece in it or a section in it where they said AI agents would vibe code their way to displacing door dash. And that's kind of silly if anybody's running network based business knows. Sacs I assume you read this piece or at least saw the falloff from it, but you're take and then we'll go to you free. Yeah, well, I know that this is a attorney article got passed around like a joint and a grateful dead concert. But I'm starting to question how legitimately viral it really was there's some information that just came out that the attribution of the article has been amended me the co authors have been amended to include a short fund that was shorting some of the names mentioned in the article. This is according to another post that just came out according to this post the authorship attribution attributed to market moving was changed after publication of the co author is a managing partner of a $262 million SEC registered hedge fund. Confirm short positions in the companies the report name. So I think that's point number one is I just wonder did this article truly go viral or did the authors do anything to kind of amplify it and we just don't know the answer that question. But regardless of that let's just take the arguments on their face. One of the best responses to it was by another writer named Derek Thompson wrote an article called nobody knows anything which I think is a reference to famous take by legendary Hollywood writer William Goldman in any event. But the article says is no one really knows what's going to happen with AI in two years never mind 20 years and so they resort to science fiction writing. Masquerading is analysis and the author here. Derek Thompson says that the conversation about AI is really just a marketplace of competing science fiction narratives. And he says does not to say I think the technology is a parlor trick. The level of uncertainty is so high and the quality and supply of real world real time information about AI's macro economic effects so poultry that very serious conversations about AI are often more literary than genuinely analytical. So in other words, what are you saying is look this guy is writing very compelling science fiction, but there's no real analytics behind it to defend it. This could happen here's a prediction market on whether people believe the Satrini reports going to come true to me like 12% believe the Satrini scenario is going to happen but the truth is no one really knows I mean there's other dueling science fiction narratives where AI is going to create such a world of abundance that we're not going to need for anything. And just by the way, Derek Thompson is one of the abundance guys with as reclined this is why the market's getting what I think that you're right sucks nobody knows. So if you can get 5% for owning government bonds, why are we taking excessive risk you let me just build on your point about sass so the reason why there's so much uncertainty around sass is that sass used to be such a easily modeled and predictable category. And you know I saw as a VC we saw the same story play out across many many different categories of software you know this initial period where there'd be this experimentation phase you have a bunch of different products that come to market they be a battle and then the market would eventually settle and there'd be a category leader. And they would capture most of the market share and the vast majority of the market capitalization and they would have very very predictable metrics it was very easy to grade a sass business you look at a RR you say annually recurring revenue. You look at the net dollar retention you want to see depending on the phase your opinion to perform. And so you know these things began to be seen as like a annuity with growth right because rock solid yeah because a good net dollar attention to be something like 120% which means that your sort of cohort of existing customers on balance would all renew the next year and actually they would renew at 120% of their previous years contract values. And so the reason you got that extra 20% is they would buy more seats or they'd be additional products or features they would up sell it got to be very very predictable and so when people were buying. Software companies at I don't know 13 times a RR they thought they're buying a growth annuity and now all of a sudden you got a factor into that will wait a second what if AI. And so it just rubs the whole market what if it doesn't eliminate I don't think AI is going to get rid of sales force but it could eat into their growth opportunity we just don't know what if it changes the pricing model I mean it is creates a whole lot of unknowns and I actually don't believe in. This a tree knee or the doomer take on this but I can see why the market would feel this level of uncertainty 100% given how predictable a category sass used to be just say a year ago. Yeah well chaos is a ladder freeberg and this means opportunity so if we look at this and sass has headwinds then is there a winner is open source the winner or is this all deflationary in your mind freeberg and we just make less money and the earnings of these companies get compressed the size of them gets compressed how do you think about it. I think fundamentally if you're driving productivity with AI you're driving leverage on human time and leverage on capital. The question is how quickly can you drive that up and that's a function of how much consumption there is how much capacity there is for consumption so on the one hand. I'll just speak broadly I think like humans have this desire to improve their livelihoods by roughly 10% every year meaning like your income and your ability to purchase stuff that's new relative to where you were last year has to go up by 10% for you to be happy. If it's less than 10% you're probably unhappy is that that's your anecdot or that's like I just like an anecdote like I think I think that's sort of like my rubric for thinking about like why are people unhappy or happy so if your earnings are the same but things are getting more expensive you're not happy. If your earnings go up by 10% things stay the same price you got 10% more than you had last year you're going to be happy I just think like all humans are driven by this need to consume more each year than they did last year so I think for me that's like the lower limit on consumption capacity in the world the question that we're now facing which we've never faced in human history before is there an upper limit on consumption capacity because AI creates such a profound shift in productivity and in leverage that normally you would say hey when we get a new tool we get new leverage and assist and we build a new technology we can make more with less. Therefore everyone gets access to more things for the same price or the cost of things that they consume come down by a certain price. But there may be a situation now where the ability to make stuff exceeds the capacity to consume stuff and that is something that I don't think we've faced before and I think that's sort of where a lot of the model start to break just general economic models just general productivity models and general social models. And this goes to the point about like what is everyone going to do in the same way that I think we've argued that maybe sass was a transitory business phenomenon that existed between the foundation of the internet and the era of AI it may be the case that knowledge work in general is also a transitory phenomenon that only existed between the foundation of the computer or computing tools and the existence of AI generally speaking. And if all of that goes away very quickly and all of those people can be redistributed and recast into doing other higher level more creative things their productivity goes up by a hundred X. Is there really a consumer on the other end of all of that productivity is there really enough consumptive capacity and I think that's the profound question that we all face I don't think that there's any way that is that where you're way of saying that sass goes to zero or that's your way of saying. Is this just another doing science fiction tape I mean or what's your evidence for this I think it's fine to have a side by take about the future I think yeah because I can show you some data that I think contradicts what you're saying. And I have some firsthand sort of in the sense that there is more leverage sacks that people are able to actually well Jake I want to hear what you say because I know you're experimenting with this but me just show you a few data points real quick. I think this is relevant so we're really talking about the disruption caused by coding assistance right this is like the first big killer app of AI I mean I guess after writing in research for chat bots. And we'll have agents later but really it's all about coding assistance right in the ability to more easily create code that's screened the disruption to the sass category well so this is focus on the data we see right now around that and there are a lot of people. Who are pointing this out that an ortho right now has a job listing for a software engineer on their website right now for five hundred seventy thousand dollars and a lot of people are kind of pointing out okay so wait so I think is saying is there still trying to hire. Software engineers at a very high wage but somehow they think these jobs are going to be eliminated to mock might apply for that job is yeah I'll start a measure pretty good to me that's a lot of money to my team that job. And then just have a I do it for no I'm worried like I hope my 80 90 team doesn't see that offer that's a big number. Our equity is way higher but our salaries are not that high I mean you look at you put these things together it's like that equity is money good the reality is like those guys you're doing five to six billion dollar. Structured secondary is every year now or they're starting which means that they will that's like cash compensation so for me to match that I need to be three X higher than that. Right and I think a lot of people are kind of pointing out well this is a contradiction and the topic doesn't really seem to be practicing what they're preaching if they're paying enormous amounts still for software engineers even as they claim they're obsolete in the entire category something doesn't quite add up. Citadel securities did a new report that rebuts that's a treeney report and they show a couple of stats here which I think are really interesting so job posting for software engineers are rapidly rising they're showing I think it was roughly a 10% year over year increase in the demand for software engineers on a related note they also show that company formation is also rapidly expanding and that may have something to do with a I'm making easier to start a business or to get leverage to your point freeberg so look there's a couple of competing effects going on here and I think Aaron Levy had a really good explanation of why you might see something very counter intuitive happening and again it all goes back to Jevon's paradox but what Aaron says is that when you lower the cost of something that was previously supply constraint demand for that thing goes up software engineering is just one of the easiest examples to contemplate but there are going to be many other jobs like that but think about software engineering even in the process of looking valley which I think are probably some of the most attractive places for software engineers to work there's always been a chronic shortage of them then you've got the fortune 500 companies non tech companies which have always had an even harder time hiring technical talent so you have this massive unfilled need for software engineers across the entire economy now you're going to be able to get a lot more leverage out of software engineers it doesn't mean they're going to get fired it just means that now maybe you can have a lot more 10x software engineers and they're getting those jobs are not being spread throughout the whole economy you know I also think just to put some numbers on this I think the cost structure of the average fortune 500 business is something like 5% IT and that includes all of their IT not just their software you know what should it be what should the percentage of software be in an enterprise cost structure Elon describes companies as cybernetic organisms that are part software part payment if you think about the current 4 to 500 company being 1 or 2% software maybe they should be 50% software I think what Aaron is saying here is the market for software and software engineers was so constrained by the lack of availability that even if we 10x or 100x the productivity of software engineers the demand will be there to absorb this new supply and so it could lead to this explosion and productivity without the massive job loss I think you're right I think the the thing that I would look at is I would expect op x as a percentage of revenue to fall off of a cliff but within that op x the percentage of it that you allocate to technology and technology related things probably goes way way up than what it is today ok Jason the batch of people that are applying for launch has sass stop has software stopped its AI first companies obviously and people are they rebuilding traditional sass tools just cheap basically everybody's building the great you know as we talked about it the all in summit like some of these companies are trying to build the best pilot in the world or way most trying to build the best driver in the world people are now trying to build the best s the R in the world the best salesperson the best executive coach and so we have been like obsessed with Claude co work but mainly open claw and so what we did was and I think it's not developers that are going to do all this work it's knowledge workers so we had we have 20 people in our firm we had 15 of them come in this weekend and they all got trained over like six or seven hours how to have their own open claw agent and we started building it every piece of software that we wanted to buy or build over the last 10 years that we never got to my people are building in the last 30 days as an example you know when you're selling ads for a podcast you want to check all the other podcast and what advertisers they have we trained an agent to go take the top 100 podcasts look to the transcripts figure out who the advertisers are check those advertisers in pipe drive tell us when the last time we contacted them and put it into the sales room that was an SDR job that we wanted to fill and software we wanted to build then we wanted people to have like that was a that was a human that you are paying money and now you've replaced with software or that human still exists and now they just do it in a better redeploying that human we have a human doing it we're going to redeploy them to do other things and the consistency of this Chama and the accuracy and then it's doing it all night long so we have like seven of these agents in these kind of roles the next piece we did was we gave my agent which is like the Ultron acts root access to Gmail calendar zoom notion Slack and what it's doing is it's giving each person here's what you got done this week with their manager here's the email she sent here's the meetings you took here's the context here the threads you were involved in and then it's helping manage those people and so we are getting all that all that to me says you Jason despite all your doom or is it seems like you're growing and you're going to be having more people and you're more productive like getting this wrong no no I'm not doomerous what I think is going to happen in this position is growing and you're going to be hiring more people no no we're not going to add more people definitely not adding people the people we have are becoming 10 or 20% more efficient every week because the software we would have paid for or built from another vendor if we had the time or we wanted to build custom software we had 10 engineers it's being built by our open-cloth agents as an example when we make clips for this podcast other podcasts we have it go and look at like this week and start up a separate from 10 years tell us the three best moments and it makes the clip it puts the subtitles on it and then it puts the clip into the Slack room that was something that was going to be a full-time job so we're getting 10 20% more efficient then I started doing it at home so I had to take our Instacart pull out the last 10 orders we did and then tell us what we order most of time and then it's going to automatically build a car for us every single knowledge where job is being automated right now and you can take it and if you're a business process head you know how to do a business process and you can structure it and write it with an agent it'll just run it every day every week we did another agent how do you make better thumbnails and we said every Saturday in your skills so when you build an open-cloth it has like a sole file and it has a skills file in the skills file we told this acts every week go out and look for people discussing how to make better thumbnails on YouTube how to make better titles it found this week Chimalt somebody at Mr. Beast company talk about how they're using heat maps it was an article I would have never known it added it to its skill and now whenever we post the thumbnail it tells us based on its skill that it refines every week how to make that thumbnail better and it's starting to make the thumbnails this is becoming recursive so you keep the same number of people but they get 10 or 20% more efficient I don't know what this means for the larger economy all I know is it's the most exciting time I've had online since the web came out since the internet came out it is so much fun to automate all the stuff the big question that I am thinking about that I haven't gotten a good answer about so I don't know what you guys think is all these businesses are going to need to batten down the hatches and give themselves room to figure this all out if you take sax's point if you take your point Jake which is the young nimble companies like yours are going to be rapidly experimenting the bigger larger companies are going to slowly onboard themselves to start experimenting all of that means we're going to get much clearer answers to all of this but what it also means is that you're going to have to have time so that you can figure this all out and if you want to buy yourself time you're going to need a ton of cash and if you're going to think about saving cash the one place tech companies literally incinerate cash is how they do compensation and so I kind of think like at some point the next shoe will drop and all of these tech companies have to really look at stock based comp because they literally incinerate most if not all of their recaselo fighting the dilution from stock based compensation so if you want five or six years to just be in the arena on the field figuring this out you're going to want to kind of be very cash flow generative and really conservative in how you spend your money yeah sax the people who embrace this I think become five or ten times more valuable than the people who are not that's where I think the opportunity in the economy is so unless you think humanity's going to run out of problems to solve I think it's going to be boom it's going to be boom town and I think people are going to start more companies because the the battery to start a company is no longer three or four million dollars you can just have two or three people and you start setting up these agents and man you can they can be software you can do sales you can do PR everything is getting faster and faster and faster so the time between like conceiving of a product and publishing it and finding a developer you don't even need a developer you can just publish software the wake up moment for me was we were talking to our agent about hey we want to get this functionality out of slack and it's like yeah slack doesn't have that but have you considered matterpost I'm like what's matterposts like it's an open source project I can spin it up this weekend export your slack instance and put it there I was like I don't do that we're only spending six came a year on slack or 10k a year but the software is building CRM systems for us it's building agents for us and it wants to just build all the software stack so you could when you renegotiate with slack or hub spot or whatever company you are working with you're going to be able to say to them hey we could roll our own and when you want to upsell us on this latest thing like you talked about sacks upselling is such a big part of sass you're like I can actually build that software myself internally I don't need you to do it Ryan Peterson just posts on X clawed for legal seems to work just as well as Harvey by the way now the sass post let's go again after private companies now to well I think for a while now there has been a question of which layer of the stack is going to capture all the value so is it going to be the model companies or could it be the applications that are built on top of the models or you know if there's a lot of competition at both those layers of the stack do the chip companies get it all I think it's a unclear question but yeah I think you know for any given vertical application you do have to defend why you think your value prop will be sustainable as the underlying foundation models is get better themselves and it's open source like this week we put up kimi 2.5 can do about 80 85% of the jobs so we lowered our token bills massively when we stood that up all right listen this is tbd we got a lot more to think about on this topic just on this point of a lot of these debates about AI are dueling science fiction narratives think that the dumer narratives are inherently more appealing to people I mean I think it's partly just you look at most sci-fi movies or dystopian not utopian in addition to that I think we have a bunch of heuristic biases in favor the dumer narrative so one of them is the scene versus the unseen it's a lot easier to see the jobs that already exist that could be obsolete then it is to imagine the new jobs and the new business models that haven't been created yet and that will likely take some great innovator or a genius to think of in order to create so we have that huge heuristic bias of not being able to see the creation that's coming it takes way less creativity to think about the potential destruction and then finally I think you know the other heuristic is just the whole fix pi fallacy most people do tend to think of the economy as a fix pi this is why you see so much anger against you know millionaires and billionaires is because of this idea that if someone's getting rich it must be the expense of someone else that's not actually the case the economy itself could be growing larger as a result of someone inventing something new that increases production a really good line from another article that was written a couple weeks ago was the economy is not a pie it's a garden and technology is rain so again you know all this technological innovation is going to increase the growth rate of the garden it's not a fix pi and just because you see an expansion and productivity in one part of the economy does not mean that you're going to see job loss in another part of the economy yeah I think the job people are not seeing but I'm seeing right now is the person who creates agents manages them and is the my show of the agents the person who can take the business process explain it and train the agent to do it and there are certain people in business which is really good operations you were one of them sax running companies and like that person who can fire up an agent train the agent and figure out how to manage them and figure out how to increase your skills with any new technology job and it's not a developer look with any new technology there's always a huge change management aspect with enterprises because it's hard for them to adapt and change and the people in the organization who can lead that change management are the ones who are going to create an amazing career opportunity for themselves but it's hard to do and that's going to slow down the rate of change just the amount of inertia in the economy and also one other constraint is going to be that at some point here we may be token constraint right I mean we may not have enough energy like we've talked about even though the chips are getting so much better that tokens per second tokens per watt and tokens per dollar are all increasing very fast but we're still going to probably be constrained in the next couple of years on some dimension whether it's land power shell or just energy production or maybe chip production there are real world constraints on just how fast we can scale the infrastructure and that will mean that these like hyper utopian or hyper dystopian narratives will be wrong I don't think there's time in the next few years for the whole economy to change in the way that the extremes would present I think you're right I think you're going to see a 10-axing in the demand for tokens but I also think you're going to see a 90% price reduction in the cost of an output token probably by the end of this year so I think that to your point like it's it's going to just create an enormous upswall of demand because we're going to be able to cut the prices of an output token so dramatically and I think that's great that discussion we had some off last week when we talked about the tokens outpacing the employees gallery and just where these tokens all going to come from that was our most viewed clip or one of the most you clips in the history of this podcast so people are actually really focused on this I had my team at 89 we we we did our cost model and now we have that as a line item when we think about fully burdened cost of employees we now factor that in because we're at a place where some of our engineers are just racking up ginormous bills and then separately just general runs that we do for general purpose stuff that we need to just run our product is it's so expensive so I am waiting with baited breath for what's that we need an explosion in the capacity that's available because I do think that the silicon solutions are coming that will cut the cost but we need a large block of land power shell ready to then turn all of this stuff on so that we can actually take advantage of it rumors the new Mac studio is coming will have an M5 chip in it and will be language model ready so that's the rumors that they're building it for model so that could be an incredible turn of events everybody is desktop running the local model sex you want to have the final word here free or freeberg before we just go back to what Jamal was saying there I mean you've got political forces I want to stop the construction of all data centers in the United States so crazy if that gain steam then that's going to be a huge constraint on any change whatsoever can you this up for you Jake also I went back this weekend and I looked at the number of data centers that have faced local opposition and whether there were patterns and I posted it on excellent Nick maybe you can put this up but it was really a very small behavior which was pushing back on data centers and getting them cancel we had about 25 projects total of which 20 20 were just in q2 alone there are a hundred data center projects right now that are facing some form of local opposition so interesting where if you take that 40% number and you apply this and then you multiplied by the number of megawatts that they have announced last year we lost almost five gigawatts in terms of cancel projects this year coming in 26 we have about seven that could be canceled if you use this map if then you flow that through open AI Sarah for I or said this that every gigawatt for her for open AI is about 10 billion revenue so if you if you assume that that's roughly accurate plus remind us a billion here or there what that means is that 2025 the industry has a whole lost 50 billion of revenue and this year if seven gigawatts gets canceled it's about 70 billion now you're talking about a 130 billion of lost revenue over these two years that'll go forward in time that we miss out on I think that that's really bad we need to figure out a way to nip this in the button so confounding because we were sitting here five years ago 10 years ago local municipalities were fighting and giving discounts to try to get these centers open to get the jobs and get the revenue and now we've got people trying to stop them this is a perfect transition for the state of the union before we get there two important programming notes all in is going to host two events in 2026 one of them liquidity made 31st to June 3rd in Yonfilm up in wine country Chimoff has taken control of the event and he has set a standard for who gets on stage none of you mids can control the programming I just that's it Chimoff came in drop the hammer who do you got so far you want to tease a couple of people who you invite it to come speak I'll tease two of first is an incredibly dear friend of mine the acts of acts is Dan lobe who found a third point who is an unbelievable investor in literally every domain private credit public equities private tech he's just a he's just good he's a big so he'll be doing a really important keynote he has not done one of these public speaking a very long time and then the second is the CFO of open AI Sarah Friar. Oh wow unbelievable star and we're going to double click into the entire business model of open AI on stage in front of everybody so go to all in calm and then for those of you who plan ahead for travel more coming more coming every coming if you are an all in summit fan can't believe it freedberg we're going to be in our fifth year September 13 to 15. Oh my God better get better every year I can have some good parties to I mean that back to the future in the blade runner parties those were epic all in calm slash events. Hey, can I give a plug to friend of the pod bill girly he's got an amazing new book for not a dream. Please wait wait wait wait before he starts the price running down a dream. I just want everybody to stop the pause the podcast. I want you to buy three copies. Give it to two young people and a parent, you know, this book is incredible. It's a great book. It's a great book. It really is inspiring for kids and Bill girly friend of the pot he always shows up for us. Jake, I'll do an impression for us of what it would be like if you and Bill girly started a podcast together. All right everybody welcome to the JCBG podcast. I'm your host Jason Callicanas. And I'm Bill girly and we're hearing Texas that Terry blocks where we're getting some B freebs and we're going to discuss investing in marketplaces as well as my new book running down a dream which will teach your kids how to not be up and if your kids are up, you can hit them in the back of the head with the book Texas that one of the big topics and I think something you're working on with president Trump sacks is this energy pledge. I've been seeing rumblings about this explain what's going on in terms of getting the country in sync around these data centers and energy. Well, the president announced in the city of the union last night that he supports a rate payer protection pledge which requires the major tech companies to provide for their own power needs for AI data centers so that residential consumers do not see their rates going up. I think this makes total sense I think to my to your point this is the reason behind a lot of the opposition to new data centers is that the local residents fear that their electricity prices are going to go up and that shouldn't be the case and so the president said that he's committed to not allowing residential rates to go up as a result of data centers. Pre straightforward you get the big tech companies the hyper skilers to pay for the increase in the electricity cost or you let them set up their own power behind the meter the president's been talking about this for over a year that our biggest a companies would also become big power companies because we let them. So these data centers don't even have to connect to the grid they could just do co location themselves but also I think that with this rate payer protection pledge what you're going to see is that it could actually bring down consumer prices because what happens is that when these data centers then set their own power and connect to the grid they can give back the excess to the grid. Also they will make investments in scaling the infrastructure so although electricity is priced at a meter rate the cost to generate it are not all variable there's a lot of huge fixed costs in there so when you increase scale. Then you can actually reduce the the meter rate so again you know this is really I think there are a bottle to Bernie Sanders who just wants to stop all progress whatsoever. I saw a funny post calling it bananas which is build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone so this is the. And this is replacing the new nimbus so you just can build absolutely nothing yeah I think the president's approach finds a very good balance here which is look. We can have progress is don't make residential consumers pay for it let the big tech companies pay for it themselves and I think you'll see more coming out. It's quite a lot of some white house next week quite a death move freeberg how should America be thinking about this great data center build out energy usage you know if you expand it out over the coming decade and how do you sell that. To the backdrop that you talk about the socialist movement you got a great interview coming out with Ray dollio on the all interview program next week. How do you think about those competing forces you've got the socialist saying bananas nimbus slow down a D sell and then you've got this incredible race we're in for efficiency and this opportunity and abundance how would you sell it to kind of point these two sides together or is it just. Impossible the data coming in and out of data centers moves it roughly the speed of light so you could put him anywhere. And I think that our policy makers need to be very cognizant of that fact you have and we do connect the internet using high speed cable high speed. fiber optic throughout the world and so theoretically if we don't embrace and allow the economic development of the data center industry and it will fundamentally be an industry because it is almost like the new sort of oil. Where the oil rigs going to go where the railroads going to go where the telegraph lines going to go where the factories going to go if we don't put him here someone also put him on their shores someone also put in their country someone also put in their jurisdiction and a lot of the economic value that arises from the people that will build those facilities the energy. That will be installed to produce power for those facilities and then all of the second and third order industries that emerge as a result of those installations that value will accrue elsewhere such a good point so yeah it's not going to like just go away that the demand is there the economy is moving forward AI is moving forward we live in a world with 196 countries. And data centers do not take up a lot of space they're very small relative to the economic value that they produce if you zoom out on the map of the world all the data centers in the world fit under the tip of a pin. And so this is a very small footprint and if we're going to give up hundreds of thousands of jobs and many billions of dollars of economic value creation we're being pretty silly and pretty obtuse in our view of the world I would just like encourage the system that I think is the right system and we talked about this last time. We're provided data centers are producing their own electricity that means that you're taking a Christy consumption off the grid because they otherwise are not being used on the grid and that will reduce the cost of electricity for other residential and industrial users. So it's silly to think that we need to put a more 20 month data centers as soon as you do that the companies that use data centers are not going to slow down they're going to go put them somewhere else and we're going to miss out and it's such a good point. So I'm going to point them off because you were recently in the Middle East and I've been there a bunch in Saudi UAE these are the folks who built a large portion of those oil refineries and they are savvy to this and what are they doing in Saudi UAE Qatar all of these regions they're doubling down they're 10 Xing their data center bills. So to your point freeberg either we build them where they're going to go somewhere else and there are people who are willing to underwrite these and they're willing to take out the red tape. From the process here and move quicker than us so we I think this is a pretty deaf move by President Trump to say hey you guys should all just guarantee that consumers don't get impacted the water thing is a total hoax like the water is recirculated that's a hoax. I think this is really smart I think that what the president is doing and what sacks is doing is really smart. The thing to keep in mind is that there's still a risk that prices go up and it has nothing to do with these data centers and it has everything to do with the business model of being a utility because what happens is in order to get a license a monopoly license in an area to provide energy to generate energy for a community. The exchange works in the following way you go and you present a capEx plan to the public utilities commission. That's effectively your budget that says here are the lines I'm going to upgrade here the generators I'm going to upgrade independent of data centers the reality is the draw the electricity consumption of individual Americans is going up because we have more devices we have cars we have all of these other things so what we also have to do is we have to look at how utilities is business model actually in the city. This model actually incentivizes them to increase prices by making all kinds of investments so we have to do a good job of making sure we hold everybody accountable because otherwise what you could see is that the data centers taking on the burden for themselves but prices still continue to escalate because utility says I need to spend a billion dollars this year to upgrade my infrastructure and what that allows them to do is take that billion dollars and essentially invested for return that's the business model of utility. This is really happening in blue states. Micron has a hundred billion dollar mega fab in New York and there's a lawsuit by six one to three for five. This is six is a certain citizens that's shameful and the project has taken 12. 100 days, 100 days between their announcement and the groundbreaking and they spent 612 days on the environmental impact study people wake up just go to Texas Elon built his factory here the giga factory in under like 18 months. This is the great state of Texas come here will build it for you and you'll be done. I don't know anyone bothers with the blue states anymore they make it to our to build retarded so dumb it's such a self owned to like what don't you want to be part of the future you're literally angling the entire country. Scratzi odd by the way there are a lot of people in New York who want to work this is not a case actually of this new fab being unpopular the majority of people in the area actually want this plant being built they want the jobs area to come there. Say they said some create a lot of jobs is actually a chip fab so we'll create a lot of jobs a lot of good high paying jobs people want it. The six people can stop it with a lawsuit after it's not even through a two year environmental review it's not blue and red states these are nonprofits that get organized to create this kind of chaos I remember looking at. A massive lithium investment in Nevada and the whole point was to domesticate. Lithium production and what was interesting is this enormous deposit that's just sitting there right for development right before they were about to get. Environmental approvals are right after there was a lawsuit by people who wanted to protect the upper land gross it's seared in my mind that the upper land gross of Nevada is the reason why we do not have domestic. National security around lithium. And you have to ask yourself why is this possible and it's possible because you have these environmental nonprofits that can go and create this chaos with absolutely no risk to them zero they can fundraise around it and they can create this chaos I mean Nick to this point this is an example of green piece and specifically here they were pushing back on an oil pipeline to such a degree and they created so much chaos. That they were sued in North Dakota judge just said that he's going to order green piece to pay damages that should total almost three hundred and fifty million dollars in connection to those protests. And it should not be the case that six people can slow down a hundred billion dollar investment package that's not right well I think there's and I just want to. I like this important point there's not a lot of logic and reason. You guys are right but I do think there's a lot of emotion and there's a huge a virgin to big tech a huge a virgin to wealth creation by select individuals select companies a huge a virgin to economic growth that doesn't benefit everyone there's a fundamental kind of underlying left behind emotion that drives a lot of this. And I said it before but I think unless there's systems or mechanisms that get folks to come along with the value creation ahead and help them connect their own lives to the value creation that's being realized they're not going to be supportive because there is this kind of diametric opposition towards big tech to boards the wealth gap towards value a cruel to a select few companies or select few individuals and this fuels and feeds that so I think fundamentally maybe it's not just about giving the data centers their own power capacity. But there's got to be mechanisms and tools that helps the broader population understand or recognize or get some benefit from it as well where they're an owner in it or participant in it because they have the power as we're seeing they have the power to stop it therefore they want to have some benefit for providing authority to do it and these six people are concerned about housing costs worker exposure to toxic chemicals pollution air water. Three now scarce emissions energy consumption flooding of the wetlands all these things that obviously could be mitigated all right let's keep moving here we got a lot more docket to get through state of the union came in at one hundred eight minutes. And it's the longest in sixty years actually the longest since they started tracking this the theme of president trumps state of the union this year America at two fifty strong prosperous and respected trump took a bunch of victory laps inflation jobs closing the border all those have gone really well but this comes to the backdrop of trumps approval rating being super challenge he started his first year at plus eleven point seven percent now he's negative fourteen point four. Fourteen point three percent twenty six point swing economy started plus three point four down to eighteen point two and trade started at five point nine percent and we'll talk about the tariff stuff later and went down to twenty two point seven so let's call balls and strike see your gentlemen favorite moments what were your favorite moments from the state of the union just general impressions of one hour thirty five minutes of trump going to town. I thought it was great favorite moment favorite moment or two. Well I had a couple one was the Elon Omar Rashida play death stare and then just like losing their minds and and screaming I just thought it was so. On American the second was when he was calling for law and order where I'm focusing in prioritizing an American citizens and the deal yeah and none of the democrats. Stood up I thought that was kind of foolish it was like obvious things and the democrats wouldn't applaud but this time they did like they did for the hockey team which I thought was like the right thing to do and then the fourth thing is just a shout out to our friend Brad Gerson who got a big shout out from the president I don't know sex if you engineered that or not but that was high that was fantastic. You got like a whole shout out it was like a double tap yeah that was really cool. That was surreal. Our group chat group chat went crazy. It was really cool. Those are my four highlights great here's your here's your clip of yeah. Democrats not standing for Americans over illegal aliens twenty seconds. If you agree with this statement then stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens not illegal aliens. Well I wouldn't just stand for that it's an easy one to stand for. Doesn't make any sense. Would you stand for it Chico? Yeah I mean I can be anti-ice but I'm pro American and I'm pro reasonable immigration like 90% of the country is so it doesn't make any sense. Do you think American citizens should be prioritized over legals? Of course. Of course. Yes. Yes. And then I also think there should be a path to citizenship for people opinion for a while and I think that's what the majority of the country thinks as well. The other point is I can hold two thoughts in my head so I would have stood if he asked me. Yes. Obviously we should take care of American citizens first. Yes. And we should deport violent criminals we've been over this like a million times here. This is like consensus in the country. But what do you think is going on and everybody else's said when they're like we cannot stand for this. These two sides I mean I think it's like the tariff thing. It's like the ice thing these two sides cannot work together. It's just the most polarized it's ever been. Trump is not like the kind of guy to reach across the aisle. The Democrats are now digging in. So we just have a dysfunctional government where you know in a more functional time period like under Clinton let's say or Bush. People would have gotten together jumping ahead to the tariff discussion and they would have said yeah of course tariffs are done in Congress. That's the law whatever. What are your thoughts Mr. President? How can we support your tariff program? But now it's like oh well we don't work together. We don't actually have discussions anymore. There's no bipartisan collaboration. All these politicians are disgraceful. Disgrace out across the board. They should be working together for the American people. If the president wants to do tariffs. How do you be reasonable about it and give him the power to do reasonable tariffs. And he should be reasonable and say hey I understand that's your power. Let's get together and we'll chop it up and let's have dinner together. But they're just too polarized. It's just disgraceful where this country has gotten to. I blame both parties. Whenever the Democrats get smoked out as being radicals and extremists. You always want to basically say a box on both your houses and blame their Republicans and Democrats equally. The fact of the matter is the president said to the audience to the members of Congress. Hey if you agree with the statement stand up. And of course every single Democrat sat there a stone face and refused to applaud or acknowledge what he was saying. This was a very easy test for the Democrats to pass. What I just said. In fact it was a political risk for the president because it was so easy for the Democrats to demonstrate that they're operating in good faith and they're willing to be bipartisan. And they're not extremists and they're actually common sense, cycle and logical. And they completely failed the test. And by the way it wasn't just on that one. I mean let me just tell you some of the other ones where they refused to applaud. So they refused to applaud the grieving families of innocent American women and children murdered by criminal legal aliens including the mother of Irina Zoritskaya. That was very sad. That was sad. That was unbelievable. They refused to applaud for securing our homeland and ending the invasion of criminal legal aliens. Killers rapist gang members and traffickers. They refused to applaud for unifying against political violence. So the president mentioned the assassination of Charlie Kirk. They would not even do a polite clap for Erica Kirk and unifying against political violence. They refused to applaud for keeping violent criminals locked up. They even refused to applaud for lower prescription drug prices for millions of Americans because it was President Trump who orchestrated that policy. And there were so many other examples like that. And you know I think the reason why this speech was so effective and by the way it's not just me saying it. Something like two thirds of the people that CNN pulled. So two thirds of CNN watchers said it was highly effective and something like three quarters of CBS news viewer said it was highly effective. Is because the president laid out 80-20 issue one after another right or even 90-10 issues or 95-5 issues. I mean these were all issues where the overwhelming number of Americans I think agree with the policy the president laid out. And in every single case the Democrats opposed to wouldn't even give it applied applause. And that is different than in the past. And you can say that's because of hyper partisanship and polarization. But it's also because of another thing is because the Democrats have become a party of radicalism and extremism. And the viewpoints that they expressed through their aesthetics the other night they do express those things in policy and in speeches all the time. So it's not just like a one-off or you know somehow like we have a misconception of who these guys are. I think you know the big line of the night was when Trump just said these people are crazy. I mean he said it in like almost mournful and regretful way. He doesn't want them to be crazy. He wants them to be rational so he can work with them. I mean, but I think that point. I'll still point the other side which is this has been going on for a couple of you know state of the unions here across this. The Republicans didn't stand for the Democrats often and it's a bit of showmanship. But the truth is Trump is the divider in chief. He always is attacking people. He's always mocking people so they don't want to play ball with him. So I do think you can both. No, I don't think so. That's actually the problem with that philosophy. Trump's philosophy of we have to counter punch. We have to attack. We never have to apologize. We never have to be reasonable. That's part of what's broken down in our politics. And these two sides should work together. We should go back to our bipartisan. Are you going to work with Hill on Omar? I'm not saying it's going to be easy. But you said we are a hold on. I'll finish my statement. You asked a question. I think Trump is the mirror of that. He has been hostile towards these Democrats. He doesn't give them an inch. They should be more collaborative. That's what the balance of power between the executive branch, and these congressmen and the congress in the Senate. This is how it's supposed to work. And these two sides need to learn how to get back to listening to each other, understanding each other's positions, and then finding a middle ground. And that's why the Democrats lost last time because they didn't have the common sense to say, "Hey, everybody wants the board to close." To your point, it's a 90% issue. And Kamala Harris was too dumb to just say, "Yeah, we should have closed the boarder. It's closed now." And we've got it. Anyway, the whole thing is a mess. I understand you got to fight for your team. I don't like the count. I just-- No, you just-- I like the question. You just made the key point. You made the key point, which is underlying the optics and the polarization. You have issues. And on those issues, President Trump is on the side of the American people. The issues where 80% of the American people agree. Some issues percentage. I don't know exactly what it is. Things that the Somali daycare fraud in Minnesota was an outrage. And the President is right to point that out. And what's the Democrats' reaction? You've got Ilhan Omar screaming from the audience at him. Yeah, she's a loon. I mean, at the end of the day-- The rest of the Democrats did stand. You did have Elizabeth Warren stand for stopping Nancy Pelosi from trading stocks. And that gave Trump his best one-liner of the night. That was his best one-liner, clearly. And they stood for Iran, too, and stopping Iran from being nuclear. I give Elizabeth Warren credit for that. There you go. You don't have to point your back. And there's a puncher bump. Let him cook. Let him cook. Freeberg, tell us about this. Speaking of science, I think that there's a very important moment happening right now. We've talked a number of times on the show about Yamannaka factors. These are these four proteins that were discovered by Shinha Yamannaka that we found later that when applied to cells, mammalian cells can actually reverse the age of those cells. Reset the epigenetic clock. Reset the epigenome, which is the little markers on top of the DNA that turn genes on and off back to a youthful state, extraordinary groundbreaking work that was done that won the Nobel Prize, led to the foundation of several companies. There's a Harvard scientist named David Sinclair. He's a bit of a controversial character. You guys know him. I think you guys want to wonder if you've made men upset. Jamal, you ever met him? I followed him. I've seen this stuff. So Sinclair has kind of bemoaned a little bit by the scientific and academic community for being a little too over-hype, snake oil salesman as some of folks have claimed because years ago he sold a company to GSK saying where his veritrol would reverse aging. He made $720 million on that. It didn't end up working and he's promoted certain supplement companies and so on. So I want to preface with that before I kind of underwrite what he's saying with this next thing. He's a co-founder of a company called Life Bio-Sciences. They've reached a major agreement with the FDA to be the first company to treat humans with Yamannocca factors. Specifically what they're doing is they're going to be delivering these Yamannocca factors. These are these proteins that rejuvenate cells and make them youthful again into the eye. And so their first indication is to actually inject them into the vitrilo fluid in the eyeball and they'll affect the retina in the eye to address people that have gotten blind from glaucoma or one of these kind of stroke-like diseases that happen in the eye. And the expectation with this phase one clinical trial is that the delivery of these Yamannocca factors into the eye will rejuvenate the retina, make it youthful again, and restore vision. If it works, which it's expected to because we see this result happen in animal models, it could be an extraordinary breakthrough, not just in terms of blindness, but in terms of the first human application of Yamannocca factors to reverse aging. The way they're doing it is they're actually packaging up DNA that will make these proteins into viruses, an AAV virus that is delivered into the eye. The virus will then go into the retinal cells and then will deliver this payload for this DNA to make these proteins in the eye cells. And it can be turned on and off, amazingly, they've created a switch mechanism in it where the protein production, the production of these Yamannocca factors can be turned on and off by taking an antibiotic called doxocycline. So the person that gets the delivery of this drug takes the antibiotic, turns on the production of these Yamannocca factors and then theoretically their eye cells will be age, will get youthful and their vision will be restored. So phase one clinical trials underway, first time in human history we're seeing Yamannocca factors being delivered into humans. Literally the tip of the iceberg, there are now over a dozen startups that are trying to deliver Yamannocca factors, which are these proteins or some other sort of protein that can actually reverse aging by restoring the epigenome in cells and make them young again. So this is the beginning of a wave of what I think will be the most extraordinary revolution in human therapeutics and ultimately could lead to, you know, some people would argue the fountain of youth. Is this just a talk study? So is it mechanism? They're on it. Yeah, they're, well, they'll see results. They'll see results, but they're going to, they're going to keep dosing low, but you will see results. God, that's going to be incredible. It's going to be incredible. By the way, the number of other folks that are gearing up for phase one using, if not Yamannocca factors, other factors that they've identified or designed as an alternative to Yamannocca factors, again, to rejuvenate themselves. And just to remind folks, the way this works is it was discovered that these proteins, when they go into a cell, they take all of those little markers that sit on top of your DNA, the turn genes on and off and they create a system that causes them all to move to the right place. So it resets the markers so that those cells can start to operate like they're supposed to when they were young again. That's going to be incredible. Do you think like, you know, in all seriousness, people's knees or joints or what, where do you think it could flow to next? Right. Yep. And by the way, when applied and if it's distributed in the skin, they've seen some results in monkeys where like wrinkles go away. It like literally makes these cells all work youthful again. And so a lot of the damage that happens over time is not damage to DNA. It's damage to the epigenome. It's the parts that sit on top of the DNA that turn genes on and off and they get moved to the wrong place as you get older. And by resetting them and getting them back to the right place, boom, the cell is young again, the organ is young again. And suddenly you look and act and feel young again. It's an incredible technology. We're just at the early stage of the early innings of turning it into therapeutics. Again, the discovery goes back to 2006 and now we're starting to see it get into clinic. So let's rejuvenate. Let's rejuvenate some hero lines on this podcast. That would be next up. Speak for yourself. I don't know. You got a little, you got a little peeks going there. My brain, my brain, my brain. What are you talking about, my hair line's incredible. I mean, it's not bad for 50. I'm going to give you credit. You're holding your own. All right, let's talk about our final topic. Scotus struck down Trump's emergency powers tariffs last Friday. Scotus voted six three against President Trump's EEPA. Tariff six judges voted against three conservatives, Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch and three liberals. By a Bloomberg, this is the biggest rebuke of existing executive policy in 91 years. And Scotus struck down FDR's first New Deal in 1935. UPET and Wharton analysis says the tariffs collected about 175 billion to date, 50% of all tariff duties might wind up being refunded. This is going to take some time to sort out on the courts. 2000 importers have already filed for refunds. We talked about it here. I think the majority of people felt like this is the way the decision would go. And we talked about here that there were other options for President Trump to pursue. He immediately said he was not deterred and invoked a 15% global tariff across the board by a section 122 of the 1974 trade act. Here's your polymarket. Will the court force Trump to refund tariffs? 18% chance, but spike to 40% after the Scotus decision, how are Congress reacts? Polymarket says 3% chance. Congress passes any tariffs by March 31st. So again, as I referenced earlier, these two sides just can't seem to work together. And that would have resolved the whole thing. Sacks you want to give us your take here? First of all, I don't think that the tariffs are going away. But the court basically indicated, especially the 70 page cabinet all dissent, is that there's multiple alternative bases in law for the tariffs in existing law. So for example, section 122 of the trade act of 1974 enables temporary 150 day tariffs of up to 15% to address balance of payments issues. And the president has already invoked this. So we are now operating under that. But the 150 days is going to do is by the administration time to substantiate via studies and agency reviews what it needs to prove in order to invoke more sweeping tariff authority under section 301 of the trade act and under section 338 of the tariff act. Section 301 authorizes tariffs responding to unfair foreign trade practices. Section 338 of the tariff act allows tariffs against countries discriminating against U.S. commerce. The cabinet all dissent actually provided a roadmap for the administration to put in place tariffs using one of these alternate bases. So I think that one way or another, the tariff policies of this administration and the favorable trade deals that they allow us to strike with many nations, they will continue. And I think the court seems to know that because the majority's opinion as concurrence has collectively said nothing about how the administration should go about refunding the tariff revenue already collected. I think that if they expected this decision to end the tariff policies altogether, they probably would have said something about that. And I think that brings up a really important point just on the merits here, which is why would we want to give back hundreds of billions of dollars to a bunch of importers when we're trillions of dollars in debt? And I'll just say that the people who originally predicted that somehow these tariffs would be catastrophic for the economy, those predictions all prove not to be true. So I think that this is ultimately, I think, going to be a popular policy. The administration will figure out a different way to do it. And I predict that future administrations, whether they're Republican or Democrat, will keep some version of the tariffs in place, but I think that they will be ultimately popular on a longstanding basis. Tomathe, your thoughts? I think we've proven the experiment has been successful. What was the experiment? We needed to smoke out what the right balance of trade should be between the United States and all of its partner countries. I think that what we uncovered is that for the most part, they were structural imbalances that were made, not because they made economic sense for America, but it was just part of a hodgepodge of globalist drivel that people just bought into. And if you strip all that stuff away, we had a hollowed out manufacturing class and we have a hollowed out middle class. And the tariffs will create more equality for the American worker in the end. So now I think the debate should be about how to implement these in a structural and permanent way. I think we talked about this before, Jason, that this was sort of expected. And there are many other mechanisms. I think the president activated one of them immediately. I don't think this is going away and I don't think it should go away. So I think now the point is Congress really should ratify these things because it is clear that it was the right thing to do. And if they don't, then the president still has a lot of room to get these done. But these make smart economic sense in my opinion. Does it really bring any thoughts on the ruling? Does it give you some, I don't know, respect for the courts that they made a judgment not along party lines for once? Is it? Yeah, okay. Exactly. I think all Americans should feel assured and comforted in the fact that I think a lot of people view the Supreme Court as having a high degree of partisanship. The fact that the president, despite having a majority of what others would think were kind of politically aligned appointees on the court, had a ruling that he did not want. I think should give everyone good faith that the system that the founder set up is working, that there is a judicial branch that adjudicates the law against the executive branch when they think that it doesn't map. And I think that that was very important to see. So I clearly, the debate about tariffs, the economic effect of tariffs, the security, structural, trade relationship, effect of tariffs and the importance of that is a separate conversation. But I do think that the read of the law being what I would say is nonpartisan with respect of the court's action is important and probably very valuable. I'll reiterate that. This is a great moment, I think, for the Supreme Court to make a thoughtful decision. And I think we need to think about executive power a whole bunch whether it's Biden with student loans or Trump with tariffs. We have this beautiful system set up by the founding fathers. I know it's frustrating, gridlocks frustrating, having to work together is frustrating. Trust me, we all come to this podcast every Thursday, we have to work together. It's hard to work together. It's got to learn to work together and we don't want an executive branch that can unilaterally just roll over the other branches. And that's going to end, I think Trump's going to lose the midterms and we're going to get to work chaos again. And we might as well start this reconciliation process of these two sides stopping their law for against each other and working together for the American people on the important issues. The tariffs, there are some fundamentally important things that Trump was doing there. And they were working. They could have been chaotic. It's a reasonable criticism of them because business owners didn't know what to do. So Trump did it in a chaotic way. That's just the fact. He should have done it in a more thoughtful way. And the Congress should have been alongside him saying, hey, what tools do you need? How can we help support this? We know that there's trade and balances. We know that people are being unfair. Let's work together as one America to negotiate these things. So both sides start having dinner together, start playing cards together and do what we do here on this podcast. Which is you fight it out, you argue, but then you come together and try to find some resolutions for this stuff. So they should go and tell Trump, hey, we'll approve all the tariffs you did. We will not force you to get refunds. The Congress should come around and just say that. And then they should say, hey, and when you want to do them in 2026, just run them by us or ask us for some parameters that you want. And let's just be thoughtful about it. These are our concerns. That's it. Thank you for coming to my talk. I have some to do one of the thoughts. Absolutely. I'm sure you have some debate club points that you want to point that. I just want to make one. I mean, do you think Susan Rice is going to respect your call for comedy and basically working together? Kumbaya. She just-- I want you to spree the corpse. No, I don't. I think both sides. She just had a diet drive where she basically said that Republicans, and actually not just like partisan Republicans, but even tech companies that merely were working with the administration, should expect to get prosecuted. I mean, she was basically out of saying. She and the Democrats are going to pursue law fair as soon as they get back in charge. They're absolutely going to do that. Just like when Trump got in, he went after Komi, he went after Jerome Powell. The law fair is happening on both sides. Both sides need to drop the law fair. We need to get rid of these pardons. They're ridiculous. And these teams-- we have to be a team. So let's just get some spree to corpse and teamwork going in Washington, DC. And that's what we should vote for in the midterms. We should vote for moderates who want to work together. And in 2028, we should have some kind of moderates and tickets that want to work together. That would be better for all Americans. This kind of chaos is not good, folks. All right. Listen, it's been another amazing episode of The All In Podcast. Your favorite podcast. I like to subscribe, whatever the hell you want to do on your own time. For David Sachs, David Freeper, Tremor Paul and Hoppatee. Love you, boys. I am the world's greatest moderator, Jacob. See you next time. Bye. [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING]